On 18 Aug 2005 07:06:37 -0700, "Space Cadet" wrote:

I know that Griffin/NASA are going with an Inline SDV and a seperate
'Stick' launcher for the CEV. But, what would be the optimal Clean
Sheet Design.

No idea. Their current technology is good, but the problem is the cost
of the ground support. Like their SRBs, due to the dangerous nature of
this solid fuel, are fairly expensive to handle.

The Goal is to return to the Moon and go to Mars and establish base(s)
as quickly as possible:

That does not seem to be NASA's goal. They expect their first CEV test
flight in 2008. The manned launch should be between 2010 and 2012. And
their first Moon landing will be in 2018. They will then spend a few
years on Apollo-like visits, before putting down their base in the
early 2020s.

Had it been my choice, then I would start planning their Moon hardware
now and start launching around 2012 to 2014. Then I would progress
into base stays (short to begin with) from about 2016 to 2018.

Could a scalable booster be designed to serve both functions?

No. The weight of the cargo is far greater than the weight of the
astronauts. For example a full sized electric remote controlled bull
dozer would not exactly be light.

It is possible that you could launch the CEV on top of your heavy lift
cargo rocket, but to tie crew and cargo together would make it a
mistake like the shuttle.

Or would you require seperate booster for each?

Yes, even though in this case the "stick" and SRBs of their heavy lift
rocket would be like brother and sister.

Or would EOR/Assembly with a Saturn V class booster be a viable option
for a Mars Mission?

The Saturn V is obsolete hardware.

You should keep in mind that NASA has a lot of mass to move, where
even their heavy lift rocket can only put a few tons on the Moon.

When they go out to Mars and beyond, then even their large rocket
would need an upgrade.

In either case would we be able to use exsisting engines or would we
have to design new ones?

NASA plans to use existing engines.

However, a few years ago they had the likes of Boeing do some work on
a moon class engine. The most powerful engine since the F1, where it
was designed to be a reusable RP1 type engine.

Launch rates:
With Mars, you pretty much stuck with one every 26 months

You could do more launches with suitable planning.

The Moon 4-12 per year(Is that possible?) With 6 being the average.

NASA is currently planning to do two Moon landings per year. That is
also likely to be more light-weight launches as well.

What are the bases for? Valid question:

Housing NASA's local repair people. They will repair whatever breaks
down, but they would be allowed outside once in a while. It would be
worth their while to have a geologist wondering around. Better yet
have one in the base in control of a rock collection truck.

People on Earth will remote control all their heavy regolith moving
equipment. What they plan to do with it remains to be seen. Water
collection will be one important area.

Mars - Purely scientific, research, search for life, geology(Areology?)

Certainly not. Building a viable base means exploiting local
resources, but science would have many rewards here.

Moon - there are several reasons for going back to the
Moon(Geology,Radio & Optical Astronomy, insitu resource
extraction/mining), one base can't satisfy all.

No, but it is good enough to start with.

Mining operations
could interfere with the optics of your telescopes.

The moon is also subject to charged dust particles within it's very
thin atmosphere. Anyway, your lunar telescope should be well away from
your mine and refinery.

So you might have
to have several bases or a base with several human tended stations that
could operate automously for several months between visits.

There could certainly be short stay bases at more remote areas.

What would be the min mass landed necessary to be able to start any of
the activities right away?

I will leave it to NASA to figure out their shopping list. From then
on they will think that they can put X tons of cargo on the Moon each
year. They would then play mix and match to see what goes on each
launch.

The big question is how much would this cost and how long would it take
to develop it?

The key to NASA's plan is that they spend some of their yearly budget
on Moon stuff. As their budget goes up then more stuff moves. And
should it go down then that is less stuff.

So it is like...

Moon Base = Time / Budget.

Since NASA has not started on their budget for the 2020s yet, then it
is too early to say what they plan to spend.

(Sadly, most likely more than Congress is willing to pay)

Congress seems very supportive at this time. However, should they
reduce NASA's budget, then this simply means that projects will take
longer.

Cardman.