Could we do a moon mission today?

We might be able to send a person or two on a quick sling shot type of
mission.

Go there, maybe an orbit or two and a return. No landing though, not with
the hardware that's available right now.

Most likely the return would be to the ISS, with ultimate Earth return in a
US or Russian vehicle.

Just my guess,
F Marion

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:05:42 +0000, Francis Marion wrote:

Most likely the return would be to the ISS, with ultimate Earth return
in a US or Russian vehicle.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the amount of energy needed to
brake from a lunar return velocity to the velocity of the ISS orbit makes
a direct return to earth much more feasible.

Henry?

In article ,
"Rick DeNatale" wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:05:42 +0000, Francis Marion wrote:

Most likely the return would be to the ISS, with ultimate Earth return
in a US or Russian vehicle.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the amount of energy needed to
brake from a lunar return velocity to the velocity of the ISS orbit makes
a direct return to earth much more feasible.

Henry?

Furthermore, to transition to the orbital inclination of the ISS
(instead of roughly equatorial) and actually rendezvous with it would
seem to complicate the mission needlessly.

--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks

t seems to me that the amount of energy needed to
brake from a lunar return velocity to the velocity of the ISS orbit makes
a direct return to earth much more feasible.

True because the fuel for such braking must be carried from the starting point;
such fuel weighs tons; so this adds to even more tons of fuel at the start.
Whereas if you go right in, the atmosphere does the job for you. And that's
not even counting the fuel to go from equatorial to 51 degrees of
inclination....

OK, I said it. Now what?

Well could one delta heavy launch a LM, and one a populsion stage then
cerinally one a CM.

There you have a moon program

On or about Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:32:10 -0400, Scott Hedrick
made the sensational claim that:
"Hallerb" wrote in message
...
Say using multiple launches of delta heavys?

OK, I said it. Now what?

It rubs the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

It does, your right.

But in what?

I got the impression the original poster was asking about existing
technology. I assumed he/she meant with existing hardware? We don't have
existing hardware other than the shuttle to do manned re-entry's with do we?

Maybe my mistake in interpretation.



"Rick DeNatale" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:05:42 +0000, Francis Marion wrote:

Most likely the return would be to the ISS, with ultimate Earth return
in a US or Russian vehicle.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the amount of energy needed to
brake from a lunar return velocity to the velocity of the ISS orbit makes
a direct return to earth much more feasible.

Henry?

It does, your right.

But in what?

I got the impression the original poster was asking about existing
technology. I assumed he/she meant with existing hardware? We don't have
existing hardware other than the shuttle to do manned re-entry's with do we?

Maybe my mistake in interpretation.



"Rick DeNatale" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:05:42 +0000, Francis Marion wrote:

Most likely the return would be to the ISS, with ultimate Earth return
in a US or Russian vehicle.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the amount of energy needed to
brake from a lunar return velocity to the velocity of the ISS orbit makes
a direct return to earth much more feasible.

Henry?

"Hallerb" wrote in message
...


OK, I said it. Now what?

Well could one delta heavy launch a LM, and one a populsion stage then
cerinally one a CM.

There you have a moon program

Not from standing on the corner saying "using multiple launches of delta
heavys?" It would take money instead.

--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

In article , "Scott Hedrick"
wrote:

"Hallerb" wrote in message
...


OK, I said it. Now what?

Well could one delta heavy launch a LM, and one a populsion stage then
cerinally one a CM.

There you have a moon program

Not from standing on the corner saying "using multiple launches of delta
heavys?" It would take money instead...

Besides, the profile being described here sounds a helluva lot like one of
those convoluted old Soviet multiple-launch EOR schemes -- launch the
lander, the command craft, the half-fueled TLI stage (f'cripesake) on
_separate_ boosters, the launch of each of which has to come off
perfectly, and then _rear-end_docking_ the command ship to the whole mess
-- proposed in the early '60s, when Soyuz was first being designed:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/l31963.htm
....now, _this_ is Rube Goldberg In Outer Space if there ever was:
mwea
Korolev¹s first version of the L-3 manned spacecraft was described in a 23
September 1963 letter setting out the space exploration plan for 1965 to
1975. The L3 was designed to make a direct lunar landing using the earth
orbit rendezvous method. It was a 200 tonne spacecraft requiring three N1
launches and a single Soyuz 11A5ll launch to assemble in low earth orbit.
The first N1 launch would place the 75 tonne partially-fuelled TLI stage
and L3 spacecraft (except the L1 manned return craft) into low earth
orbit. Two further N1 launches would orbit 75 tonne tankers which would
rendezvous and dock with the first payload and top off its propellant
tanks. Then the Soyuz would be launched for an automated rear-end docking
with the entire L3 stack.
/mwea

Jayzus. _Three_ N-1 launches to put the pieces up, then _two_more_ to
launch _tankers_(?) -- at the time when those poor boys at the N-1 project
couldn't get one past tower clear before blowing up every other day (well,
not _every_ other day, but you know what I mean).

But seriously; let's assume we get the cash -- I know that's a sore
subject around here, but just for the sake of argument, for some good
"what-if" fodder, and for a break from the goddamn' flame'n'trollfest,
f'cripesake. Yeah, what about _that_? A good old "what-if" space history
thread! Let's put on our Stephen Baxter hats, everybody.

While I'm no expert on the capacities of our current "heavies", I'd guess
that a Rube Goldberg multi-launch scheme like this may be a bit easier to
do today, having gotten some experience assembling components -- auto and
piloted -- in orbit, I still have to ask why when -- if we absolutely have
to -- we may be able to do it in _two_ (lander first, C&SM/TLI stage after
it).

(?)

..

--
"All over, people changing their roles,
along with their overcoats;
if Adolf Hitler flew in today,
they'd send a limousine anyway!" --the clash.
__________________________________________________ _________________
Mike Flugennock, flugennock at sinkers dot org
Mike Flugennock's Mikey'zine, dubya dubya dubya dot sinkers dot org