Next X

I see that a new X-prize was announced.

http://www.personalspaceflight.info/...der-challenge/

Build a lunar lander

A lunar lander with custom launcher would be adaptable to a small
Delta-class reusable launcher along the lines described below.

The approach I will use is a subscale version of the 7-element
launcher proposed by Bono in his 1960 study for his manned mars
missions

Boeing Aerospace and Electronics, Space Transfer Concepts and Analyses
for Exploration Missions, NASA Contract NAS8-37857.

Each element is 8.5 metric tons for the subscale launcher with 1.275
metric ton structure allowance and 11.9 metric tons force of thrust.
Isp for the hydrogen oxygen rocket engine is an average 435 seconds
during ascent. Annular aerospike engine is preferred for altitude
compensation during ascent on each element.

The elements operate together as 3 stages - all 7 elements operate at
launch. Numbering the elements as follows - viewed from above;

(1)(2)
(3)(4)(5)
(6)(7)

Elements 1 and 6 feed 3
Elements 2 and 7 feed 5
Elements 3 and 5 feed 4

in such a way that propellant is drained from 1,2,6,7 - as a first
stage.

63.320 GLOW MT
28.900 prop MT
0.456 u
2,603.872 Vf m/s


The second stage continues as the first-stage elements separate to be
recovered down-range by 4 separate aircraft loitering there in a
manner similar to recovering film cannisters mid-flight from older spy
satellites in the 1960s. Except these use a parasail or wing system
and the aircraft tows the elements back to the launch center where
they land and may be reused.

The second stage consists of 3,4,5 with 3 and 5 feeding propellant to
4.

(3)(4)(5)

with elements 3 and 5 draining to propel themselves and feed element
4.

29.320 S1 MT
14.450 prop Mt
0.493 u
2,900.160 Vf m/s


Elements 3 and 5 separate leaving 4 as the third stage.

12.320 S2 MT
7.225 prop MT
0.586 u
3,771.759 Vf m/s


With a total ideal velocity of 9,275.79 m/sec

With gravity and air-drag losses, true final velocity is orbital
somewhere between 7 km/sec and 7.5 km/sec.

The payload on orbit is 3.82 metric tons. With the following
allocations for structure and staging - inline - atop element 4.

3.82 S3 MT
3900 Vf m/s
0.5986 u
2.2869 prop MT
0.3430 s3 MT
1.190017629 S4 MT
2800 Vf m/s
0.4808 u
0.5721 prop MT
0.0858 s4 MT
0.5320 lander MT

The 3.82 metric ton payload has a 2.62 metric ton kick stage built
around the same pumpset and engine set as the booster element -
boosting the 1,190 kg lander into a direct ascent lunar trajectory.
The mass allocations to the lander are 572 kg for propellants and 86
kg for lander tankage structure. The mass budget for the lander
itself is 532 kg.

The propellants are hydrogen/oxygen cryogens throughout. Fuel cell
powered MEMs based cryogenic refrigeration is used in the landing
stage to maintain propellant mass during the 2 to 4 day lunar
transfer.

MEMs based attitude control rockets are also desired using the
hydrogen oxygen propellants.

Drop the lander into one of the old Apollo sites to debunk the mythos
about those landings would be welcome. A roving capacity on the lunar
surface would be welcome but not required. A rover the erect the
American flag that fell during lift-off of the LEM ascent module would
add drama to the mission.

Aerospace costs run around $1,000 per kg for hardware - the elements
have the following structural masses;

1,275 kg - luancher elements
532 kg - lander
343 kg - translunar injector
86 kg - lander propellant tank

So, the launcher elements run $1.3 million each
The lander runs $0.5 million
The translunar stage runs $0.3 million
The lander's propellant tank $90,000

8 launcher elements, (1 for test) will run $10.4 million
2 landers (1 for test) will run $1.0 million
2 translunar injectors (1 for test) will run $0.6 million
2 lander propellant tanks (1 for test) $180.000

Subtotal: $12.2 million

Non-recurring engineering charges of $1.8 million.
Launch infrastructure.$1.0 million (Near White Sands)

Total: $15.0 million

The hydrogen and oxygen are produced electrolytically from DI
water.This includes 7,625 kg of hydrogen and 45,750 kg of oxygen - at
a cost of $26,000 per flight. A dedicated 12 MW peak solar panel
installation converts 68.6 kilo-liters of DI water into hydrogen and
oxygen gas liquifies it ans stores it - sufficient to supply all power
for the launch facility as well as a flight every two weeks.

The commercial space launch act prohibits selling space launch
services on uninsured launchers. Insurance costs can add millions of
dollars to each flight. Laiunching an experimental hobbyist rocket
may qualify for exemptions.

A reusable launcher capable of a flight every two weeks - putting up

3,820 kg LEO
1,160 kg GEO/Cislunar
532 kg Lunar/Mars landing
10 kg Lunar/Mars sample return

Would be worth between $38 million and $53 million per launch.
Licensing for commercial launch will likely cost 1/3 of this total.


William Mook, CEO
The Mok Companies

On Feb 20, 11:09 am, wrote:

The commercial space launch act prohibits selling space launch
services on uninsured launchers. Insurance costs can add millions of
dollars to each flight. Laiunching an experimental hobbyist rocket
may qualify for exemptions.


Too big for an exemption

On Feb 20, 9:57 am, wrote:
On Feb 20, 11:09 am, wrote:

The commercial space launch act prohibits selling space launch
services on uninsured launchers. Insurance costs can add millions of
dollars to each flight. Laiunching an experimental hobbyist rocket
may qualify for exemptions.

Too big for an exemption

They need insurance because it simply hasn't been accomplished, and
far too many variables exist. Perhaps a private launch out of Mexico
will minimize whatever insurance, partly because Mexico has a $cap on
each lawsuit or class action.

Once their X-Prize stuff gets past the Earth-Moon L1 point of no
return, we're safe from whatever goes terribly wrong.
.. - Brad Guth

When launched from White Sands the ground tracks are limited. One
approach if you launch at the right time of the month, is to do a
direct ascent to lunar transfer with minimal ground track to the
south. With the rotation of the Earth, and the direction of the moon
in its orbit, you can almost stay over White Sands until you reach
lunar transfer speed.

The problem here is that the returning downrange booster elements will
hit the atmosphere at very high incidence angle, and the heat and
pressure loads will be tremendous. No glancing loads here - which
means they're pretty much shot! Except for maybe the first four
stages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_reentry

Stage 1 = 2.0 km/sec terminal velocity
203.8 km altitude
407.2 seconds flight time
144.4 km rotation Eastward during flight.
20.3 gees - slowing in last 10 km of atmosphere.

Stage 2 = 4.5 km/sec
1,032.1 km altitude
917.4 seconds flight time.
325.3 km rotation Eastward during flight
103.1 gees - slowing in last 10 km of atmosphere


Stage 3 = 7.2 km/sec
2,497.5 km altitude
1,427.1 seconds flight time
506.1 km rotation Eastward during flight
263.9 gees - slowing in last 10 km of atmosphere


Stage 4 = 10.8 km/sec
lunar free return trajectory
9 days
shallow re-entry angle after lunar free return flight
3.0 gees - 0.29 degees entry angle.

On Feb 20, 5:06 pm, wrote:
When launched from White Sands the ground tracks are limited. One
approach if you launch at the right time of the month, is to do a
direct ascent to lunar transfer with minimal ground track to the
south. With the rotation of the Earth, and the direction of the moon
in its orbit, you can almost stay over White Sands until you reach
lunar transfer speed.

The problem here is that the returning downrange booster elements will
hit the atmosphere at very high incidence angle, and the heat and
pressure loads will be tremendous. No glancing loads here - which
means they're pretty much shot! Except for maybe the first four
stages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_reentry

Stage 1 = 2.0 km/sec terminal velocity
203.8 km altitude
407.2 seconds flight time
144.4 km rotation Eastward during flight.
20.3 gees - slowing in last 10 km of atmosphere.

Stage 2 = 4.5 km/sec
1,032.1 km altitude
917.4 seconds flight time.
325.3 km rotation Eastward during flight
103.1 gees - slowing in last 10 km of atmosphere

Stage 3 = 7.2 km/sec
2,497.5 km altitude
1,427.1 seconds flight time
506.1 km rotation Eastward during flight
263.9 gees - slowing in last 10 km of atmosphere

Stage 4 = 10.8 km/sec
lunar free return trajectory
9 days
shallow re-entry angle after lunar free return flight
3.0 gees - 0.29 degees entry angle.

He said Mexico not NM

On Feb 20, 5:44*pm, wrote:
On Feb 20, 5:06 pm, wrote:





When launched from White Sands the ground tracks are limited. *One
approach if you launch at the right time of the month, is to do a
direct ascent to lunar transfer with minimal ground track to the
south. *With the rotation of the Earth, and the direction of the moon
in its orbit, you can almost stay over White Sands until you reach
lunar transfer speed.

The problem here is that the returning downrange booster elements will
hit the atmosphere at very high incidence angle, and the heat and
pressure loads will be tremendous. *No glancing loads here - which
means they're pretty much shot! *Except for maybe the first four
stages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_reentry

Stage 1 = 2.0 km/sec terminal velocity
* * * * * * 203.8 km altitude
* * * * * * 407.2 seconds flight time
* * * * * * 144.4 km rotation Eastward during flight.
* * * * * * * 20.3 gees - slowing in last 10 km of atmosphere.

Stage 2 = 4.5 km/sec
* * * * * 1,032.1 km altitude
* * * * * * *917.4 seconds flight time.
* * * * * * * 325.3 km rotation Eastward during flight
* * * * * * * 103.1 gees - slowing in last 10 km of atmosphere

Stage 3 = 7.2 km/sec
* * * * *2,497.5 km altitude
* * * * *1,427.1 seconds flight time
* * * * * * 506.1 km rotation Eastward during flight
* * * * * * 263.9 gees - slowing in last 10 km of atmosphere

Stage 4 = 10.8 km/sec
* * * * * *lunar free return trajectory
* * * * * *9 days
* * * * * *shallow re-entry angle after lunar free return flight
* * * * * * * * 3.0 gees - 0.29 degees entry angle.

He said Mexico not NM- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Right, but I said White Sands, which is in NM. Mexico launch would
likely violate missile proliferation treaties we have in place, so it
wouldn't be possible to export the needed technology. White Sands has
all the infrastructure to do range tests. Of course, Florida has some
space launch capacity, and the State has committed itself to
commercial space launch. Hawaii too has some capacity at Barking
Sands on Kuai.

Launching out of the European Space Agency's complex in South America
is a possibility. Launching near the mouth of the Amazon river is
also a possibility as well, with downrange recovery in Africa, and
Indonesia respectively - for a more normal equatorial orbit.

This vehicle is small enough one could convert a tanker for the launch
platform, and launch in the ocean - and recover at White Sands,
Florida or Barking Sands with aerial tow.

On Feb 20, 2:44 pm, wrote:
On Feb 20, 5:06 pm, wrote:



When launched from White Sands the ground tracks are limited. One
approach if you launch at the right time of the month, is to do a
direct ascent to lunar transfer with minimal ground track to the
south. With the rotation of the Earth, and the direction of the moon
in its orbit, you can almost stay over White Sands until you reach
lunar transfer speed.

The problem here is that the returning downrange booster elements will
hit the atmosphere at very high incidence angle, and the heat and
pressure loads will be tremendous. No glancing loads here - which
means they're pretty much shot! Except for maybe the first four
stages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_reentry

Stage 1 = 2.0 km/sec terminal velocity
203.8 km altitude
407.2 seconds flight time
144.4 km rotation Eastward during flight.
20.3 gees - slowing in last 10 km of atmosphere.

Stage 2 = 4.5 km/sec
1,032.1 km altitude
917.4 seconds flight time.
325.3 km rotation Eastward during flight
103.1 gees - slowing in last 10 km of atmosphere

Stage 3 = 7.2 km/sec
2,497.5 km altitude
1,427.1 seconds flight time
506.1 km rotation Eastward during flight
263.9 gees - slowing in last 10 km of atmosphere

Stage 4 = 10.8 km/sec
lunar free return trajectory
9 days
shallow re-entry angle after lunar free return flight
3.0 gees - 0.29 degees entry angle.

He said Mexico not NM

See what I mean, in that it's always about Mook, or else.

Doesn't matter what you or I have said or much less the intent of our
topic or reply, as our Willie.Moo isn't even aware that any mindset
other than his/her MI5/CIA self matters. (I think it's a very Semitic
mindset thing that lord all-knowing Mook simply can't shake)
.. - Brad Guth

On Feb 20, 8:50*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Feb 20, 2:44 pm, wrote:





On Feb 20, 5:06 pm, wrote:

When launched from White Sands the ground tracks are limited. *One
approach if you launch at the right time of the month, is to do a
direct ascent to lunar transfer with minimal ground track to the
south. *With the rotation of the Earth, and the direction of the moon
in its orbit, you can almost stay over White Sands until you reach
lunar transfer speed.

The problem here is that the returning downrange booster elements will
hit the atmosphere at very high incidence angle, and the heat and
pressure loads will be tremendous. *No glancing loads here - which
means they're pretty much shot! *Except for maybe the first four
stages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_reentry

Stage 1 = 2.0 km/sec terminal velocity
* * * * * * 203.8 km altitude
* * * * * * 407.2 seconds flight time
* * * * * * 144.4 km rotation Eastward during flight.
* * * * * * * 20.3 gees - slowing in last 10 km of atmosphere.

Stage 2 = 4.5 km/sec
* * * * * 1,032.1 km altitude
* * * * * * *917.4 seconds flight time.
* * * * * * * 325.3 km rotation Eastward during flight
* * * * * * * 103.1 gees - slowing in last 10 km of atmosphere

Stage 3 = 7.2 km/sec
* * * * *2,497.5 km altitude
* * * * *1,427.1 seconds flight time
* * * * * * 506.1 km rotation Eastward during flight
* * * * * * 263.9 gees - slowing in last 10 km of atmosphere

Stage 4 = 10.8 km/sec
* * * * * *lunar free return trajectory
* * * * * *9 days
* * * * * *shallow re-entry angle after lunar free return flight
* * * * * * * * 3.0 gees - 0.29 degees entry angle.

He said Mexico not NM

See what I mean, in that it's always about Mook, or else.

Doesn't matter what you or I have said or much less the intent of our
topic or reply, as our Willie.Moo isn't even aware that any mindset
other than his/her MI5/CIA self matters. (I think it's a very Semitic
mindset thing that lord all-knowing Mook simply can't shake)
. - Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

haha... obviously, you project your faults onto others Brad. lol A
real trip. You're the one who stomps all over my threads with your
bull****. It doesn't matter what the topic is, you say the same old
**** - even though no one listens to you. I must be that a) you are
getting paid to trash clear interesting conversations in this topic,
or b) that you say the **** you do just because you like to hear
yourself talk. These are not mutually exclusive. lol. I note you do
not post at all in non space groups - which is a blessing. lol.

I started the thread Brad, so yeah, it is about what I'm talking
about. Are you unhappy because what you have to say has no bearing
whatever on what I'm talking about? Start your own thread. I look
forward to the day you discover that truth.

lol.

As far as your comment goes, I don't think Mexico would get the
permits due to proliferation concerns at present, needed to fly the
size of boosters out of the 'zona silencio' which has a lot to
recommend it otherwise.

There is a group of investors who want to develop a major shipping
port in Mexico on the Pacific side first, and then on the Gulf side -
tied by air and rail to the North - since US ports are getting over-
burdened. It would also be a security measure as well. Under those
conditions a spaceport in Mexico might make some sense - technically,
if the politics and economics can be worked out.

But its not something a very challenging start-up should have to take
on out of the box. So, that's why its a non-starter for me. If you
have a better idea, quit jaw-boning and DO IT! Show us all how wrong
we are and how right you are by going out and doing some of the stuff
you talk about.

Sheez

On Feb 21, 6:35 am, wrote:
On Feb 20, 8:50 pm, BradGuth wrote:



On Feb 20, 2:44 pm, wrote:

On Feb 20, 5:06 pm, wrote:

When launched from White Sands the ground tracks are limited. One
approach if you launch at the right time of the month, is to do a
direct ascent to lunar transfer with minimal ground track to the
south. With the rotation of the Earth, and the direction of the moon
in its orbit, you can almost stay over White Sands until you reach
lunar transfer speed.

The problem here is that the returning downrange booster elements will
hit the atmosphere at very high incidence angle, and the heat and
pressure loads will be tremendous. No glancing loads here - which
means they're pretty much shot! Except for maybe the first four
stages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_reentry

Stage 1 = 2.0 km/sec terminal velocity
203.8 km altitude
407.2 seconds flight time
144.4 km rotation Eastward during flight.
20.3 gees - slowing in last 10 km of atmosphere.

Stage 2 = 4.5 km/sec
1,032.1 km altitude
917.4 seconds flight time.
325.3 km rotation Eastward during flight
103.1 gees - slowing in last 10 km of atmosphere

Stage 3 = 7.2 km/sec
2,497.5 km altitude
1,427.1 seconds flight time
506.1 km rotation Eastward during flight
263.9 gees - slowing in last 10 km of atmosphere

Stage 4 = 10.8 km/sec
lunar free return trajectory
9 days
shallow re-entry angle after lunar free return flight
3.0 gees - 0.29 degees entry angle.

He said Mexico not NM

See what I mean, in that it's always about Mook, or else.

Doesn't matter what you or I have said or much less the intent of our
topic or reply, as our Willie.Moo isn't even aware that any mindset
other than his/her MI5/CIA self matters. (I think it's a very Semitic
mindset thing that lord all-knowing Mook simply can't shake)
. - Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

haha... obviously, you project your faults onto others Brad. lol A
real trip. You're the one who stomps all over my threads with your
bull****. It doesn't matter what the topic is, you say the same old
**** - even though no one listens to you. I must be that a) you are
getting paid to trash clear interesting conversations in this topic,
or b) that you say the **** you do just because you like to hear
yourself talk. These are not mutually exclusive. lol. I note you do
not post at all in non space groups - which is a blessing. lol.

I started the thread Brad, so yeah, it is about what I'm talking
about. Are you unhappy because what you have to say has no bearing
whatever on what I'm talking about? Start your own thread. I look
forward to the day you discover that truth.

lol.

As far as your comment goes, I don't think Mexico would get the
permits due to proliferation concerns at present, needed to fly the
size of boosters out of the 'zona silencio' which has a lot to
recommend it otherwise.

There is a group of investors who want to develop a major shipping
port in Mexico on the Pacific side first, and then on the Gulf side -
tied by air and rail to the North - since US ports are getting over-
burdened. It would also be a security measure as well. Under those
conditions a spaceport in Mexico might make some sense - technically,
if the politics and economics can be worked out.

But its not something a very challenging start-up should have to take
on out of the box. So, that's why its a non-starter for me. If you
have a better idea, quit jaw-boning and DO IT! Show us all how wrong
we are and how right you are by going out and doing some of the stuff
you talk about.

Sheez

Since the Google/NOVA X-Prise has nothing whatsoever to do with the
rocket that'll deliver said X-Prize landers, why bother reinventing
that wheel?

My better idea is to use the existing and proven expertise of Japan or
best that of China for getting our X-Prize contenders into a close
orbit of our physically dark moon, so that their deployments can be
most properly controlled, and of those deployment efforts being the
least costly for hauling as many as 10 of those one-way X-Prize lunar
landers at a time. The delivery platform could remain in close orbit
(say as near as 25 km) and also provide local transponder services as
well as having it's very own 100X telephoto CCD camera with small
enough pixels for accomplishing better than 1 meter resolution (in
color shouldn't even be a problem, although B&W imaging would deliver
sharper images).

How's that?
.. - BG

On Feb 20, 8:23*pm, wrote:
On Feb 20, 5:44*pm, wrote:





On Feb 20, 5:06 pm, wrote:

When launched from White Sands the ground tracks are limited. *One
approach if you launch at the right time of the month, is to do a
direct ascent to lunar transfer with minimal ground track to the
south. *With the rotation of the Earth, and the direction of the moon
in its orbit, you can almost stay over White Sands until you reach
lunar transfer speed.

The problem here is that the returning downrange booster elements will
hit the atmosphere at very high incidence angle, and the heat and
pressure loads will be tremendous. *No glancing loads here - which
means they're pretty much shot! *Except for maybe the first four
stages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_reentry

Stage 1 = 2.0 km/sec terminal velocity
* * * * * * 203.8 km altitude
* * * * * * 407.2 seconds flight time
* * * * * * 144.4 km rotation Eastward during flight.
* * * * * * * 20.3 gees - slowing in last 10 km of atmosphere.

Stage 2 = 4.5 km/sec
* * * * * 1,032.1 km altitude
* * * * * * *917.4 seconds flight time.
* * * * * * * 325.3 km rotation Eastward during flight
* * * * * * * 103.1 gees - slowing in last 10 km of atmosphere

Stage 3 = 7.2 km/sec
* * * * *2,497.5 km altitude
* * * * *1,427.1 seconds flight time
* * * * * * 506.1 km rotation Eastward during flight
* * * * * * 263.9 gees - slowing in last 10 km of atmosphere

Stage 4 = 10.8 km/sec
* * * * * *lunar free return trajectory
* * * * * *9 days
* * * * * *shallow re-entry angle after lunar free return flight
* * * * * * * * 3.0 gees - 0.29 degees entry angle.

He said Mexico not NM- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Right, but I said White Sands, which is in NM. *Mexico launch would
likely violate missile proliferation treaties we have in place, so it
wouldn't be possible to export the needed technology. *White Sands has
all the infrastructure to do range tests. *Of course, Florida has some
space launch capacity, and the State has committed itself to
commercial space launch. *Hawaii too has some capacity at Barking
Sands on Kuai.

Launching out of the European Space Agency's complex in South America
is a possibility. *Launching near the mouth of the Amazon river is
also a possibility as well, with downrange recovery in Africa, and
Indonesia respectively - for a more normal equatorial orbit.

This vehicle is small enough one could convert a tanker for the launch
platform, and launch in the ocean - and recover at White Sands,
Florida or Barking Sands with aerial tow.

What about Wallops Island in VA?