Multistage TLI...another thought on EOR

Hi All
Space Review has had a two part article on using Medium lift to use EOR
to assemble a Lunar or Mars mission. And I was wondering if it was
possible to design the TLI or TMI stage to be made up of multiple
smaller stages that fire and drop off as you go. Instead of trying to
assemble and fuel a large tank with lots of EVA work, how about a
series of smaller stages that just 'simply' dock with each other. I
know we do not have any experience yet with automated docking, but
could we either buy/beg or borrow the tech from the Russians?
Another thought is I have a vague memory of that when the progress
docks with ISS(or MIR) it was able to transfer fuel to the stations
engines for reboost also I even have a vaguer memory that the progress
could tap into the stations tanks and use that fuel for its engines to
reboost the station. Did this connectivity require any EVA's to setup?
or was it part of the docking process? If the later could the multi
stage TLI/TMI be setup where all the tanks interconnect?

If you interested here are the space review articles

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/526/1

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/529/1

Just my $0.02

Space Cadet

derwetzelsDASHspacecadetATyahooDOTcom


Moon Society - St. Louis Chapter

http://www.moonsociety.org/chapters/stlouis/

There is only one (maybe 2) basic core reasons for humans to go
beyond LEO, That is for the establishment of space settlements or a
space based civilization. Everything else are details.

Gary Gray 11/9/2005

Space Cadet wrote:
Hi All
Space Review has had a two part article on using Medium lift to use EOR
to assemble a Lunar or Mars mission. And I was wondering if it was
possible to design the TLI or TMI stage to be made up of multiple
smaller stages that fire and drop off as you go. Instead of trying to
assemble and fuel a large tank with lots of EVA work, how about a
series of smaller stages that just 'simply' dock with each other. I
know we do not have any experience yet with automated docking, but
could we either buy/beg or borrow the tech from the Russians?
Another thought is I have a vague memory of that when the progress
docks with ISS(or MIR) it was able to transfer fuel to the stations
engines for reboost also I even have a vaguer memory that the progress
could tap into the stations tanks and use that fuel for its engines to
reboost the station. Did this connectivity require any EVA's to setup?
or was it part of the docking process? If the later could the multi
stage TLI/TMI be setup where all the tanks interconnect?

If you interested here are the space review articles

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/526/1

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/529/1

Progress refuels ISS through fluid connections in its docking
ring. No EVAs are needed.

Multiple upper stages could be ganged together to perform the
trans lunar burn. One early Boeing concept used something
that looked like two Delta 4 upper stages in tandem.

But it would be more mass-efficient to use a propellant transfer
setup that used one stage with an engine augmented by
crossfeed from a second, separate propellant tank. This would
be more complex with cryos than with ISS hypergol propellants
though.

I liked the article, and I suspect that the EOR/LOR approach
using the Stick will be how NASA actually returns to the moon
(if it ever does). It seems unlikely to me that the big booster
will ever be funded because NASA will probably spend massive
gobs of unplanned money just getting the CEV and CLV flying.

- Ed Kyle

liked the article, and I suspect that the EOR/LOR approach
using the Stick will be how NASA actually returns to the moon
(if it ever does). It seems unlikely to me that the big booster
will ever be funded because NASA will probably spend massive
gobs of unplanned money just getting the CEV and CLV flying.
- Ed Kyle

Yeah, that seems likely, but I hate the Stick! The idea of launching
people on a single SRB just sounds stupid to me, the Stick looks like
an accident waiting to happen! Just my gut feeling.

Just my $0.02

Space Cadet

derwetzelsDASHspacecadetATyahooDOTcom


Moon Society - St. Louis Chapter

http://www.moonsociety.org/chapters/stlouis/

There is only one (maybe 2) basic core reasons for humans to go
beyond LEO, That is for the establishment of space settlements or a
space based civilization. Everything else are details.

Gary Gray 11/9/2005

Space Cadet wrote:
liked the article, and I suspect that the EOR/LOR approach
using the Stick will be how NASA actually returns to the moon
(if it ever does). It seems unlikely to me that the big booster
will ever be funded because NASA will probably spend massive
gobs of unplanned money just getting the CEV and CLV flying.
- Ed Kyle

Yeah, that seems likely, but I hate the Stick! The idea of launching
people on a single SRB just sounds stupid to me, the Stick looks like
an accident waiting to happen! Just my gut feeling.

Every space launch, whether fueled by liquid or solid
propellants, is an accident waiting to happen. If you
look hard at the data, shuttle SRBs actually have
demonstrated a very low failure rate compared to
comparable liquid boosters.

- Ed Kyle

Every space launch, whether fueled by liquid or solid
propellants, is an accident waiting to happen. If you
look hard at the data, shuttle SRBs actually have
demonstrated a very low failure rate compared to
comparable liquid boosters.

- Ed Kyle

Well, I guess your right, but I'm not in a hurry to put my but on
it...It still gives me the willies
It looks ugly, well like that is really relevant
But we are back to putting all are eggs in one basket, as far as HSF,
first the shuttle, now the CLV
At least with a smaller CEV that could be launched on either EELV(and
later Falcon ## or whatever other LV comes on market/available) you
could switch it to another LV if a problem grounds the first.


Just My $0.02

Space Cadet

"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
oups.com...
Space Cadet wrote:
liked the article, and I suspect that the EOR/LOR approach
using the Stick will be how NASA actually returns to the moon
(if it ever does). It seems unlikely to me that the big booster
will ever be funded because NASA will probably spend massive
gobs of unplanned money just getting the CEV and CLV flying.
- Ed Kyle

Yeah, that seems likely, but I hate the Stick! The idea of launching
people on a single SRB just sounds stupid to me, the Stick looks like
an accident waiting to happen! Just my gut feeling.

Every space launch, whether fueled by liquid or solid
propellants, is an accident waiting to happen. If you
look hard at the data, shuttle SRBs actually have
demonstrated a very low failure rate compared to
comparable liquid boosters.

- Ed Kyle


The observed failure rate of the SRB's is about the the same as liquid
propellant stages, around 1 in 200.

Murray Anderson

Murray Anderson wrote:
"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
oups.com...
Space Cadet wrote:
liked the article, and I suspect that the EOR/LOR approach
using the Stick will be how NASA actually returns to the moon
(if it ever does). It seems unlikely to me that the big booster
will ever be funded because NASA will probably spend massive
gobs of unplanned money just getting the CEV and CLV flying.
- Ed Kyle

Yeah, that seems likely, but I hate the Stick! The idea of launching
people on a single SRB just sounds stupid to me, the Stick looks like
an accident waiting to happen! Just my gut feeling.

Every space launch, whether fueled by liquid or solid
propellants, is an accident waiting to happen. If you
look hard at the data, shuttle SRBs actually have
demonstrated a very low failure rate compared to
comparable liquid boosters.

- Ed Kyle


The observed failure rate of the SRB's is about the the same as liquid
propellant stages, around 1 in 200.

Murray Anderson

But the failure rate of *comparable* liquid boosters is much worse.

Proton 1st stage 7 failures out of 318 launches
Zenit 1st stage 2 failures out of 54
Delta IV-H: One launch, one failure of the three cores needed to equal
CLV payload

Will McLean

Space Cadet wrote:

liked the article, and I suspect that the EOR/LOR approach
using the Stick will be how NASA actually returns to the moon
(if it ever does). It seems unlikely to me that the big booster
will ever be funded because NASA will probably spend massive
gobs of unplanned money just getting the CEV and CLV flying.



Yeah, that seems likely, but I hate the Stick! The idea of launching
people on a single SRB just sounds stupid to me, the Stick looks like
an accident waiting to happen! Just my gut feeling.



Wow, we agree!

The Schtick er ... Schlock ... has to be the all time WORST EVER NASA
MISSION!

Almost, but not quite, as bad as throwing away SSMEs in a HLV.

And George Bush and Michael Griffin get all the credit!

KILL ESAS - LITERALLY!

It's the humane thing to do.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

On 10 Jan 2006 12:06:36 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

If you interested here are the space review articles

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/526/1

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/529/1

Progress refuels ISS through fluid connections in its docking
ring. No EVAs are needed.

Multiple upper stages could be ganged together to perform the
trans lunar burn. One early Boeing concept used something
that looked like two Delta 4 upper stages in tandem.

But it would be more mass-efficient to use a propellant transfer
setup that used one stage with an engine augmented by
crossfeed from a second, separate propellant tank. This would
be more complex with cryos than with ISS hypergol propellants
though.

I liked the article, and I suspect that the EOR/LOR approach
using the Stick will be how NASA actually returns to the moon
(if it ever does).

It seems unlikely (and unfortunate, if it occurs) that the
shaft...errrr...stick will ever be developed.

It seems unlikely to me that the big booster
will ever be funded because NASA will probably spend massive
gobs of unplanned money just getting the CEV and CLV flying.

That, too.