CCDev-Lunar and the Propellent Launch System (PLS)

Maybe the best use for the Congressionally mandated Space Launch
System (SLS) is as a propellent hauler for beyond-LEO commercial
vehicles. Naturally, NASA will need to provide seed money for these
vehicles, hence the CCDev-Lunar program.

NASA's primary goal could remain a 100% publicly funded "Asteroids and
Mars" exploration program, while lunar development could evolve as a
public-private partnership.

One advantage of doing the moon this way is that NASA doesn't have to
take the heat for radical ideas that don't work out, or astronauts
getting hurt or killed. In fact, NASA's only operational
responsibility would be to put propellents in orbit and make them
available to private industry at an established price.

NASA could further incentivize lunar development by offering to pay
for water extracted from lunar ice and placed in lunar orbit. Water
obtained this way could be used as a resource to support the
"Asteroids and Mars" goal, either as propellents or human consumables.

On Jul 18, 7:39*pm, wrote:
Maybe the best use for the Congressionally mandated Space Launch
System (SLS) is as a propellent hauler for beyond-LEO commercial
vehicles. *Naturally, NASA will need to provide seed money for these
vehicles, hence the CCDev-Lunar program.

NASA's primary goal could remain a 100% publicly funded "Asteroids and
Mars" exploration program, while lunar development could evolve as a
public-private partnership.

One advantage of doing the moon this way is that NASA doesn't have to
take the heat for radical ideas that don't work out, or astronauts
getting hurt or killed. *In fact, NASA's only operational
responsibility would be to put propellents in orbit and make them
available to private industry at an established price.

NASA could further incentivize lunar development by offering to pay
for water extracted from lunar ice and placed in lunar orbit. *Water
obtained this way could be used as a resource to support the
"Asteroids and Mars" goal, either as propellents or human consumables.

There's still too much taboo/nondisclosure about our Apollo moon, so
NASA can't go anywhere neat it, and others have to be kept from ever
setting any human foot on on moon. They'll need at least another
couple generations to pass, so that all involved with their Apollo era
are either dead or incapable of testifying.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 19/07/2011 12:39 PM, wrote:

NASA could further incentivize lunar development by offering to pay
for water extracted from lunar ice and placed in lunar orbit. Water
obtained this way could be used as a resource to support the
"Asteroids and Mars" goal, either as propellents or human consumables.

With the exception of journeys to the Moon, the ice would be more useful
in Earth orbit - you don't want to have your entire craft enter, and
then subsequently have to leave, Lunar orbit, just to pick up
consumables and propellents.

Which is not to say that the Moon isn't an appropriate source - getting
stuff into Earth orbit from the surface of the Moon could be less costly
that getting it from the surface of the Earth. Depends on the scale of
the operation, of course, and it's unlikely to be the case unless the
launchers from the Moon are reusable.

Sylvia.

On Jul 19, 2:52*am, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 19/07/2011 12:39 PM, wrote:



NASA could further incentivize lunar development by offering to pay
for water extracted from lunar ice and placed in lunar orbit. *Water
obtained this way could be used as a resource to support the
"Asteroids and Mars" goal, either as propellents or human consumables.

With the exception of journeys to the Moon, the ice would be more useful
in Earth orbit - you don't want to have your entire craft enter, and
then subsequently have to leave, Lunar orbit, just to pick up
consumables and propellents.

Which is not to say that the Moon isn't an appropriate source - getting
stuff into Earth orbit from the surface of the Moon could be less costly
that getting it from the surface of the Earth. Depends on the scale of
the operation, of course, and it's unlikely to be the case unless the
launchers from the Moon are reusable.

Sylvia.

Not necessarily. You'd have to balance the cost of sending a Mars
bound spacecraft of mass X from earth orbit to lunar obit, versus
sending lunar water of mass ~10X from lunar orbit to earth orbit. It
might work out better for Mars bound spacecraft to make a lunar pit-
stop at the beginning of the trip.

On Jul 18, 11:52*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 19/07/2011 12:39 PM, wrote:



NASA could further incentivize lunar development by offering to pay
for water extracted from lunar ice and placed in lunar orbit. *Water
obtained this way could be used as a resource to support the
"Asteroids and Mars" goal, either as propellents or human consumables.

With the exception of journeys to the Moon, the ice would be more useful
in Earth orbit - you don't want to have your entire craft enter, and
then subsequently have to leave, Lunar orbit, just to pick up
consumables and propellents.

Which is not to say that the Moon isn't an appropriate source - getting
stuff into Earth orbit from the surface of the Moon could be less costly
that getting it from the surface of the Earth. Depends on the scale of
the operation, of course, and it's unlikely to be the case unless the
launchers from the Moon are reusable.

Sylvia.

Nothing wrong with using the zero delta-V of our Earth-moon L1(Selene
L1) for everything.

Selene L1 is a hot location (nearly always solar illuminated) plus
always gamma and X-ray saturated, but our NASA/Apollo and Kodak proved
that such radiation and extra heat from our physically dark moon is
perfectly harmless, in fact A-13 was freezing to death in spite of the
extra 1220 w/m2 coming off the moon in addition to being fully solar
illuminated along with all the gamma and X-rays given off by our moon.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Jul 18, 11:52*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 19/07/2011 12:39 PM, wrote:



NASA could further incentivize lunar development by offering to pay
for water extracted from lunar ice and placed in lunar orbit. *Water
obtained this way could be used as a resource to support the
"Asteroids and Mars" goal, either as propellents or human consumables.

With the exception of journeys to the Moon, the ice would be more useful
in Earth orbit - you don't want to have your entire craft enter, and
then subsequently have to leave, Lunar orbit, just to pick up
consumables and propellents.

Which is not to say that the Moon isn't an appropriate source - getting
stuff into Earth orbit from the surface of the Moon could be less costly
that getting it from the surface of the Earth. Depends on the scale of
the operation, of course, and it's unlikely to be the case unless the
launchers from the Moon are reusable.

Sylvia.

Moon to LEO is about 6 km/sec. If aerobraking can be used to shed
velocity at LEO, it could be as low as 2.8 km/sec. But that doesn't
help for the trip back to the moon. If the round trip is around 10 km/
sec, it'd be very hard to have reusable launchers from the moon.

However, depots at EML1 could break the trip into manageable legs.
From the moon to EML1 and back is around 5 km/sec. From EML1 to LEO
and back is around 4.5 km/sec (using aerobraking to achieve LEO). With
delta V budgets of 5 km/sec or less, reusable vehicles are more
plausible.

On 20/07/2011 11:14 AM, Hop wrote:
On Jul 18, 11:52 pm, Sylvia wrote:
On 19/07/2011 12:39 PM, wrote:



NASA could further incentivize lunar development by offering to pay
for water extracted from lunar ice and placed in lunar orbit. Water
obtained this way could be used as a resource to support the
"Asteroids and Mars" goal, either as propellents or human consumables.

With the exception of journeys to the Moon, the ice would be more useful
in Earth orbit - you don't want to have your entire craft enter, and
then subsequently have to leave, Lunar orbit, just to pick up
consumables and propellents.

Which is not to say that the Moon isn't an appropriate source - getting
stuff into Earth orbit from the surface of the Moon could be less costly
that getting it from the surface of the Earth. Depends on the scale of
the operation, of course, and it's unlikely to be the case unless the
launchers from the Moon are reusable.

Sylvia.

Moon to LEO is about 6 km/sec. If aerobraking can be used to shed
velocity at LEO, it could be as low as 2.8 km/sec. But that doesn't
help for the trip back to the moon. If the round trip is around 10 km/
sec, it'd be very hard to have reusable launchers from the moon.


However, depots at EML1 could break the trip into manageable legs.
From the moon to EML1 and back is around 5 km/sec. From EML1 to LEO
and back is around 4.5 km/sec (using aerobraking to achieve LEO). With
delta V budgets of 5 km/sec or less, reusable vehicles are more
plausible.

Though the returns to the moon would be vehicles going back 'empty',
with no payload and either only fuel to reach the surface, or fuel to
reach Lunar orbit, if you have depots.

Sylvia.