maximum payload to the moon

I dont know a great deal about space and current rocket technology,
but im Learning (in a very amature fashion!), but i have been trying
to find out about the following.

1) Using current technology and taking into account theretical limits,
what is the maximum payload that could be landed on the moon and what
would be the cost in doing so? Would this cost be lower if 2 or 3
such landings were to be made?

1) Using current technology and taking into account theretical
limits,
what is the maximum payload that could be landed on the moon

Question: do you mean

a) "using rockets currently in production"; or
b) "using rocket technology that has been developed and flown, isn't
necessarily in production anymore"; or
c) "using various rocket components that have been developed and could
be cobbled together into a moon rocket"?

If the Apollo program's Saturn V is resurrected, then you could send a
lot more tonnage to the moon per launch than if you puttered around
with, say, an "off the shelf" Atlas V or Delta IV.

The payload capability of the Saturn V could be duplicated with tweaked
Russian Energia hardware (some resurrection needed), or a bundle of
Delta IV heavies (some development of existing hardware needed), or
some configurations of shuttle hardware (development of existing
hardware needed). Or you could take Saturn V hardware and build even
larger rockets - some proposed derivatives of Saturn hardware could put
about 500 tons into orbit and send over 200 tons to the moon.

and what would be the cost in doing so?

Depends on the rockets selected; how much development is needed; how
many rockets are built for the program; etc.

So, could you clarify a bit what you were looking for? Just entirely
real, existing rockets?

Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

(Holly Deedee) wrote in
:

1) Using current technology and taking into account theretical limits,
what is the maximum payload that could be landed on the moon and what
would be the cost in doing so? Would this cost be lower if 2 or 3
such landings were to be made?

Delta IV Heavy looks like it could launch 8 - 10 tons towards the
Moon; figure about half that to the surface and at least $250 million
per flight. Reasonably near-future upgrades could probably double that
payload, but not lower costs significantly. Given a firm committment to
a block production of launch components, Boeing might cut you a
discount.

There aren't any other available launch systems that could improve
on that peformance right now. Given sufficient budget and no more
than a decade's time, we could at least duplicate Saturn V performance
with a highly upgraded Delta IV or Atlas V.

A Shuttle-derived launcher could probably duplicate a very uprated
Delta IV or Atlas V, likely at double the cost. Krunichev of Russia has
a _proposed_ Angara 100 that could offer similar performance. The only
other demonstrated heavy-lift system, Energia, appears to be dead.

Who's got really deep pockets?

--Damon

" wrote:

[...]
Depends on the rockets selected; how much development is needed; how
many rockets are built for the program; etc.

So, could you clarify a bit what you were looking for? Just entirely
real, existing rockets?

Also, "sent up on a single rocket" ? or "sent via as many payloads
as we could land on the moon until the U.S. Treasury was exhausted?"

Hmm. The OP didn't explicitly say "rockets" ; the 4000-ton Orion
was thought to be within theoretical limits of engineering...


--
;k

Damon Hill wrote:
(Holly Deedee) wrote in
:

1) Using current technology and taking into account theretical
limits,
what is the maximum payload that could be landed on the moon and
what
would be the cost in doing so? Would this cost be lower if 2 or 3
such landings were to be made?

Delta IV Heavy looks like it could launch 8 - 10 tons towards the
Moon; figure about half that to the surface and at least $250 million
per flight.

I think you could cut the launch cost significantly
if you used an Atlas 552, which could do nearly as
well as a Delta IVH. If you can wait a few years,
Lockheed Martin has now been given the green light
to build Atlas V-Heavy, which will be the world's
most powerful expendable rocket when it flies. Or
for even less money you could buy a Russian Proton,
one of only two rockets in use today that actually
*have* launched moon landers.

Note that that's only the cost for the launch vehicle,
which would only be able to boost the payload on a
trans-lunar trajectory. More money would have to be
spent first to develop and then to build a deceleration
and landing stage, which would, as you point out, account
for a sizable percentage of your trans-lunar mass.
Historically, complex spacecraft payloads of this type
end up costing as much as, or more than, the launch
vehicle.

Then there's the cost of whatever you are landing on
the moon, which must be designed or packaged (and then
tested) to withstand the temperature extremes and the
vacuum of space, etc..

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:

I think you could cut the launch cost significantly
if you used an Atlas 552, which could do nearly as
well as a Delta IVH. If you can wait a few years,
Lockheed Martin has now been given the green light
to build Atlas V-Heavy, which will be the world's
most powerful expendable rocket when it flies. Or
for even less money you could buy a Russian Proton,
one of only two rockets in use today that actually
*have* launched moon landers.

I had read the 551 has better performance for GTO and earth escape
missions due to not having the extra mass of the 2nd RL10. All Atlas V
to date, plus the upcoming MRO and New Horizons use the single RL10
upper stage.

On the "other" rocket in use today to have launched moon landers, R-7?