LSAM

"John Schilling" wrote in message

5) A CEV that also serves as an LSAM. Vertical rocket landing is somewhat
more complex than parachute landing, but it can be made to work and it
works as well on the Moon as it does on Earth.

No, that's the kind of thing that should be avoided. My hunch is that the
combined cost of developing and fielding a CEV and LSAM seperately would be
much less than the cost of developing a single vehicle that does both. Keep
it simple.

Jon

Depends on the lunar orbit. Low lunar orbit is not stable enough for
long-term storage due to lunar mascons. It could probably be made to work
if in-space propellant resupply were economical enough. Otherwise, Earth-
Moon L1 is probably better, and can double as a jumping-off point for
planetary missions as well.
Jorge R. Frank,
Your "Earth-Moon L1" or LL-1 is an absolute win-win alternative that's
good for dozens of other reasons. In fact "Earth-Moon L1 (aka LL-1 or
ME-L1) is all that really matters, unless the Chinese get there first,
as then we're summarily screwed, blued and tattooed, along with having
to wear a big red star on our butts.
-
Brad Guth

"Space Cadet" wrote in news:1144244756.370504.209700
@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:

Hey have any spec been written down for the LSAM yet?

Other than the basics like crew size and lunar surface stay duration, not
much. NASA can't afford serious LSAM/CaLV development until after 2010.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Jon S. Berndt" wrote in
:

Yes, in a program as "trim" as the current one is trying to be, and
with the costs it would impose, I don't expect what I've described has
much appeal. But, now would be the time to discuss the possibilities.
During design, given several paths to achieve the goal, and where
little additional cost is incurred, choose one that supports reuse -
or at least attempt to not preclude it.

I agree.



--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 19:44:50 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Jorge
R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

"Jon S. Berndt" wrote in
:

Yes, in a program as "trim" as the current one is trying to be, and
with the costs it would impose, I don't expect what I've described has
much appeal. But, now would be the time to discuss the possibilities.
During design, given several paths to achieve the goal, and where
little additional cost is incurred, choose one that supports reuse -
or at least attempt to not preclude it.

I agree.

Unfortunately, once Griffin came in, and ousted Steidle, NASA
basically ignored all the architecture work done in the CE&R studies,
and came up with their own architecture that pretty much does preclude
it to a large degree.

On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 19:43:02 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Jorge
R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

"Space Cadet" wrote in news:1144244756.370504.209700
:

Hey have any spec been written down for the LSAM yet?

Other than the basics like crew size and lunar surface stay duration, not
much. NASA can't afford serious LSAM/CaLV development until after 2010.

Which is fortunate, since that buys time to make a case for not
developing a CaLV.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in
:

On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 19:44:50 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Jorge
R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

"Jon S. Berndt" wrote in
:

Yes, in a program as "trim" as the current one is trying to be, and
with the costs it would impose, I don't expect what I've described has
much appeal. But, now would be the time to discuss the possibilities.
During design, given several paths to achieve the goal, and where
little additional cost is incurred, choose one that supports reuse -
or at least attempt to not preclude it.

I agree.

Unfortunately, once Griffin came in, and ousted Steidle, NASA
basically ignored all the architecture work done in the CE&R studies,
and came up with their own architecture that pretty much does preclude
it to a large degree.

I don't disagree. :-)

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

In article , Jon S. Berndt says...

"John Schilling" wrote in message

5) A CEV that also serves as an LSAM. Vertical rocket landing is somewhat
more complex than parachute landing, but it can be made to work and it
works as well on the Moon as it does on Earth.

No, that's the kind of thing that should be avoided. My hunch is that the
combined cost of developing and fielding a CEV and LSAM seperately would
be much less than the cost of developing a single vehicle that does both.

Why? Neither vehicle is terribly ambitious on its own, and 90% of the
functionality is common to both.

Especially if we use vertical rocket landing for the CEV, which is a
perfectly reasonable approach, what do you imagine would be so difficult
about adding "and land on the Moon as well as the Earth" to the CEV's
mission requirements, as to more than double the cost?


Keep it simple.

One vehicle that takes you where you want to go and brings you back, is
pretty simple.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *


--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

On 6 Apr 2006 12:04:17 -0700, in a place far, far away, John Schilling
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

5) A CEV that also serves as an LSAM. Vertical rocket landing is somewhat
more complex than parachute landing, but it can be made to work and it
works as well on the Moon as it does on Earth.

No, that's the kind of thing that should be avoided. My hunch is that the
combined cost of developing and fielding a CEV and LSAM seperately would
be much less than the cost of developing a single vehicle that does both.

Why? Neither vehicle is terribly ambitious on its own, and 90% of the
functionality is common to both.

Especially if we use vertical rocket landing for the CEV, which is a
perfectly reasonable approach, what do you imagine would be so difficult
about adding "and land on the Moon as well as the Earth" to the CEV's
mission requirements, as to more than double the cost?


Keep it simple.

One vehicle that takes you where you want to go and brings you back, is
pretty simple.

Simple, but expensive, unless you have multiple fueling points along
the way, with cheap fillups. It's the same problem that Shuttle
has--additional functionality required for the whole mission not
required for all of it (e.g., heat shield for this, wings for the
Shuttle) that adds parasitic weight.

In article , Rand Simberg says...

On 6 Apr 2006 12:04:17 -0700, in a place far, far away, John Schilling
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

5) A CEV that also serves as an LSAM. Vertical rocket landing is somewhat
more complex than parachute landing, but it can be made to work and it
works as well on the Moon as it does on Earth.

No, that's the kind of thing that should be avoided. My hunch is that the
combined cost of developing and fielding a CEV and LSAM seperately would
be much less than the cost of developing a single vehicle that does both.

Why? Neither vehicle is terribly ambitious on its own, and 90% of the
functionality is common to both.

Especially if we use vertical rocket landing for the CEV, which is a
perfectly reasonable approach, what do you imagine would be so difficult
about adding "and land on the Moon as well as the Earth" to the CEV's
mission requirements, as to more than double the cost?

Keep it simple.

One vehicle that takes you where you want to go and brings you back, is
pretty simple.

Simple, but expensive, unless you have multiple fueling points along
the way, with cheap fillups.

A large drop tank will do, actually. And you'll need that, or a space
tug or a tanker or a refueling station or two, even with the seperate
CEV & LSAM architecture, so there's no *added* complexity.


It's the same problem that Shuttle has--additional functionality required
for the whole mission not required for all of it (e.g., heat shield for
this, wings for the Shuttle) that adds parasitic weight.

That was my question. *What* added functionality? Assuming a vertical
rocket landing CEV, what added functionality is required for it to also
serve as an LSAM?

If we assume the CEV *won't* do a vertical rocket landing on Earth, then
we need *one* major extra subsystem for the combined vehicle. Unless your
margins are absurdly thin, it's almost certainly cheaper to put one more
subsystem on your first vehicle, than to design a second from scratch.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *


--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth