Project Constellation Questions

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
Depending on who wins the Bid, Boening or LM, is the Constellation/CEV
going to be exclusive launched on their EELV or will it be made to
work with either one?

Almost certainly, operation on either EELV will be a contract requirement,
unless the winning bidder can make a compelling case that it's impossible.
But the EELVs will probably need modifications, and NASA may well give one
or the other priority on that, instead of doing both simultaneously... so
there may be only one choice for the first little while. (If NASA was
smart, they'd specify initial capability on the *other* company's EELV.)

I know this is a long shot, but do you think they would open up the
bid to include some one else than just Boeing & LM? Like possibly some
of the startups(ie Space X, Scaled Composites, XCOR, Armadilo
Aerospace, plus many others whose name I can't recall and I apologize,
no slight intended)

You definitely want to do an Apollo 9 equivalent, the Apollo D mission,
checking out the lunar lander close to home. (Although you have to read
the technical papers to hear about it, there were some significant issues
with the LM that got found on Apollo 9 and fixed before Apollo 10.)


Interesting, where would I find this?

Whether you'd get an Apollo 8 equivalent somewhere in there would depend
on politics, as it did in the real world. (The clinching argument for
doing a lunar-orbit mission without an LM was the possibility that the
Soviets were about to do a manned Zond lunar flyby.)


I guess the real test to see if this really is a 'Journey' and not a
'Race' if the Chinese to continue to go it alone on their HSF project,
as they get closer to putting a person on the Moon, will we continue
on with our projected plan or would we speed up the development?

Just my $0.02

Space Cadet

derwetzelsDASHmailATyahooDOTcom

"Kim Keller" wrote in message m...
Spiral development. There will be boilerplate tests at first, followed by
block I vehicles that will evaluate performance in abort scenarios and
flight-test systems in a spiraling path to block II.

How many Unmanned launches would they do before the first crewed launch?

As few as they can get away with, probably only one or two.

Initial timelines show quite a number of unmanned flight tests. remember
that this is in the post-CAIB environment.

True, sorry for my naivity, also they are probably going to need to
test the EELVs for Manrating them, but I guess that could be done in
parrallel with some of the boilerplate tests right?

(Or would they attempt to do an automated docking with and unmanned
mission?)

Whether it even *has* unmanned docking capability depends on later
priorities. It easily might not.

Early indications are that it will have autonomous rendezvous and docking.

A technology worth developing, pity we didn't develop it sooner


At this point in the project there are a huge number of internally-asked,
unanswered questions. A solid path probably won't emerge for six months or
more.

-Kim-


Thanks Kim for the input, if you can keep us posted on the progress it
would be appreciated, Thanks again


Space Cadet

derwetzelsDASHmailATyahooDOTcom

Moon Society - St. Louis Chapter

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

The Moon Society is a non-profit educational and
scientific foundation formed to further scientific
study and development of the moon.

(Space Cadet) wrote in message om...
(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
Depending on who wins the Bid, Boening or LM, is the Constellation/CEV
going to be exclusive launched on their EELV or will it be made to
work with either one?

Almost certainly, operation on either EELV will be a contract requirement,
unless the winning bidder can make a compelling case that it's impossible.
But the EELVs will probably need modifications, and NASA may well give one
or the other priority on that, instead of doing both simultaneously... so
there may be only one choice for the first little while. (If NASA was
smart, they'd specify initial capability on the *other* company's EELV.)

I know this is a long shot, but do you think they would open up the
bid to include some one else than just Boeing & LM? Like possibly some
of the startups(ie Space X, Scaled Composites, XCOR, Armadilo
Aerospace, plus many others whose name I can't recall and I apologize,
no slight intended)

Only if they want to reduce future launch costs.

The Falcon V from space X will launch about 4 tons to LEO, so you can
bet that the CEV will made to be too heavy for this.

If NASA wanted real competition, they need to give some launch
contracts to Arianne. That would really give LM and Boeing a kick up
the rear side.

If NASA gets out of launch operations, and just contracts a dozen or
so launches every 2 years, then we could see a competive market
developing.

In article ,
Space Cadet wrote:
there may be only one choice for the first little while. (If NASA was
smart, they'd specify initial capability on the *other* company's EELV.)

I know this is a long shot, but do you think they would open up the
bid to include some one else than just Boeing & LM? Like possibly some
of the startups(ie Space X, Scaled Composites, XCOR, Armadilo
Aerospace, plus many others whose name I can't recall...

I fear it's unlikely. NASA (especially JSC) has rather narrow ideas about
who's a "qualified supplier", and hasn't figured out that it's in NASA's
own best interests to encourage the regular development of new qualified
suppliers.

checking out the lunar lander close to home. (Although you have to read
the technical papers to hear about it, there were some significant issues
with the LM that got found on Apollo 9 and fixed before Apollo 10.)

Interesting, where would I find this?

The one specific example on hand is that there's a paper in the Aug 1970
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets on the fly-by-wire algorithms for manual
control of the LM, and the changes that got made after Apollo 9 showed
conclusively that handling qualities were poor and fuel consumption likely
to be excessive.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

(Alex Terrell) wrote in message . com...

If NASA gets out of launch operations, and just contracts a dozen or
so launches every 2 years, then we could see a competive market
developing.

== 6 launches a year, to be split between 5 providers (Boeing,
Lockheed, Ariane, ILS, & SpaceX, if they continue) Wow. Real
competition would certainly ensue.
The reality is that a move like that would have no effect other than
to get Boeing and Lockheed out of the NASA launch market entirely.
There
is insufficient profit to be made or them to justify the enormous
financial risk of trying to lower their launch costs to that degree.

Tom Merkle

(Tom Merkle) wrote in message . com...
(Alex Terrell) wrote in message . com...

If NASA gets out of launch operations, and just contracts a dozen or
so launches every 2 years, then we could see a competive market
developing.

== 6 launches a year, to be split between 5 providers (Boeing,
Lockheed, Ariane, ILS, & SpaceX, if they continue) Wow. Real
competition would certainly ensue.
The reality is that a move like that would have no effect other than
to get Boeing and Lockheed out of the NASA launch market entirely.
There
is insufficient profit to be made or them to justify the enormous
financial risk of trying to lower their launch costs to that degree.

Tom Merkle

A half descent moon program would require about 12 Delta IV Heavies
(20-25 tons to LEO) every 2 years. (This would be in addition to USAF,
commercial and ISS launches).

The current price on a piece meal basis for this would be about $3
billion.

My idea would be purchase batches of 12 launches every 2 years. After
competion, that makes for a 1.5 billion contract coming up every 2
years. That gives a reason to get the cost down immediately for
boeing, LM, Arianne, and something to aim for for SpaceX, Kistler and
others.

(Alex Terrell) wrote in message . com...

A half descent moon program would require about 12 Delta IV Heavies
(20-25 tons to LEO) every 2 years. (This would be in addition to USAF,
commercial and ISS launches).


Double that. It would take 5-6 EELV Heavy launches
to perform a single lunar mission, and more than
that if sustained operations, like long-duration
missions, were performed. I would expect NASA to do
a couple missions per year, on average. That is
20-24 EELV Heavy launches every two years. The
average is one per month, but the launches will have
to come in surges of up to three at a time if cryo
TLI propellant is used. Someone is going to have to
build one or two new launch pads or HIF bays.

And current EELV-Heavy designs don't quite cut it.
When I break down typical lunar mission designs into
launchable components, I find that a launcher in
the 27-30 ton to LEO class would be about right.

- Ed Kyle

In sci.space.policy Alex Terrell wrote:

My idea would be purchase batches of 12 launches every 2 years. After
competion, that makes for a 1.5 billion contract coming up every 2
years. That gives a reason to get the cost down immediately for
boeing, LM, Arianne, and something to aim for for SpaceX, Kistler and
others.

You would first need to convince the others that anybody but LM and
Boeing is actually welcome to bid and then convince LM and Boeing
that they cannot pass arbrtarily low figures and then go back on it.

Good luck.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

(ed kyle) wrote in message . com...
(Alex Terrell) wrote in message . com...

A half descent moon program would require about 12 Delta IV Heavies
(20-25 tons to LEO) every 2 years. (This would be in addition to USAF,
commercial and ISS launches).


Double that. It would take 5-6 EELV Heavy launches
to perform a single lunar mission, and more than
that if sustained operations, like long-duration
missions, were performed. I would expect NASA to do
a couple missions per year, on average. That is
20-24 EELV Heavy launches every two years. The
average is one per month, but the launches will have
to come in surges of up to three at a time if cryo
TLI propellant is used. Someone is going to have to
build one or two new launch pads or HIF bays.

And current EELV-Heavy designs don't quite cut it.
When I break down typical lunar mission designs into
launchable components, I find that a launcher in
the 27-30 ton to LEO class would be about right.

- Ed Kyle

Thanks - could you provide some basis for estimation. After looking at
a previous post of yours, and applying some rocket equations, I
reckoned that three Delta IV Heavies, with Cryogenic upper stages,
could put 10 tons on the lunar surface. My working is cut and paste
below - please pick holes in it.

If your right that it needs 5-6, then a true HLV such as Shuttle C is
a must have.

Two cargo shots per year is a half descent amount.

For manned ops, the amount to be landed would be less, so the CEV
would remain in orbit and a few crew would go down and up in a
minimlaist structure - they would not need to live in the Lander
Module, so something much lighter than Apollo LM is possible.

Two manned shots per year, with crew spending six months on the
surface is a half decent amount.

Hence four landings per year, each with three Delta IVs.
==================
Working from previous post

Looks like your about right. Assuming LEO mass is 24 tons, exhaust V =
3430m/s (Kerosene / LOX) and Delta V = 4100 m/s, Dry mass fraction =
30%. Kerosene / LOX Interorbit rockets are quite simple, so payload
might be 25% = approx 6 tons.

So three Delta IV-Heavies should be able to put 18 tons into LEO.

Now Lunar Orbit to surface Delta V is 2100 m/s. Again assuming
Kerosene/LOX, dry mass fraction is 54%, so out of the 18 tons we can
land 10 tons. About 8 tons could be cargo.

If we use Hydrogen / LOX for the LEO to Lunar Orbit section (Exhaust V
= 4410m/s), dry mass fraction goes up to 40%. The rocket is heavier,
so lets assume cargo is 30%. Now we have 22 tons in lunar orbit, so
should be able to land 10 tons.

Hydrogen would require almost simultaneous launch of the two upper
stages, which as you point out elsewhere would require new facilities.

(ed kyle) wrote in message . com...

A half descent moon program would require about 12 Delta IV Heavies
(20-25 tons to LEO) every 2 years. (This would be in addition to
USAF,
commercial and ISS launches).

Double that. It would take 5-6 EELV Heavy launches
to perform a single lunar mission,

It *could* take that many, but it could be done with less also. Lunar
Gemini would have required two launches -- and the launchers they
proposed were smaller than Delta IV Heavy.

I would expect NASA to do
a couple missions per year, on average. That is
20-24 EELV Heavy launches every two years.

Assuming NASA uses EELV at all. From last week's Space News, it
appears Adm. Steigle has already decided he wants to develop a heavy
lift vehicle, either Shuttle-C or an entirely new desing.

And current EELV-Heavy designs don't quite cut it.
When I break down typical lunar mission designs into
launchable components, I find that a launcher in
the 27-30 ton to LEO class would be about right.

What do you consider a "typical" lunar mission, and what can't be
disassembled down into components smaller than 27-30 tons? The largest
one I can think of is a human being, and they're more in the range of
0.1 tons.