Back to the Future? The Command Module Flies Again?

Pat Flannery wrote:

Chuck Stewart wrote:


Estimated average depth in mare areas is 3 to 12 meters.


Have we dug in that deep to find out for sure? We may want to try that
before we start planning for buried bases. So far the rest of the solar
system has shown that our detailed estimates of whatthings are like are
sometimes way off...will the Moon be different?

We have seismic data from the Apollo landings on that. Even 3 meters
should be sufficient.

[deleted]

Pat
I.J.N.S. Atragon

In sci.space.policy Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
Chuck Stewart wrote:
You'd want to bury a Moon base -- either explicitly, or by moving
into a lava tube --

Hmmm... Which reminds me: anything resembling a lava tube ever found?

Yes. There are a number of "sinuous rilles", narrow deep meandering
valleys of roughly constant width, e.g. Hadley Rille where Apollo 15
landed, and they are almost certainly collapsed lava tubes. And some
rilles are intermittent: the valley stops abruptly and then picks up
again suddenly several kilometers later, and those almost certainly are
still-standing sections of tube. Similarly, there are places where a
rille suddenly continues as a line of craters/pits, presumably an area
of mostly-intact roof with some weak spots.

Moreover, the rilles are *big*: Hadley Rille is 1.5km across, although
some of that is undoubtedly the result of collapse of the rim after the
tube itself collapsed. (It's nowhere near that *deep*.)

An orbiter with penetrating radar is what we really need to definitively
confirm all this.

Or have a rover follow it - if possible - this will also give you actual
information as to how the inside looks like and how likely you are actually
to be able to use it to build a base in.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In article ,
Cardman wrote:
Remember, NASA isn't getting a lot of extra money for this one,

They should have 25 to 30 billion dollars to spend on this project...

That's mostly far-future money, and it makes rather optimistic assumptions
about the savings possible elsewhere in the budget. The money NASA is
getting for this effort *now* is quite modest, even assuming that Congress
fully cooperates.

Some sort of spacecraft launchable on existing rockets is inevitable,
simply because it's the easiest way to do the job on the required
schedule.

Yes, but there is also the Moon problem.

The Moon problem is off under the next administration (even assuming
Bush gets re-elected). They won't ignore it, but realistically they
can't put a lot of effort into it now.

A contributing fact is that the EELVs desperately need either more
business or outright subsidies to stay operational,

The EELV market should be serving NASA and not the other way around.

In principle, yes. In the real world, it is a political fait accompli
that there are two EELVs and that keeping both alive is a significant
priority of the US government.

so spending money on
EELV launches will be viewed rather more favorably at higher levels than
spending money developing Yet Another Underutilized Launcher.

...The answer to reducing their overheads is to develop a reusable
rocket, when then this costly hardware is being reused again and again.

True in principle, but NASA has proved singularly unable to do this
properly in practice. They tried that once, remember? More than once,
if you count the X-33 and X-34 debacles.

"It's very difficult to get cheaper by spending a lot of money, it's very
difficult to get more reliable by adding a lot of new stuff, and those are
the only things NASA knows how to do." -- Jeff Greason

That is cheaper

The only main factor is your fixed overheads, where I can promise you
that a true RLV system just needing service people and fuel will
certainly cost much less than $150 million plus a flight.

Oh, I believe that, but what has this to do with NASA? NASA is *not*
going to get money to develop such a thing -- they've promised and failed
too many times -- and if they did get funding, they almost certainly
wouldn't do it right. NASA simply has no idea how to design things for
cheap routine operations; see above quote.

and has a better growth path

...the Delta IV-H has just about been taken as far with upgrades as
this rocket can go, where the only real option to get a larger volume
of mass into orbit at once is a brand new rocket.

The key observation is that the "at once" part is not a requirement. Once
you start doing orbital assembly, the growth path is trivial: if you need
more mass, you do more launches.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
Almost certainly, what you'd hit would not be solid bedrock, but what's
been dubbed "mega-regolith": much larger fractured pieces. The solid
bedrock is probably some distance down.

Is it impacts that produce this mega-regolith, or cracking from the heating
and cooling cycle as the Moon rotates?

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:45:10 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

However, it turns out that the amount of shoveling you have to do is
*greatly* reduced if you dig a trench first, rather than just plopping
the thing down on the flat surface.

One of those collapsed lava tubes would even save digging the trench
in the first place, when there is your very trench.

That could well be a better idea than putting your Moon Base in a lava
tube, when that saves the high cost of finding lava tubes and making
sure that they are structurally safe.

Just by clearing the regolith in the surrounding area, should
certainly have your base covered in no time.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:42:12 +0000, Cardman wrote:

Chuck Stewart wrote:

Hmmm... Which reminds me: anything resembling a lava tube ever
found?

Try this one for size...
http://www.nasm.edu/apollo/AS15/imag...5-87-11720.jpg

Ahah!

Hmmm... obviously artificial...

Cardman

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

In article ,
Sander Vesik wrote:
An orbiter with penetrating radar is what we really need to definitively
confirm all this.

Or have a rover follow it - if possible - this will also give you actual
information as to how the inside looks like and how likely you are actually
to be able to use it to build a base in.

That (or the manned equivalent) is what you want for closer examination of
any specific site, but the radar orbiter is preferable for surveying.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

In article ,
ed kyle wrote:
On the other hand, the [GD] plan's still-to-be-proven
long-term use of hydrogen fuel for lander and Earth
return propulsion, a key element for making this all
work, represents an unknown program risk.

There's no great issue with a hydrogen-fueled lander. There were serious
plans for such as Apollo followons. Hanging onto adequate amounts of
hydrogen for 2-3 days in space is not a big trick.

Using hydrogen for return propulsion, on the other hand, is a bit iffy.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:28:57 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

In article ,
Cardman wrote:
Remember, NASA isn't getting a lot of extra money for this one,

They should have 25 to 30 billion dollars to spend on this project...

That's mostly far-future money, and it makes rather optimistic assumptions
about the savings possible elsewhere in the budget.

Most of it comes from when the Shuttle and it's support systems are
scrapped from 2010 to 2013, which will start moving that $4.5 billion
a year into the CEV building phaze.

Before that time, then the biggest funding can be obtained from the
ISS, when of course the micro gravity experiments are now history.

Further funding is to be obtained by small reductions in NASA's other
large areas, which is really only the doubtful areas here.

The money NASA is getting for this effort *now* is quite modest,

Those ISS funds are a good start.

even assuming that Congress fully cooperates.

I do not see how Congress could object to the $1 billion increase
spread over the next five years, when this is only to keep NASA's
budget in line with inflation.

Then only possible reason why NASA would not get it would be if they
have spent too much already, but that would be the same as cutting
NASA's budget, which would highlight their lack of support.

Yes, but there is also the Moon problem.

The Moon problem is off under the next administration (even assuming
Bush gets re-elected).

I would be surprised if Bush gets re-elected, but then US voters can
make mistakes.

I cannot see that any future administration can much object to these
current exploration plans, when NASA is not really asking for any more
money to do them after all.

That is the one factor of why this plan actually has a chance of
actually working out, when no one can much object to the cost.

The EELV market should be serving NASA and not the other way around.

In principle, yes. In the real world, it is a political fait accompli
that there are two EELVs and that keeping both alive is a significant
priority of the US government.

Then the government had better find some 20 ton satellite projects in
order to launch on them, when this is really a case of use it or lose
it.

If they lose them, then that simply proves that there is no market for
them anyway.

...The answer to reducing their overheads is to develop a reusable
rocket, when then this costly hardware is being reused again and again.

True in principle, but NASA has proved singularly unable to do this
properly in practice. They tried that once, remember? More than once,
if you count the X-33 and X-34 debacles.

Then just call me a sucker in wanting to see them have one more shot
in making a reusable CEV and rocket. After all now they have very good
reasons in actually make it work out.

The technology to do this is just about here, which avoids one problem
area, where the other option of no manned spaceflight is not a viable
choice.

"It's very difficult to get cheaper by spending a lot of money, it's very
difficult to get more reliable by adding a lot of new stuff, and those are
the only things NASA knows how to do." -- Jeff Greason

Ah, but this is *new* NASA. :-]

NASA has the choice of spending lots of money in the short term on a
fully reusable system, or much more money over the long term on a
throw-away system.

The reliability issue here is solved by the design, when any engineer
will tell you that the CEV is sound enough.

The only main factor is your fixed overheads, where I can promise you
that a true RLV system just needing service people and fuel will
certainly cost much less than $150 million plus a flight.

Oh, I believe that, but what has this to do with NASA? NASA is *not*
going to get money to develop such a thing

NASA these days seems to pay for such things out of their existing
budget.

-- they've promised and failed too many times

Then let NASA have the CEV built first to prove that they can do it,
where with that evidence, then, and only then, can they can do their
reusable rocket.

-- and if they did get funding, they almost certainly wouldn't do it
right. NASA simply has no idea how to design things for cheap routine
operations; see above quote.

After seeing some of their former project designs I would tend to
agree, but NASA are now thinking capsule / rocket, which is certainly
a big step in the right direction.

My point is that NASA would have to be totally incompetent in order to
screw up this one, which would call into question the very nature of
this organization.

NASA may be far from perfect, but they should know by now how
important it is to get this one right.

...the Delta IV-H has just about been taken as far with upgrades as
this rocket can go, where the only real option to get a larger volume
of mass into orbit at once is a brand new rocket.

The key observation is that the "at once" part is not a requirement.

More importantly it limits your structural segments, when ISS modules
come in that shape, size and weight for just one reason, which is so
that they can fit in the Shuttle's cargo bay.

I don't know about you, but I can only foresee a cost saving to be had
if those ISS segments had been twice as large, requiring less modules
for the whole ISS, and resulting launches to build it.

Sure you can claim that they would still spend $4.5 billion a year on
Shuttle support even with less flights, but that won't be the case if
NASA uses EELVs.

Once you start doing orbital assembly, the growth path is trivial:
if you need more mass, you do more launches.

At $150 million plus each shot. You go down that route too often and
even the Shuttle could start to sound cheap.

As I said before the only factor here is how much it costs to move X
amount of mass per year. Launch costs, support costs, fuel costs,
repair costs and all the rest, when the only number that matters is
how much $$$ a lb.

Reusable rockets make sense, when you certainly would not throw away
your car after every trip to the local shop.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

Lunar surface geology

(Henry Spencer) wrote:
An orbiter with penetrating radar is what we really need to definitively
confirm all this.

There's been a real lack of unmanned lunar surface studies from orbit
over the last thirty years... Why?

For me, that will be one of the key indicators of whether the new
lunar program is serious or a stunt. Does it concentrate only on
manned flights, or is there an accompanying unmanned program?

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.