Back to the Moon on what? Saturn V, Magnum, Ares launcher, Shuttle Z

Back in 1962, there were essentially no viable launchers for payload
of the sizes we needed, even for EOR. So, if you are designing a
vehicle at that point, do you build one small or large? There is
essentially very little difference in the design time for developing
either launcher, but the smaller launcher would also require and
R&D program for assembly in orbit. Cheap and easy meant the fewest
developmental steps. These days, that means concentrating effort
on payload, not launcher technology.

I think one good option is to build a huge launcher that lifts a nuclear
powered Moon lander to Low Earth Orbit. The nuclear Moon lander is full fueled
and goes from Low Earth Orbit to the Moon's surface and back to Low Earth Orbit
again. Low Earth Orbit is the real Halfway Point. We want the Lander to be Big
so that it can operate on the Moon for a month or so before returning.
It is easier to assemble a nuclear reactor on Earth and lift it in one piece
than to build one in low Earth orbit.

Tom

*The* lander? Are we doing Apollo again?


The Lander flies from Low Earth Orbit, not Lunar Orbit, to the Moon's surface
and back. The heavy launcher merely lifts the nuclear lunar lander to Low Earth
Orbit. The lander itself can go the rest of the journey. Chemical rockets
should only be used to deliver it to low Earth Orbit and no further.

Tom

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:29:39 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

(TKalbfus) wrote:

So what will it be. Do we build new Saturn Vs, Magnum rockets, Ares launchers,
or Shuttle Zs?

Why not start from first principles and determine if LOR, EOR, or
something else entirely is the most logical methodology for the
planned mission, available resources, and probable constraints?

We went with the S-V last time because it was cheap and easy, not
because it made sense.

Saturn V was neither cheap nor easy. What it offered was the only
realistic chance of achieving Kennedy's deadline, and only then if
NASA adopted the high-risk "all up testing" process and LOR.

Brian

"TKalbfus" wrote in message
...
So what will it be. Do we build new Saturn Vs, Magnum rockets, Ares
launchers,
or Shuttle Zs?

no reason to rebuild a SV, as others have stated it was a "quick fix", not
the "best" solution. If you need havey lift, Proton or Delta IV are already
operational.

Haven't worked out the specs, but it seems like you'd only need a few ELV
launches, maybe one for the "CSM", one for the "LM", adn one for the "PAM"
(using the historical terms generically for basic function here), then a
couple shuttle flights to do the assembly (shouldn't be more complex than
the manual CSM/LM docking done in Apollo or mating the ISS modules), then
one flight for crew transfer to teh assembled stack. Assuming there are no
"gotchas" that come out of the RTF process, that sounds doable in about a
year based on contemporary flight rates.

I don't know enough about orbital mechanics to know what's involved in
slowing the returning modules into LEO. If it can be done easily enough,
then you just need another shuttle flight to rendezvous and transfer the
crew back home again. That part is really the only time-critical aspect, so
you damn well better be certain that you can get the retrieval shuttle
launched on time and that the "moonship" in LEO is reachable from KSC. The
other obvious alternative would be to aerobrake the CM/DM.

So most of the process is already doable and uses proven techniques (launch
components into LEO over time, dock them, check out, operate). The only
"biggies" would be the transfer orbit from LEO with spacecraft that have
been on orbit for months, and making sure you can rendezvous with the
returning crew if that's the plan.

--
Terrell Miller


People do not over-react. They react, by definition, appropriately to the
meaning a situation has for them. People have "over-meanings," not
"over-reactions."
- Martin L. Kutscher

TKalbfus wrote:
Back in 1962, there were essentially no viable launchers for payload
of the sizes we needed, even for EOR. So, if you are designing a
vehicle at that point, do you build one small or large? There is
essentially very little difference in the design time for developing
either launcher, but the smaller launcher would also require and
R&D program for assembly in orbit. Cheap and easy meant the fewest
developmental steps. These days, that means concentrating effort
on payload, not launcher technology.


I think one good option is to build a huge launcher that lifts a nuclear
powered Moon lander to Low Earth Orbit. The nuclear Moon lander is full fueled
and goes from Low Earth Orbit to the Moon's surface and back to Low Earth Orbit
again. Low Earth Orbit is the real Halfway Point. We want the Lander to be Big
so that it can operate on the Moon for a month or so before returning.
It is easier to assemble a nuclear reactor on Earth and lift it in one piece
than to build one in low Earth orbit.



For the past 20 years, the US has had a system that was essentially
a system of launching a temporary space station that had about 2 weeks
endurance. We'd launch one of these every few months, recover it, then
launch another. Don't see where it markedly made a difference in terms
of permament manned presense in orbit over another system that just
ferried crew to a long term station.

The goal is permament presence. Not a series of temporary stations.
While there is a utility in what you suggest, it is only a niche
utility vehicle.

"Mike Rhino" wrote:

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
(TKalbfus) wrote:

So what will it be. Do we build new Saturn Vs, Magnum rockets, Ares
launchers, or Shuttle Zs?

Why not start from first principles and determine if LOR, EOR, or
something else entirely is the most logical methodology for the
planned mission, available resources, and probable constraints?

That's what this newsgroup is for.

In theory. In fact there has been to this point little discussion of
mission and profile, and extensive drooling over going back to the
moon and developing huge new boosters.

Stopping halfway involves overhead and we would need big boosters
to put something at the halfway point.

Not really, not if you go with orbital assembly and refueling. In
this instance more modest boosters will answer the need.

We went with the S-V last time because it was cheap and easy, not
because it made sense.

Doesn't cheap and easy make sense?

Sometimes. Sometimes not.

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.

(TKalbfus) wrote:

We went with the S-V last time because it was cheap and easy, not
because it made sense.


Cheap and easy are what get the mission accomplished.

If your mission is flags 'n footprints, I agree. However, if that is
to be the mission, let's abandon it now.

Expensive and hard may lead to an abandoned project.

Better abandoned and half done right than a completed remake of
something done nearly forty years ago. All flags 'n footprints will
do is lead to temporary chest puffing, and leaving actually *worse*
off than we are now.

The ISS is an example of the opposite of the Apollo program.

LOL. If the situation were so simply black and white, you'd have a
point. But it isn't. There is nothing intrinsically expensive or
difficult about building a station with the capabilities of ISS.
(These things are relative of course.) Tie it however to a
questionable booster design, partners of variable quality, tie it down
with bureaucracy, and rescope it a dozen times...

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.

Brian Thorn wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:29:39 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

(TKalbfus) wrote:

So what will it be. Do we build new Saturn Vs, Magnum rockets, Ares launchers,
or Shuttle Zs?

Why not start from first principles and determine if LOR, EOR, or
something else entirely is the most logical methodology for the
planned mission, available resources, and probable constraints?

We went with the S-V last time because it was cheap and easy, not
because it made sense.

Saturn V was neither cheap nor easy.

Compared to Nova, or some of the EOR schemes, it certainly was.

What it offered was the only realistic chance of achieving Kennedy's
deadline, and only then if NASA adopted the high-risk "all up testing"
process and LOR.

What it offered was a cheaper and easier way to accomplish the
mission, *compared to the alternatives*.

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.

(TKalbfus) wrote:

I was 2 years old when the first landed men on the Moon. I'm now 36, and I'm
all out of patience for doing it the "slow and sure" way.

I see. You want your entertainment like you want your pizza, in half
an hour or it's free.

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.

"Null Set" wrote in
news:LhIAb.453045$Tr4.1254564@attbi_s03:

As far as the plans for the Saturn V go, does NASA actually have them?

Yes, they're on microfilm (or microfiche, I forget which) in the MSFC
archives. What has been lost is the production tooling, and the expertise
needed to operate them.

My guess is that if NASA goes back to the moon, it'll take at least as
much time and 2-3 times as much money (even corrected for inflation)
as it did the first time.

Apollo cost $90 billion, adjusting for inflation. Do you *really* think a
return to the moon will cost $180-270 billion?

I think it
needs to be a joint mission with other countries

The ISS experience suggests that this will drive costs up, not down.

and that we should
look at some of the Russian heavy lift capabilities, perhaps even
mixing and matching platforms depending on what needs to be lifted
where and when.

You need to define what you mean by "heavy lift" here. Russia's largest
launcher is the Proton, and its payload to LEO is less than the Delta 4-
Heavy.

--
JRF

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