|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Lunar Transport System Components
What components need to make up the lunar transport architecture?
One thing I'm not too sure of is the difference between OSP and CEV. Is CEV just be an enhancement of OSP? Assuming we rely on the current range of heavy launchers like Delta IV large, which have a capacity to LEO of 20-25 tons, then initial components could be as below. I haven't followed through the rocket equations to work out exact masses. 1. OSP – This would launch about 4 astronauts to Low Earth Orbit for rendezvous with the ISS or other low Earth Orbit stations. This should mass about 6 tons max, but ideally lower. (Actually it's not needed for the moon program) 2. CEV – This would be an extension of the OSP. Perhaps housing 3 crew in the same structure. It would also have an added heat shield, and a disposable or integrated (in a "stretched" version?) service module. A Delta IV large should be able to put this into a lunar orbit. 3. Lunar Transfer Rocket – This would mass 20-25 tons and be launchable to Low Earth Orbit by a Delta IV Large or equivalent. It would be a low cost disposable rocket able to transport about 20 tons from LEO to Lunar Orbit. The most common cargo would be the Lunar Lander. 4. Lunar Lander – this would mass about 20 tons in total, including a 10 ton cargo capability. Initial versions would be for descent only, and would use semi storable propellants (LOX / Kerosene?). Later versions could be refuelled on the moon and reused. The Lunar Lander would land either a ten-ton cargo, or the lunar launcher. An initial cargo would be a transhab type housing unit. The Lunar slander should also have the capability to work in tandem with a second unit to land 20 ton cargos on the moon. 5. Lunar Launcher – This would mass about 10 tons and be landed on the surface by a Lunar Lander. It would contain room for 3 crew and would be able to launch them (plus a small cargo) to rendezvous with the CEV. It would use storable propellants for extended stays (later versions would use LOX from the moon). The Lander / Launcher / CEV combination is very much like the Apollo combination, except for the fact that the Lander can be used without the launcher to deposit cargos. This would enable the landing of 10-ton modules, or the landing and returning of a crew of 3, with the use of 2 current HLVs such as Delta IV large. If we assume one cargo and one crew delivery every six months, that would need 8 launches per year. Astronautix gives Delta IV Large launch cost of $170 million, so the launch budget for this kind of operation would be $1.4 billion per year – trivial compared to the overall budget. Launches will need to be in pairs (Lunar Transfer Vehicle) plus other unit, or at least they would need to be launched very close together. However, a price-based contract for 16 launches every two years would significantly reduce the cost of these launches. Later components would include a solar or nuclear electric orbital transfer vehicle, reusable Landers, Landers able to act in groups of 4 to land 40-ton payloads. Alex |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Lunar Transport System Components
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Lunar Transport System Components
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Lunar Transport System Components
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Lunar Transport System Components
"ed kyle" wrote in message m...
If it had a third stage, a Delta IV-H could probably only put about 5.5 tons into lunar orbit. Apollo CSM mass in lunar orbit was about 22 tons (all but 6 or so tons was propellant). CEV is likely to be in the CSM mass range. No, that's just the Service module. The Command module was another 6t. The CSM was about 30t of mass, 18t of which fuel for the return to Earth. And the lunar lander was another 15t, 10t of which was fuel for Lunar descent and ascent. -- __ "A good leader knows when it's best to ignore the __ ('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture." '__`) //6(6; ©OOL mmiv :^)^\\ `\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/' |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Lunar Transport System Components
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Lunar Transport System Components
"Ool" wrote in message ...
"ed kyle" wrote in message m... If it had a third stage, a Delta IV-H could probably only put about 5.5 tons into lunar orbit. Apollo CSM mass in lunar orbit was about 22 tons (all but 6 or so tons was propellant). CEV is likely to be in the CSM mass range. No, that's just the Service module. The Command module was another 6t. The CSM was about 30t of mass, 18t of which fuel for the return to Earth. And the lunar lander was another 15t, 10t of which was fuel for Lunar descent and ascent. The 22 ton number was the mass after the lunar orbit insertion burn, which used up about 8-ish tons of propellant. I had to figure that number in order to compare with the Delta IV-H lunar orbit number. CSM mass (for Apollo 17) was 30.3 tons prior to the insertion burn, broken down as follows: CM: 5.8 tons SM dry: 6.1 tons SM prop: 18.4 tons ------------------- Total 30.3 tons - Ed Kyle |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Lunar Transport System Components
Brian Thorn wrote in message . ..
On 5 Feb 2004 13:20:22 -0800, (ed kyle) wrote: The recently-announced $1 billion EELV budget infusion from the US Air Force means that the per-launch cost is more likely to be *$250 million*. The Air Force upped its 2005-2009 EELV budget to $5 billion ($1 billion per year). During that period, an average of perhaps 4 EELV launches are planned each year. Thus the $250 million per launch number. I'm not really sure how you arrive at that figure, since various versions of EELVs are planned for launch throughout that time period. How did you decide which were EELV-Mediums and which were EELV-Heavy's, for example? Obviously, a Delta IV-Medium is not $250 million per flight. Delta and Atlas aren't exactly the same cost per flight, either. The Air Force is mostly paying to keep the rocket factories and launch sites operational. The total cost isn't going to vary much with the number of launches, at least for the existing low flight rate, because the same number of people will be employed regardless. The contractors will break out the man-hours and materials for each rocket, of course, and bill more for the bigger rockets. And I think 4 per year is low, anyway. That is the schedule right now. Actually, the average is a bit less than four per year for both EELVs combined. It seems the U.S. got sold a bill of goods on EELV, No, I think you're forgetting that EELV was supposed to result in *one* replacement for both Atlas and Titan, not two. The Air Force shot itself in the foot by deciding to fund *both* EELV entries, cutting the potential flight rate for each in half, and driving up costs. I agree with you on this. We've got two financially shaky systems that have to be propped up with extra funding instead of one potentially financially healthy system. When it comes to national defense, however, financials seem to be less important than other factors. EELV was a very good investment, we just need to get rid of one of them. I think we're stuck with Boeing. I think that if the Air Force had to choose one right now, they would go with Atlas - partly because of the Boeing scandal, partly because Lockheed-Martin has a longer space-launch history with the military. - Ed Kyle |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Lunar Transport System Components
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
System to monitor heat panels could safeguard future spacecraft (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 15th 04 06:14 PM |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |
Lunar base and space manufacturing books for sale | Martin Bayer | Space Shuttle | 0 | May 1st 04 04:57 PM |
Project Constellation Questions | Space Cadet | Space Shuttle | 128 | March 21st 04 01:17 AM |
Arecibo Radar Shows No Evidence of Thick Ice At Lunar Poles | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | November 12th 03 06:02 PM |