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

"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...
Mike Rhino wrote:
"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...

TKalbfus wrote:

None of the above.

A launcher in the 25,000kg payload to LEO and then design
around Earth Orbit Rendevous.


Or how about standing up 4 of these launchers side by side on the
launch

pad

and lash them together so they can lift a 100 tone payload to orbit?


That is an extra development layer. Not really that necessary.


Earth orbit rendevous means lingering in orbit for a while exposed to

space

junk while your waiting to get the other pieces up. You have to put

pieces A,

B, C, and D together. What if there is something wrong with piece B,

that only

becomes apparent once it reaches orbit? A, C, and D are just fine, so

they wait

in orbit, getting exposed to more space junk while a replacement for be

is

assembled and another launcher is built to launch it. The comes the

process of

assembly.

Umm. Assembly is just for the transfer vehicles. Everything going to
the moon for the moon is nothing but payload until it reaches the moon.
The transfer vehicle can be assembled with only a few flights. The main
thing is that the transfer vehicle be reusable which means fewer
flights than with a system using one-launcher per trip to the moon.
There is very little reason for a direct throw to the Moon if you can
cut down the expenses of getting to LEO.


Does a transfer vehicle fly in a figure 8 orbit or does it expend fuel
to
get from LEO to the moon, expend more fuel to slow down to lunar orbital
speed, expend more fuel to reach Earth, and then expend fuel to slow
down to
LEO orbital speed? Is that more efficient? An expendable ship can use
air
braking, but a reusable transfer vehicle can't. Does a transfer vehicle
land on the moon? In order to reach LEO, astronauts would have to be in
something. Why not send that something all the way to the moon?

What makes you think a reusable can't use aerobraking?

Perhaps I misunderstand where your transfer vehicle goes. Where does it go?

If you build something that goes from the Earth to the Moon in oneshot,
then you have to build a vehicle that is operational in all phases.

There is not much difference between travelling in LEO and travelling to the
moon. The only places where you might want a different type of vehicle is
during landings and takeoffs.

So,
the vehicle travelling between the Earth and the Moon would have to
include all the aerodynamic pieces.

What aerodynamic pieces?

For 99.9% of it's time, it would
be somewhere where is it lifting a lot of deadweight. That is a lot
less efficient fuelwise than designing against the specific flight
regimes.

Any vehicle that can handle LEO orbit can handle travelling to the moon if
it has sufficient fuel. Landing on the moon is a different matter.

You may be advocating developing OSP and then going to the moon with
that.
I'm advocating not developing OSP and instead developing something that
flies straight to the moon. If the plan is to send many astronauts to
LEO
orbit and 2 to the moon, then the OSP route is more efficient. My plan
is
the opposite of that. I would like to concentrate on the moon and
pretty
much abandon LEO. If a lunar program is more than flags and footprints,
then the cost of developing a new booster should be trivial.


Who said anything about OSP? OSP is just a specific vehicle. The Moon
program is a program. The program uses the specific tools available.

We have no tools available. The shuttle is going to be discontinued and OSP
hasn't been built yet. We are back at square one like we were in 1960.

The question is whether it can do it's tasks with existing launchers
and capabilities. There is nothing inherent in going to the Moon, or any
other body, the dictates an HLV of Saturn capacity.

It's possible to use Mazda Miata's for a camping trip, but it's not easy.
We want the right tools. If a big booster is more efficient, then let's go
that route.

It is possible launch fuel into orbit and use it to refuel a ship. It
is
also possible to launch fuel with the ship. Either way, you have to
launch
fuel. Would one way be more efficient than the other?

The one that moves the least deadweight over the flight regime. It will
take far more fuel to move all the aerodynamic materials to and from the
Moon than concentrating on the specific radically different flight
regimes.

After the mission, you are heading back to Earth at a high rate of speed.
How do you plan to stop?

Can you think of a reason that somethign travelling from LEO to the
Moon would require a parachute?

With the Apollo missions, the parachute didn't land on the moon. It stayed
in orbit around the moon.

Or aerodynamic control surfaces? Why
factor that weight into something that does not need it?

"Terrell Miller" wrote in
:

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.

Aerobraking from a lunar return trajectory to LEO is not significantly less
stressful than direct reentry to the ground. So just do that, and skip the
needless complexities of a retrieval shuttle.


--
JRF

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

Suppose that we can produce aluminum fuel or some other fuel on the moon.
In that case, it would make sense to have one ship that goes straight from
Earth to Lunar orbit and a second ship that goes up and down to the moon's
surface. This would imply landing robots long before we land humans to get
the lunar fuel production up and running.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:29:39 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

(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.

No, we did it because it was the highest-probability means of beating
the Russians. It probably wasn't the cheapest way to go.

On 07 Dec 2003 15:23:41 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(TKalbfus) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

All this is not going to happen. What is needed is a completely new
concept to get to the Moon.


Why, the object is to get to the Moon, not to revolutionize space travel.

We don't know what the object is.

Mike Rhino wrote:
"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...

Mike Rhino wrote:

"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...


TKalbfus wrote:


None of the above.

A launcher in the 25,000kg payload to LEO and then design
around Earth Orbit Rendevous.




This is what I am talking about. a launcher system in the 25,000kg
range for the Earth surface to LEO. Then, a second vehicle to transport
from LEO to the Moon and back.


Or how about standing up 4 of these launchers side by side on the

launch

pad


and lash them together so they can lift a 100 tone payload to orbit?


That is an extra development layer. Not really that necessary.



Earth orbit rendevous means lingering in orbit for a while exposed to

space


junk while your waiting to get the other pieces up. You have to put

pieces A,


B, C, and D together. What if there is something wrong with piece B,

that only


becomes apparent once it reaches orbit? A, C, and D are just fine, so

they wait


in orbit, getting exposed to more space junk while a replacement for be

is


assembled and another launcher is built to launch it. The comes the

process of


assembly.

Umm. Assembly is just for the transfer vehicles. Everything going to
the moon for the moon is nothing but payload until it reaches the moon.
The transfer vehicle can be assembled with only a few flights. The main
thing is that the transfer vehicle be reusable which means fewer
flights than with a system using one-launcher per trip to the moon.
There is very little reason for a direct throw to the Moon if you can
cut down the expenses of getting to LEO.


Does a transfer vehicle fly in a figure 8 orbit or does it expend fuel

to

get from LEO to the moon, expend more fuel to slow down to lunar orbital
speed, expend more fuel to reach Earth, and then expend fuel to slow

down to

LEO orbital speed? Is that more efficient? An expendable ship can use

air

braking, but a reusable transfer vehicle can't. Does a transfer vehicle
land on the moon? In order to reach LEO, astronauts would have to be in
something. Why not send that something all the way to the moon?

What makes you think a reusable can't use aerobraking?


Perhaps I misunderstand where your transfer vehicle goes. Where does it go?


See above.


If you build something that goes from the Earth to the Moon in oneshot,
then you have to build a vehicle that is operational in all phases.


There is not much difference between travelling in LEO and travelling to the
moon. The only places where you might want a different type of vehicle is
during landings and takeoffs.


There is a huge, huge difference between atmospheric flight and LEO
and further out. From what you wrote, I thought you were referring to
single vehicle from Earth launch outwards. That would include a lot of
material present in the vehicle in each phase that is essentially
nothing but deadweight because it is designed for a different part of
the flight regime.

The aspect I am looking at is the whole system. Cargo starts at the
Cape. How does it get to the moon? A single throw? transfer? I am
of the opinion that transfer is a much more viable option now that there
are so many different launchers available now in useful sizes, which
was not the case when Apollo was designed.


So,
the vehicle travelling between the Earth and the Moon would have to
include all the aerodynamic pieces.


What aerodynamic pieces?


Are you referring to a vehicle that starts at the ground as a single
throw? And then return? If that is the case, then it has to deal with
all the structure required to handle the aerodynamic loading of it's
launch. You can shed parts. But, is it really necessary to sink a lot
of money into an HLV to throw stuff at the Moon when there are now
options?


For 99.9% of it's time, it would
be somewhere where is it lifting a lot of deadweight. That is a lot
less efficient fuelwise than designing against the specific flight
regimes.


Any vehicle that can handle LEO orbit can handle travelling to the moon if
it has sufficient fuel. Landing on the moon is a different matter.


eh? You're talking about a different part of the flight. I am
referring to the first leg from earth surface to LEO.


You may be advocating developing OSP and then going to the moon with

that.

I'm advocating not developing OSP and instead developing something that
flies straight to the moon. If the plan is to send many astronauts to

LEO

orbit and 2 to the moon, then the OSP route is more efficient. My plan

is

the opposite of that. I would like to concentrate on the moon and

pretty

much abandon LEO. If a lunar program is more than flags and footprints,
then the cost of developing a new booster should be trivial.


Who said anything about OSP? OSP is just a specific vehicle. The Moon
program is a program. The program uses the specific tools available.


We have no tools available. The shuttle is going to be discontinued and OSP
hasn't been built yet. We are back at square one like we were in 1960.



? We have multiple launchers in the 10,000kg to 25,000kg range that
have decades of design behind them. Engines that have been in service
for 40+ years and a lot of trained people familiar with the design of
zero-gravity, life support, and pretty much anything across the board
compared to 1960 when we had nothing. For that matter, hiring a vehicle
for a manned flight is entirely possible now. You're only focussing in
on the very narrow focus of two specific programs without grasping that
personel is just another payload.



The question is whether it can do it's tasks with existing launchers
and capabilities. There is nothing inherent in going to the Moon, or any
other body, the dictates an HLV of Saturn capacity.


It's possible to use Mazda Miata's for a camping trip, but it's not easy.
We want the right tools. If a big booster is more efficient, then let's go
that route.


Why? It isn't noticably more efficient. In fact, it is a detriment as
it will likely be the only launch platform available for a lot of the
items designed to match it's housing. If you find a systemic flaw, or
are grounded because of an accident investigation, what are the
alternatives? Generic payload packaging. Standardized mountpoints.
Multiple launcher families capable of handling the cargo. Those will
go farther in developing space than any individual vehicle family.


It is possible launch fuel into orbit and use it to refuel a ship. It

is

also possible to launch fuel with the ship. Either way, you have to

launch

fuel. Would one way be more efficient than the other?

The one that moves the least deadweight over the flight regime. It will
take far more fuel to move all the aerodynamic materials to and from the
Moon than concentrating on the specific radically different flight
regimes.


After the mission, you are heading back to Earth at a high rate of speed.
How do you plan to stop?


heat shield. what else? That is a necessary requirement. But, what
is not necessary are all the items that are required for the launch
aspects from Earth.


Can you think of a reason that somethign travelling from LEO to the
Moon would require a parachute?


With the Apollo missions, the parachute didn't land on the moon. It stayed
in orbit around the moon.


Wrong phase again. I am countering the launch from earth to the moon
direct and back position stated by Thomas. A parachute is just as silly
in lunar orbit as on the moon itself.

Put another way, to what extent does direct return impact the vehicle
structure over the whole if it's mission, not just any specific phase of
it? That parachute mentioned above required a certain amount of
structure, control mechanisms, and fuel to be moved all the way through
the flight. Same applies for everything else taken along. And, the thing
is this. Saturn V was appropriate for the level of mission being flown.
And, something of the same size would pretty much have roughly the same
capabilities. The only way to increase capacity in the Moon is to fly
more flights carrying more cargo. So, take your pick on *how* you want
to assemble. But, there isn't any real question that the next phase
will require assembly. And, a transfer vehicle built in LEO can handle
the same payload as the Saturn V could have thrown, so there isn't
any real gain in doing a lot of R&D on an HLV. They have a choice.
They can do R&D on a system that will allow them to go from the Earth,
to LEO, to the Moon, and back. Or, they can do R&D on a system that will
take them from LEO, to the Moon, and back. One has fewer design regimes.
Assembly can, at least, leverage off ISS skills. And, they are already
sinking costs into a recovery system. Be kinda pointless to bypass
costs already sunk and accounted for in development. The biggest
weakness in space development is the bizarre desire to build a new
vehicle without doing a benefit analysis of using existing systems.


Or aerodynamic control surfaces? Why
factor that weight into something that does not need it?

"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...
Mike Rhino wrote:
"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...

Mike Rhino wrote:

"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...


TKalbfus wrote:


None of the above.

A launcher in the 25,000kg payload to LEO and then design
around Earth Orbit Rendevous.




This is what I am talking about. a launcher system in the 25,000kg
range for the Earth surface to LEO. Then, a second vehicle to transport
from LEO to the Moon and back.

You could dock with the ship in LEO or lunar orbit. Is there some reason
for preferring LEO? It means hauling lunar landing gear back and forth,
unless you plan to have a third ship.

If you have very long duration missions, like 2, 5, or 10 years, you don't
have to launch return stuff with the launching ships. If we launch a lot of
robots and machinery, then there may be a lot of one way flights.

The way I would do things is to build the lunar base first before sending
humans. There may be 10 or 15 flights before humans are sent.

Perhaps I misunderstand where your transfer vehicle goes. Where does it
go?


See above.


If you build something that goes from the Earth to the Moon in oneshot,
then you have to build a vehicle that is operational in all phases.


There is not much difference between travelling in LEO and travelling to
the
moon. The only places where you might want a different type of vehicle
is
during landings and takeoffs.


There is a huge, huge difference between atmospheric flight and LEO
and further out.

I was imagining Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo capsules which didn't look very
aerodynamic in orbit. There is no difference between LEO, high Earth orbit,
and lunar orbit, except for the Van Allen belts. Any ship that can handle
one can handle the others. What is it that a Gemini capsule would have that
your transfer vehicle wouldn't? You mentioned the parachute. It sounds
like your transfer vehicle would need heat shields.

From what you wrote, I thought you were referring to
single vehicle from Earth launch outwards. That would include a lot of
material present in the vehicle in each phase that is essentially
nothing but deadweight because it is designed for a different part of
the flight regime.

The aspect I am looking at is the whole system. Cargo starts at the
Cape. How does it get to the moon? A single throw? transfer? I am
of the opinion that transfer is a much more viable option now that there
are so many different launchers available now in useful sizes, which
was not the case when Apollo was designed.


. . .

The question is whether it can do it's tasks with existing launchers
and capabilities. There is nothing inherent in going to the Moon, or any
other body, the dictates an HLV of Saturn capacity.


It's possible to use Mazda Miata's for a camping trip, but it's not
easy.
We want the right tools. If a big booster is more efficient, then let's
go
that route.


Why? It isn't noticably more efficient. In fact, it is a detriment as
it will likely be the only launch platform available for a lot of the
items designed to match it's housing. If you find a systemic flaw, or
are grounded because of an accident investigation, what are the
alternatives? Generic payload packaging. Standardized mountpoints.
Multiple launcher families capable of handling the cargo. Those will
go farther in developing space than any individual vehicle family.


It is possible launch fuel into orbit and use it to refuel a ship. It

is

also possible to launch fuel with the ship. Either way, you have to

launch

fuel. Would one way be more efficient than the other?

The one that moves the least deadweight over the flight regime. It will
take far more fuel to move all the aerodynamic materials to and from the
Moon than concentrating on the specific radically different flight
regimes.


After the mission, you are heading back to Earth at a high rate of
speed.
How do you plan to stop?


heat shield. what else? That is a necessary requirement. But, what
is not necessary are all the items that are required for the launch
aspects from Earth.

Now your reusable transfer vehicle has a heat shield and aerodynamic
properties needed to use a heat shield. It has 80% of what it needs to
land. Why make a big deal about the parachute? Why waste time docking with
something when you can land it directly?

Can you think of a reason that somethign travelling from LEO to the
Moon would require a parachute?


With the Apollo missions, the parachute didn't land on the moon. It
stayed
in orbit around the moon.


Wrong phase again. I am countering the launch from earth to the moon
direct and back position stated by Thomas. A parachute is just as silly
in lunar orbit as on the moon itself.

Put another way, to what extent does direct return impact the vehicle
structure over the whole if it's mission, not just any specific phase of
it? That parachute mentioned above required a certain amount of
structure, control mechanisms, and fuel to be moved all the way through
the flight. Same applies for everything else taken along. And, the thing
is this. Saturn V was appropriate for the level of mission being flown.
And, something of the same size would pretty much have roughly the same
capabilities. The only way to increase capacity in the Moon is to fly
more flights carrying more cargo. So, take your pick on *how* you want
to assemble. But, there isn't any real question that the next phase
will require assembly. And, a transfer vehicle built in LEO can handle
the same payload as the Saturn V could have thrown, so there isn't
any real gain in doing a lot of R&D on an HLV. They have a choice.
They can do R&D on a system that will allow them to go from the Earth,
to LEO, to the Moon, and back. Or, they can do R&D on a system that will
take them from LEO, to the Moon, and back.

No matter what option we choose, there will be R&D. I envision a fairly
large lunar program where R&D is only a fraction of total cost. It is
better to spend money on R&D and do the project right instead of trying to
cut corners on R&D.

One has fewer design regimes.
Assembly can, at least, leverage off ISS skills.

Which haven't been very impressive thus far.

And, they are already
sinking costs into a recovery system. Be kinda pointless to bypass
costs already sunk and accounted for in development.

What recovery system?

The biggest
weakness in space development is the bizarre desire to build a new
vehicle without doing a benefit analysis of using existing systems.

We don't have a lunar vehicle.

"Mike Rhino" wrote:

It's possible to use Mazda Miata's for a camping trip, but it's not easy.
We want the right tools. If a big booster is more efficient, then let's go
that route.

The problem is, before you can measure 'efficiency', you need to
determine what metric you are going to measure 'efficiency' in, and
whether or not that's a valid metric for the judgement at hand.

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

I've seen one concept mooted in the past (by Buzz Aldrin, I believe) for
Mars missions - a permanent station in a "cycler" orbit between Earth's
and Mars's orbits. Could this concept be applicable to a Moon landing?

What I'm thinking is - there is one unmanned heavy lift (Saturn V class,
possible Shuttle C/Z/Magnum) to throw a well equipped station to a
cycling orbit (difficulties in adjusting the orbital parameters on every
orbit to ensure that it goes past the Moon every time are hereby airily
handwaved away :-) )

There is a second similar heavy lift to throw a smaller station out to
the Moon to enter a lunar orbit. This station starts with a number of
lunar landers attached. Said landers are (if possible) single stage
lunar orbit-lunar surface-lunar orbit capable, and able to be refuelled
at the lunar station.

Required refuelling for the two stations and resupplying for all upkeep
and maintenance can be launched by unmanned launchers as required.

Mission profile - Astronauts launch on Shuttle, 'piggybacking' on
another mission to save costs (i.e. another mission would be going up
anyway, add the lunar astronauts to the manifest - much juggling of
resources may be required to make this work). Either from ISS (although
high orbital inclination may make it a bugger to use to get to the
cycler) or out of the payload bay of the shuttle, the lunar astronauts
depart for the cycler using a very stripped down vehicle - essentially a
motorcycle of space - a rocket motor, fuel, control system and seats.
Cabin is an optional extra - they may be suited up and sitting outside.
This should save a lot on dry mass of the vehicle.

They rendezvous with the cycler and go inside. The 'motorcycle' is
refuelled and turned around ready for use again, using supplies at the
cycler station (sent there by unmanned launchers). Upkeep of cycler is
undertaken over the next three or so days, until the time comes to leave
again.

They use the 'motorcycle' to rendezvous with the lunar station. They
sevice one of the landers as required, ensure that it is fuelled,
transfer to the lander, and descend to the surface.

They return from the surface and dock with the lunar station. The
service the lander as necessary and refuel it from supplies sent from
the Earth (ion propulsion may be used to send supplies out to the Moon).
(Are there any conceivable fuels that can be produced on the Moon which
may be used for the lander?).
They use the 'motorcycle' again to transfer back to the cycler and from
that to the Shuttle/ISS. Return to Earth using Shuttle (on the next
available mission).

Problem areas:

-Frequent orbital adjustment of cycler.

-Orbital adjustment of lunar station in orbit around Moon (I believe
that there are no long-term stable lunar orbits that may be used).

-Frequent passages of cycler through Van Allen Belts - would the
radiation levels incurred over multiple passes be a show-stopper here?

-Use of several new vehicles

-Use of multiple rendezvous - every extra one adding an extra failure mode

-Extremely hairy abort scenarios at multiple points

Advantages:

-Specific vehicles used for each flight domain
-Incremental cost per mission is kept to a minimum (if we can put the
Shuttle launches down as sunk costs, arguing that it would be going up
anyway - we're just piggybacking on existing missions)


Is this kind of concept doable, or am I up too late tonight?

--
Andy Cooke

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

If we are going to do it right I figure about 10 years of unmanned probes
first.
That can be accomplished with existing rockets, maybe with some solar
thermal or ion/plasma drives for the actual trip to the Moon.

If we are willing to use multiple launches and RL-10 based orbital/landing
rockets we can cut mass a lot from the old Apollo version but I would not
want to really on more then two launches for the people.
So IMO we would still want something a little bigger for the manned portion
then we currently have.

I would guess something based on a cross of existing designs.
The old NLS and Starlifter comes to mind 2 Shuttle solids, 2 Atlas or Delta
engines, 1-2 MB-60s or RL-60s for a second stage and a RL-10 or a solar
thermal engine for the third. Almost all the technology already exists.

The best part is by the time we have flown it a few time we should also need
a rocket that big for spy satellites and large communication satellites