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

In article , Stephen Souter wrote:

Back in 1962, there were essentially no viable launchers for payload
of the sizes we needed, even for EOR.

Wasn't Von Braun already developing the Saturn line by that stage?

It was the *chosen* method by that point, in fact.

The Saturn C-4 was selected as the chosen method for either EOR or LOR
in December 1961; at some point in the decision, an extra F-1 was added
to the design for insurance and we got the C-5. This was announced early
1962.

It didn't exist at that point, mind you, but it was underway :-)

--
-Andrew Gray

In article , Rand Simberg wrote:

On the other hand, if building a station "with the capabilities of ISS"
was intrinsically INexpensive (relatively speaking) one might reasonably
expect half a dozen to now be sitting either in Earth orbit or at least
on the drawing boards for launch in the not-too-distance future.

Who would have paid for them?

No one who actually wanted to build a space station could afford it.

He did stipulate "intrinsically inexpensive"... which presumably means
it might be closer to affordable.

Hmm. However, even if it's affordable for BoeingHilton Inc. to put that
oft-talked-of hotel in orbit, getting to it is still a right bugger;
you're rapidly going to deplete the supply of millionaires with $20m in
their back pocket even if you can persuade Russia to assist.

The government wanted to have a space station program, but whether or
not a space station ever actually got built was secondary, as long as
jobs were created/preserved, and we had lots of international
cooperation.

Or lots of international prestige. Depends which government you're
talking about ;-)

--
-Andrew Gray

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

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.



Well, reasons for preferring LEO:

1) Allows for an infrastructure buildup that is leveragable into other
mission architectures, such as to asteriods and Mars.

2) LEO itself is a destination point with discernable cashflow
potential.

3) LEO assembly, as opposed to direct-throw, has the potential to be
scalable to higher payload.

4) Lunar orbit is inherently unstable.

I was envisioning something that would use lunar rocket fuel to take off
from the moon when needed, dock with another ship and then return to the
moon. It wouldn't stay in lunar orbit. If lunar rocket fuel is highly
efficient, then it could fly all the way to LEO. If not, then lunar orbit
may be the best we can do. For rocket fuel from Earth, I would prefer to
launch that with the ship that is going to the moon.

"Andy Cooke" wrote in message
...
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 :-) )

Possibly. The idea is more useful for Mars than the moon. I see a Martian
ship as being huge. It makes sense to leave Earth on a small ship, switch
to a bigger ship and then switch to a small lander. It only takes 3 days to
reach the moon. Anything that can survive 3 days in LEO can survive the 3
day journey to the moon. If your design requirements are not different for
the two ships, then there may be no point in switching. Any ship travelling
with a cycler has already expended enough rocket fuel to reach the cycler's
destination.

If there is a lot of traffic between the Earth and the moon, then it makes
sense for ships heading down to swap momentum with ships heading up. That
can be done with tethers.

Yes, but Apollo had a "before this decade is out' deadline, *and* the
desire to do it before the Soviets. Time was more important than cost
and ease.

Haven't you ever heard that Time is Money? Sure we can go to the Moon very
cheaply if we enact a 100 year program to develop the technology to get there
on the one hundreth year, but why. If its all the same to you, I'd rather see
progress in my lifetime. I'd like to see people walking on the Moon and Mars.
When progress is very slow, its hard to tell the difference between progress
and procrastination.

Tom

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.


Cheap and Easy compared to what? There were alot of things that were harder
than sending people to the Moon. You seem to think that there is a cheap and
easy way to get to the Moon, well if your so smart then by all means go to the
Moon, but you have yet to prove your case. the burden of proof is on you. The
only proven way to get to the Moon is the way we got to the Moon.

Tom

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"

The one change I would make is to eliminate the Command Module. There is no
reason to have one. A single moonship should be able to go from low Earth orbit
to the Moon's surface and back to Earth all in a single stage. There is no
reason not to use nuclear propulsion in space.

Tom

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.

To accomplish what? Just to check the boxes and say we did it? Seems to me
that's just a delaying tactic.

Tom

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

We don't know what the object is.


If you want to go to the Moon, you develop the technologies to get to the Moon,
this may include cheaper access to space, but I think the most important first
step is to get to the moon, and then allow private enterprise a chance to
improve the cislunar transportation system. Trying to find the best possible
means of getting there before going is folly, its an excuse for not going.
When Henry Ford build his Model T, he didn't try to build the best possible
car, he build one that was good enough and the improvements came later. We have
to decide what is "good enough" for getting to the Moon first, and not worry
that there might be some better way that we have not tried.

Tom

In other words what you envisage would be a combination of Apollo's CSM
plus LM in the one vehicle (with I guess The Lander's equivalent of the
SM engine uprated to give The Lander the necessary boost out of Earth
orbit which the Saturn third stage gave Apollo).

--
Stephen Souter

Yep, one vehicle starts from low Earth Orbit and does the whole Lunar Mission.
this makes the most sense to me. Command modules really aren't necessary. We
just need a more efficient rocket engine that is capable of landing and taking
off from the Moon's surface and returning to Earth.
A nuclear Nerva Rocket might be capable of doing this.
Alternatively, the Nerva rocket might be used to get to the Moon and land on
its surface, the reactor would then break down lunar rocks to extract oxygen to
be combusted with stored hydrogen to blast-off from the Lunar surface and
return to Earth. The reactor could be ejected on the way to Earth along with
its nuclear waste. The lunar lander alone uses fuel cells for the rest of the
journey, the reactor misses the Earth and is perhaps send on a journey to some
disposal site where it can never hit the Earth. The lander could then reenter
the Earth's atmosphere and land on it's tail. Then be readied for it's next
mission and be mated with another booster.

Tom