|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
maximum payload to the moon
I dont know a great deal about space and current rocket technology,
but im Learning (in a very amature fashion!), but i have been trying to find out about the following. 1) Using current technology and taking into account theretical limits, what is the maximum payload that could be landed on the moon and what would be the cost in doing so? Would this cost be lower if 2 or 3 such landings were to be made? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
1) Using current technology and taking into account theretical
limits, what is the maximum payload that could be landed on the moon Question: do you mean a) "using rockets currently in production"; or b) "using rocket technology that has been developed and flown, isn't necessarily in production anymore"; or c) "using various rocket components that have been developed and could be cobbled together into a moon rocket"? If the Apollo program's Saturn V is resurrected, then you could send a lot more tonnage to the moon per launch than if you puttered around with, say, an "off the shelf" Atlas V or Delta IV. The payload capability of the Saturn V could be duplicated with tweaked Russian Energia hardware (some resurrection needed), or a bundle of Delta IV heavies (some development of existing hardware needed), or some configurations of shuttle hardware (development of existing hardware needed). Or you could take Saturn V hardware and build even larger rockets - some proposed derivatives of Saturn hardware could put about 500 tons into orbit and send over 200 tons to the moon. and what would be the cost in doing so? Depends on the rockets selected; how much development is needed; how many rockets are built for the program; etc. So, could you clarify a bit what you were looking for? Just entirely real, existing rockets? Mike Miller, Materials Engineer |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
" wrote:
[...] Depends on the rockets selected; how much development is needed; how many rockets are built for the program; etc. So, could you clarify a bit what you were looking for? Just entirely real, existing rockets? Also, "sent up on a single rocket" ? or "sent via as many payloads as we could land on the moon until the U.S. Treasury was exhausted?" Hmm. The OP didn't explicitly say "rockets" ; the 4000-ton Orion was thought to be within theoretical limits of engineering... -- ;k |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Damon Hill wrote:
(Holly Deedee) wrote in : 1) Using current technology and taking into account theretical limits, what is the maximum payload that could be landed on the moon and what would be the cost in doing so? Would this cost be lower if 2 or 3 such landings were to be made? Delta IV Heavy looks like it could launch 8 - 10 tons towards the Moon; figure about half that to the surface and at least $250 million per flight. I think you could cut the launch cost significantly if you used an Atlas 552, which could do nearly as well as a Delta IVH. If you can wait a few years, Lockheed Martin has now been given the green light to build Atlas V-Heavy, which will be the world's most powerful expendable rocket when it flies. Or for even less money you could buy a Russian Proton, one of only two rockets in use today that actually *have* launched moon landers. Note that that's only the cost for the launch vehicle, which would only be able to boost the payload on a trans-lunar trajectory. More money would have to be spent first to develop and then to build a deceleration and landing stage, which would, as you point out, account for a sizable percentage of your trans-lunar mass. Historically, complex spacecraft payloads of this type end up costing as much as, or more than, the launch vehicle. Then there's the cost of whatever you are landing on the moon, which must be designed or packaged (and then tested) to withstand the temperature extremes and the vacuum of space, etc.. - Ed Kyle |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Kyle wrote: I think you could cut the launch cost significantly if you used an Atlas 552, which could do nearly as well as a Delta IVH. If you can wait a few years, Lockheed Martin has now been given the green light to build Atlas V-Heavy, which will be the world's most powerful expendable rocket when it flies. Or for even less money you could buy a Russian Proton, one of only two rockets in use today that actually *have* launched moon landers. I had read the 551 has better performance for GTO and earth escape missions due to not having the extra mass of the 2nd RL10. All Atlas V to date, plus the upcoming MRO and New Horizons use the single RL10 upper stage. On the "other" rocket in use today to have launched moon landers, R-7? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ISS needs to go to the MOON, with or w/o crew | Brad Guth | Policy | 1 | March 31st 05 12:58 AM |
Apollo | Buzz alDredge | Astronomy Misc | 5 | July 28th 04 10:05 AM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ | darla | Misc | 10 | July 25th 04 02:57 PM |
The apollo faq | the inquirer | UK Astronomy | 5 | April 15th 04 04:45 AM |
significant addition to section 25 of the faq | heat | UK Astronomy | 1 | April 15th 04 01:20 AM |