A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Technology
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

maximum payload to the moon



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 12th 05, 09:06 PM
Holly Deedee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?

Ads
  #2  
Old April 12th 05, 10:39 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #4  
Old April 13th 05, 03:26 AM
Mad Bad Rabbit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

" 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  
Old April 13th 05, 09:49 PM
Ed Kyle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 15th 05, 04:02 AM
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.