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

(Alex Terrell) wrote in message . com...

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.


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.


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.


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.

It seems the U.S. got sold a bill of goods on EELV, which now
has costs approaching the Titan IV that it replaced. The EELV
sales pitch sounds more and more like the space shuttle pitch.
Cheaper rockets. Many launches. Big savings.

- Ed Kyle

(Alex Terrell) wrote in message . com...

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.


Earlier I wrote:

"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."

I need to correct one part of this. Apollo CSM mass in lunar
orbit was about 22 tons, but only about 10 tons of this was
propellant. The CM mass was 5.8 tons. The SM dry mass was
6.1 tons.

- Ed Kyle

(Alex Terrell) wrote in message . com...
What components need to make up the lunar transport architecture?
...
2. CEV ? This would be an extension of the OSP. Perhaps housing 3 crew
...
3. Lunar Transfer Rocket ? This would mass 20-25 tons and be
...
4. Lunar Lander ? this would mass about 20 tons in total, including a
...
5. Lunar Launcher ? This would mass about 10 tons and be landed on the

You seem intent on re-creating Apollo. The Lunar Lander and Lunar
Launcher sound too much like the LEM descent and ascent stages. CEV
and Lunar Transfer Rocket are Apollo CM and SM. The only difference is
that the LTR also takes the role of the Saturn V third stage and
supplies the delta V for translunar injection.

There are other ways to do it.

You can land the CEV, merging the functions of the Apollo Command
Module and LEM. I've seen at least one reference to this in the press.
This saves mass on some things (only one life support system and crew
compartment) and wastes mass on others (taking the return capsule and
heat shield and down to the moon surface takes more fuel and bigger
engine). But fewer system components mean lower development costs.

A similar option was studied for Apollo but it assumed a direct return
to Earth from the lunar surface. The whole system weighed too much to
be launched in one launch and required Earth Orbit Rendezvous. Today
we can build a return stage (your Lunar Transfer Rocket) that can wait
in lunar orbit without an astronaut to babysit it. Your approach
requires two different matings: one beween CEV and lander in lunar
orbit and another between the CEV and LTR in earth orbit. Here the
same rendezvous capability would be used for both, again saving on
development costs.

The CEV may use a separate descent stage like the LEM but there are
other possible combinations. For example, it can use the same engine
but leave the landing structure behind. It could use a jettisonable
solid booster for most of the landing delta-v and size the CEV engine
only for final approach and ascent.

"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 \-_/'

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.

And I think 4 per year is low, anyway.

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. Instead of getting one new vehicle to replace two lines of
launchers, we... um... got two new vehicles to replace two lines of
launchers. And the Air Force is evidently scratching its collective
head trying to figure out what went wrong! All this to get "assured
access to space" which it had once and abandoned (with Titan and
Shuttle). Sheesh!

which now
has costs approaching the Titan IV that it replaced. The EELV
sales pitch sounds more and more like the space shuttle pitch.
Cheaper rockets. Many launches. Big savings.

$250 million was the price for a Titan IV-NUS, if memory serves.
Adding a Centaur or IUS increased the cost well past $300 million. No
such addition is necessary for Delta IV-Heavy to do the same mission.
So we are saving $50 million per launch. The Air Force paid $1
Billion, I think, for EELV development, so after 20 launches, we break
even. That's five years at 4 per year.

And both EELVs are far simpler than the 1960s-era Titan III/IV, which
should translate into better success record (really... can anyone do
worse than Titan IV in that regard?)

EELV was a very good investment, we just need to get rid of one of
them. I think we're stuck with Boeing.

Brian

"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

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

(ed kyle) wrote in message om...
(Alex Terrell) wrote in message . com...

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.


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.

It seems the U.S. got sold a bill of goods on EELV, which now
has costs approaching the Titan IV that it replaced. The EELV
sales pitch sounds more and more like the space shuttle pitch.
Cheaper rockets. Many launches. Big savings.

- Ed Kyle

I see that from LEO to Lunar orbit needs 4.1km/s, so to put 20 tons
into lunar orbit, it seems we need about 40 tons of rocket. That
means, for 2 10 cargo landings, and two manned missions per year, we
need 4 times 3 = 12 launches per year, in the 20 - 25 ton range.

If NASA were to put out a tender, open to any technically prequaled
supplier (Delta, Atlas, Arianne, Russian launcher*?), for 24 launches
over 2 years, with the award going to the lowest cost, fixed price
offer, I bet the winning bid would be way below $250 million per
launch.

Further, if NASA announced that they would, for 10 years, issue a new
tender for 24 launches every two years, new entrants would come into
the market and drive prices down.

* I'm assuming that the CEV and all lunar payloads, even the Orbital
Transfer Vehicle, can be transported by plane to Baikonur.

(Oren Tirosh) wrote in message om...

You seem intent on re-creating Apollo. The Lunar Lander and Lunar
Launcher sound too much like the LEM descent and ascent stages. CEV
and Lunar Transfer Rocket are Apollo CM and SM. The only difference is
that the LTR also takes the role of the Saturn V third stage and
supplies the delta V for translunar injection.

I wasn't thinking of it at the time, but perhaps it influenced my
thinking. Anyhow, there are major advantages to the Apollo approach,
though I've added some flexibility in that the lander can also be used
for a one way transfer of a larger cargo module. Once the transport
components are in place, the base planners can plan on landing 10 tons
per shot (or triple shot of a Delta IV-H).

There are other ways to do it.

You can land the CEV, merging the functions of the Apollo Command
Module and LEM. I've seen at least one reference to this in the press.
This saves mass on some things (only one life support system and crew
compartment) and wastes mass on others (taking the return capsule and
heat shield and down to the moon surface takes more fuel and bigger
engine). But fewer system components mean lower development costs.

Remember the Apollo Lunar module needed to provide accommodation for 2
for several days. For a permanent base, the personnel lander needs to
only house the astronauts for a few hours. This accommodation would
weigh less than a heat shield.

Also, if we start H2O mining, then this flexibility (a cargo launcher)
is required to launch H2O cargos from the surface to lunar orbit.

A similar option was studied for Apollo but it assumed a direct return
to Earth from the lunar surface. The whole system weighed too much to
be launched in one launch and required Earth Orbit Rendezvous. Today
we can build a return stage (your Lunar Transfer Rocket) that can wait
in lunar orbit without an astronaut to babysit it. Your approach
requires two different matings: one beween CEV and lander in lunar
orbit and another between the CEV and LTR in earth orbit. Here the
same rendezvous capability would be used for both, again saving on
development costs.

Yes - but that's determined by launcher size. My assumption is that
we're going to use Delta IV large and equivelant, rather than true
HLV, so we need this Earth Orbit maintenance in any event.