NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture

Andrew Gray wrote:

Remember all those
fifties novels where U-238 would be a *currency*?

Talk about burning a hole in your pocket...

(Yes, I know the half-life. Joke, OK?)

Alex Terrell wrote:
Len wrote:


I understand that Griffin is rightfully reluctant
to support ideas that would conflict with NASA's
basic plan. If there are no companies capable of
delivering water or equivalent payload at low cost,
then this should have little impact on present
planning. However, the unplanned availability of
perhaps 1000 tonnes, or 10,000 tonnes, of water in
LEO should open up a lot of new possibilities for
NASA.

You need to sell this as a benefit to NASA. If the plan fails, it has
no impact on NASA. If the plan succeeds, does it:

A: Make NASA look stupid, having invested in HLV etc to get to the
moon. They now need to completely revise their architecture

Yes--although this is tempting for some of us--
shooting oneself in the foot is usually not a
good idea. On a more idealistic plane, NASA is
not monolithic, and there are many good people
in NASA trying to do a good job. Market gaurantees
should be careful with respect to NASA's image.
I think the ideal environment would be skeptical
hope on the part of NASA with respect to the
possiblility of very low cost transport of
water, propellants or ??? to LEO. The non-NASA
entrepreneurial community should recognize this
as a enlightened position on the part of NASA,
and concentrate on making CATS real for some types
of payloads.

B: Enable NASA to continue with Constellation but at a much reduced
cost / enhanced capability, by reducing the costs of the basic low
value components, whilst maintaining NASA's ability to launch the
precious stuff on the Stick.

Yes, I think that launching the CEV, and large
components according to the basic plan could continue
to make economic sense, even if the tranport of small
payloads and divisible payloads such as water and/or
propellants gets to be dirt cheap. It will be
important to emphasize the complementary aspects.
Any need for a HLV beyond launching a large CEV
might be justified as insurance against the risk
of depending upon low-cost transport of propellants
and on-orbit propellant storage, transfer, etc.
The Manhattan Project funded four basically different
approaches for insurance purposes. Those of us who are
convinced that HLV is unnecessary should back off with
respect to HLV development plans.

Provision of water creates problems of electrolysis and pumping. Would
not hydrogen and oxygen be more useful? That can be made into water and
power, or used as rocket fuel. Or perhaps Kerosene and LOX?

Perhaps. Hydrogen seems to be an important part
of NASA's basic exploration direction. Accordingly,
it might make a lot of sense coming up with ways of
making LH2 space storable with improved insulation,
cooling and reliquefaction concepts. Transport of LH2
might be combined with 5 or 6 times as much LOX to
minimize volume effects on space transportation costs.
Kero and LOX would be more space storable, but might
be more disruptive to the basic NASA plan.

An initial market might be to replace the EDS with 20 ton flexi rocket
modules. Private contractors would deliver these for under $40 million
(in your figures). A simple design would only add a few million on top
of that. Three of these would be attached to provide the Earth
Departure and Lunar Insertion Stage. Manwhile, one or two Sticks, and
no HLV, would bring the precious CEV and Lunar Access Module.

The beauty of this is that it doesn't rely on simulateneous launches,
or in orbit propeallant transfer. Your space station acts as a Rack, on
which several Flexi-Rocket-Modules will be waiting. The rack would
equipped with a manipulator arm to assemble the components - plug and
play, and no propellant transfer.

By my own standards, a gauranteed market should be
open to competing concepts. My own agenda--reinforced
with economic analyses--suggests that 20-tonne payloads
will require vehicles that are too big and investments
that are too big to permit commercial, low-cost transport
for some time to come. I think that designing to much
smaller payloads is much more likely to enable CATS.
Once a new traffic level paradigm is established and
a corresponding new market emerges, then larger vehicles
will also make economic sense. That being said, if
some company can deliver 20 tonne paloads cheaply in the
near future, then that company should be able to benefit
from the market guarantees.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

I think that the Hydrogen storage problems can be reduced by
simply sending it up last.
The sequence would be to ship up solid LOX ( high density)
along with empty living space to use up the extra volume in the faring.
The LOX can easily be stored in LOE while everything is assembled and
you will have no boiloff until all of the LOX has melted.
On the last flight ship up a load of hydrogen.
If the second stage uses hydrogen then one could transfer the hydrogen
from the payload section to the second stage during the second stage
burn. You would then end up with a stage in orbit fully fueled with
Hydrogen and with an engine which had just been tested. This might
not be the most mass efficient stage for in space operations but you
get the stage for free.

Ken Myrtle


Len wrote:

Perhaps. Hydrogen seems to be an important part
of NASA's basic exploration direction. Accordingly,
it might make a lot of sense coming up with ways of
making LH2 space storable with improved insulation,
cooling and reliquefaction concepts. Transport of LH2
might be combined with 5 or 6 times as much LOX to
minimize volume effects on space transportation costs.
Kero and LOX would be more space storable, but might
be more disruptive to the basic NASA plan.


Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

Andrew Gray, "tomcat" and to all other pro-ETI and frends of humanity,
Because of the oil, NG and coal industry/cultism, and of their firm
hold upon the private parts of whomever they could suck into their
global-warming and environmentally polluting web of dishonesty and
disinformation as fed by way of mainstream infomercials and that of
whatever our government and of it's religious backers (more often than
not Jewish bankers) deemed viable as to benefitting their point of
view, thus maximising the influx to their offshore bank accounts is why
every effort was focused upon making every other energy alternative as
expensive, as risky and/or as off-limits as possible.

The likes of geothermal, wind, solar stirling, solar PV and even U-238
has therefore been made as taboo and as spendy as possible, plus fears
touted as though common humanity (the lower 99.9% of Earth's
population) need not get involved. The notions of storing whatever
spare energy in a format of H2O2 has simply been yet another
taboo/nondisclosure and/or need-to-know lock-box as for being kept as
information scarce and as spendy and thereby as far out of reach as can
be arranged, even though home brew of H2 or better yet H2O2 is easily
doable and with less risk than most other forms of energy storage
alternatives.

With spare energy as having been made into LH2 or best made into H2O2
is an absolute win-win for the need of obtaining the greatest amount of
heat from whatever, while least impacting the environment, whereas the
likes of almost everything that burns can be converted into an
extremely clean resource of heat that consumes the least amount of
atmosphere, so effectively that it leaves behind the remains of raw
elements that are safe enough to go into preschool sand boxes.

Even an aerobreaking Hummer that's getting less than 10 mpg can be
boosted to as to obtaining more than 100 mpg while never consuming
another m3 of atmosphere along the way, and with no limitations upon
performance nor range. H2O2 is that good, and it simply is not as fire
and brimstone risky to deal with as those of the mainstream status quo
would claim. It's just what H2O2 is, water (as in H2O) with one more
Oxygen atom added to the matrix becomes H2O2. Even H2O2/aluminum
battery technology has been sequestered, thus out of sight and out of
the dumbfounded minds of us suckers.

Those that would shun H2O2 are also the very same SOBs that insisted
there were WMD in Iraq, and otherwise have been making all of the
non-fossil fuel alternatives as far out of reach and as spendy as
possible. Even hydroelectric alternatives hasn't been developed to half
of it's potential is because of getting taboo/nondisclosure to death
once the big fossil guns get their lose cannons firing at will. It's
that simple, we've been snookered by the upper most 0.1% of humanity
into thinking that fossil fuel and otherwise only spendy alternatives
is all there is. Even He3/fusion as a viable alternative has been kept
as nondisclosure/sequestered as possible, as much as the 25 kw/m2
footprint of what a good sized solar-sterling/secondary-recoil PV and
wind turbine composite solution per tower installation could have been
delivering as clean and 100% renewable energy.

BTW; that 25 kw/m2 of 100% renewable energy is roughly an honest 100
fold better off than the birth to grave footprint aspects of what most
of the nuclear energy alternatives have to offer and, at least 10 fold
better off than the absolute best possible nuclear derived energy plan
of action that's so gosh darn new and spendy that those simply haven't
been constructed. If you'd like to add it all up, I'll gladly comply.

Discussing He3 that's supposedly having been established by the laws of
physics as supposedly sequestered within the top surface of the moon is
simply another taboo/nondisclosure and/or flak tossing environment as
for accomplishing any viable Usenet author/topic related notions, as
having more flak to deal with than what Saddam had as a result of his
inventing and then so well hiding all of those stealth WMD.

Thus is why an author/topic that's rocking their mainstream status quo
good ship LOLLIPOP is in fact going to be on the receiving end of
getting more than their fair share of MI6/NSA spermware/malware
directed into their computer, if not far worse things, including
terminal death imposed as being their ultimate MI6/NSA cloak and dagger
do-everything solution as to sustaining their old plus several ongoing
perpetrated cold-wars. It's been a game where the rich get richer and
the poor that have become too damn poor to give any more get death.
~

Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
War is war, thus "in war there are no rules" - In fact, war has been
the very reason of having to deal with the likes of others that haven't
been playing by whatever rules, such as GW Bush.

Ken Myrtle wrote:
I think that the Hydrogen storage problems can be reduced by
simply sending it up last.
The sequence would be to ship up solid LOX ( high density)
along with empty living space to use up the extra volume in the faring.
The LOX can easily be stored in LOE while everything is assembled and
you will have no boiloff until all of the LOX has melted.
On the last flight ship up a load of hydrogen.
If the second stage uses hydrogen then one could transfer the hydrogen
from the payload section to the second stage during the second stage
burn. You would then end up with a stage in orbit fully fueled with
Hydrogen and with an engine which had just been tested. This might
not be the most mass efficient stage for in space operations but you
get the stage for free.

Ken Myrtle

This might not work too well for the low-cost, small-
payload approach that I have in mind. Even a 1000
tonnes of LOX/LH2 might require a 100 or so flights
of the small vehicle, if all of the LH2 is delayed
to the last flights.

Storage in space should be easier than storage on Earth.
Very long-term storage on Earth is practical with
additional mass. The additional mass should be less in
space, because vacuum insulation can be much lighter.
Moreover, any additional mass for long-term storage
would not have to be accelerated--although it may be
advantageous to have some long-term storage capability
on a Mars flight.

Forty years ago, Linde demonstrate a capability for
trucking LH2 cross-country; they started with 50 percent
slush hydrogen, and ended up on the other coast with
40 percent slush. Non-mobile storage was even better.
I think worry about storing and handling LH2 on orbit is
exaggerated. Orbital operations in general should be far
easier and less risky with frequent, reliable, low-cost
access to space.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

in article , Joe Strout at
wrote on 10/5/05 2:12 PM:

In article ,
George Evans wrote:

Cheaper than what? Cheaper than NASA? Just about anybody can do that.

Can do, as in can do tomorrow, not can do someday.

Correct. Look at Sea Launch for example.

Right now it looks like they could launch about 20,000 lbs into LEO. That's
not enough.

Not enough for what? CEV? That's right, NASA has carefully designed the CEV
to be just out of the reach of any commercial launcher. This gives them
apparent justification for developing their own launch vehicle. I do NOT buy
that this was a necessary decision, however; more numerous, smaller launches
could have done the job, with far more robustness and without the need for
NASA to have its own launchers at all. (But that would not satisfy their
political requirement to keep large armies of rocket builders & maintenance
staff employed.)

Not enough for anything having to do with carrying a crew unless you want
NASA to send them up one at a time.

It's not like NASA needs a car to drive down the road. It can't go out and
buy a launch because no one makes one.

Nonsense. Several companies offer very capable launch services.

Well, then, give us another name.

They are doing things for which vehicles have not been designed.

They are choosing to do things, by design, for which current vehicles are too
small.

You're whining. NASA is doing things that are too big for my little rocket.

I wouldn't want missions constrained to designs that fit within packages
available on the market.

Why not? If those constraints result in more frequent launches, a more
modular mission design, a greater number of actual accomplishments for the
same NASA budget, and lower launch costs for everyone, then what's the
problem? (Apart from the large number of unemployed NASA workers, of course.)

Just one design issue off the top of my head is the relationship between
surface area and volume as a function of diameter. Since a CEV has to
protect a crew from *outside* environments, this relationship means there is
an advantage to carrying larger crews.

The lunar mission profile seems to call for two independent two man teams on
the surface. If you can't lift all four you then two vehicles are necessary
to move the crew.

They've had their ups and downs. From what I have read recently including the
CAIB report, the shuttle program saddled them with an impossible task--making
"all the people happy all the time". So I can see how someone could have your
opinion over the past few decades. OTOH, I think NASA did a lot of innovation
in the process of almost accomplishing the impossible.

Me too. I respect NASA; I just think it's time for them to get out of the
launch business, and I'm deeply saddened to see their renewed refusal to do
so.

I think that private companies will have a greater and greater role in LEO
transport of supplies in the near future but realistic manned launches are
beyond them now.

George Evans

in article , Alex
Terrell at wrote on 10/6/05 1:50 AM:

Len wrote:

I understand that Griffin is rightfully reluctant to support ideas that would
conflict with NASA's basic plan. If there are no companies capable of
delivering water or equivalent payload at low cost, then this should have
little impact on present planning. However, the unplanned availability of
perhaps 1000 tonnes, or 10,000 tonnes, of water in LEO should open up a lot
of new possibilities for NASA.

You need to sell this as a benefit to NASA. If the plan fails, it has no
impact on NASA. If the plan succeeds, does it:

A: Make NASA look stupid, having invested in HLV etc to get to the moon. They
now need to completely revise their architecture

B: Enable NASA to continue with Constellation but at a much reduced cost /
enhanced capability, by reducing the costs of the basic low value components,
whilst maintaining NASA's ability to launch the precious stuff on the Stick.

Provision of water creates problems of electrolysis and pumping. Would not
hydrogen and oxygen be more useful? That can be made into water and power, or
used as rocket fuel. Or perhaps Kerosene and LOX?

An initial market might be to replace the EDS with 20 ton flexi rocket
modules. Private contractors would deliver these for under $40 million (in
your figures). A simple design would only add a few million on top of that.
Three of these would be attached to provide the Earth Departure and Lunar
Insertion Stage. Manwhile, one or two Sticks, and no HLV, would bring the
precious CEV and Lunar Access Module.

The beauty of this is that it doesn't rely on simulateneous launches, or in
orbit propeallant transfer. Your space station acts as a Rack, on which
several Flexi-Rocket-Modules will be waiting. The rack would equipped with a
manipulator arm to assemble the components - plug and play, and no propellant
transfer.

I agree with your advice to work with NASA. Also, I think the idea Len is
suggesting is to build a reservoir of water that could be split into
hydrogen and oxygen using solar energy. This could be quite a plus if it is
possible.

George Evans

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 19:56:02 GMT, in a place far, far away, George
Evans made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

I think that private companies will have a greater and greater role in LEO
transport of supplies in the near future but realistic manned launches are
beyond them now.

Yes, you think lots of things that aren't so, based on your many
posts.

In any event, we aren't talking about *now*. We're talking about
years from now.

George Evans wrote:

Also, I think the idea Len is
suggesting is to build a reservoir of water that could be split into
hydrogen and oxygen using solar energy.

Len suggesting building a reservoir of water - he's talking scattering
little barrels all over the plains in the hopes that someday someone
will find them useful. A reservoir is concentrated in one place
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Derek Lyons wrote:
George Evans wrote:

Also, I think the idea Len is
suggesting is to build a reservoir of water that could be split into
hydrogen and oxygen using solar energy.

Len suggesting building a reservoir of water - he's talking scattering
little barrels all over the plains in the hopes that someday someone
will find them useful. A reservoir is concentrated in one place

Well, no. For one thing, 2 tonnes is a rather large
barrel. For another, the water or propellants would
probably get transferred to a larger container or complex--
especially if the substance is liquid hydrogen, which
stores much better in very large volumes. Although
the large containers might be transported separately
by a larger vehicle, IMO, they could be assembled on
orbit--assuming frequent, reliable, low-cost access
is available to make on-orbit operations eminently
more practical than they are now.

Another solution for long-term storage of liquid
hydrogen might be a complex of tanks, with an
insulating envelope. Even our small-payload transport
could carry tanks 3 m in diameter by about 4 m
long. This size might be appropriate as drop tanks
for a deep-space mission. The basic empty tank might
have a mass of 2 tonnes, which could be carried on a
single flight. The liquid hydrogen, additional vacuum
insulation, reliquifiers, etc. could be carried on other
flights.

From the perspective of the early 1960's, on-orbit
operations with many flights to carry propellants
was the logical way to conduct large deep-space
missions. HLV and direct ascent were viewed as
being rather impractical and absurd. Apollo changed
that way of thinking, which I feel was a great
departure from practical thinking. The absurdity
and impracticality of HLV/direct launch has ironically
made on-orbit operations seem absurd and impractical
as a sort-of self-fulfilling prophecy. It's amazing
how this point of view got turned around. And what
has it gotten us? Didn't we learn anything from
Amundson and Scott?

BTW, I would hope that we might rely on something
more than hope that someone might be able to use
water or propellants in orbit. If NASA's main goal
is to explore deep space and no one at NASA can
figure out how to make water or propellents in LEO
useful, then I think we should be looking for some
other group to run the program. Actually, I have
little doubt that NASA would not make good use of
lots of cheap water or propellants in LEO. However,
I do understand that many at NASA would doubt whether
that can actually happen, and are naturally reluctant
to count on it until it does happen, or, at least,
seems much more likely to happen. Logically, the
argument is not whether or not water or propellants
in LEO can be useful. Rather, the argument should be
whether those of us who maintain that water and/or
propellants can be transported to LEO reliably and
at very low cost are credible.

But thanks anyway, Derek. I am trying to work the
bugs out of the water/propellents/gauranteed market
plan. Your comments help to avoid some of the
potential pitfalls.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com