What advances have been made since Apollo?

http://www.space.com/businesstechnol..._040303-2.html

This article claims that most of the infrastructure of the Apollo era is
still and place and 'enormous advances have been made' since. But except for
some faster computers, the required technology is still very similar, if not
identical. Besides, the large moon rockets have been scrapped, so this time
most likely we'll need to do it by assembling the lunar craft in orbit
(designing a 'new' Saturn V-like vehicle would be way too expensive).

Just because a new lunar capsule will have a newer, snazzy computer doesn't
make it fundamentally better, IMHO. What breakthrough advances have there
been since Apollo that will enable us to do it better (and hopefully
cheaper) this time?

Dr. O wrote:
(designing a 'new' Saturn V-like vehicle would
be way too expensive).

A new Saturn V class vehicle would not be that expensive to develop,
in the big sceme of things. Mainaining the necessary infrastructure
for building and launching big rockets can be very expensive (witness
shuttle).

However, building moon ferries in orbit is expensive too, if done
NASA-style (see ISS).

Knowing NASA, I suspect the most expensive item will be viewgraphs
however...

Just because a new lunar capsule will have a newer, snazzy computer
doesn't make it fundamentally better, IMHO. What breakthrough advances
have there been since Apollo that will enable us to do it better (and
hopefully cheaper) this time?

What a new capsule or program needs to be better is:
- longer staying time on moon
- more scientific equipment carried to the moon

Snazzy computers, or other technology items are not necessary.
(Which technologies would You expect?)

Robert Kitzmueller

Robert Kitzmüller writes:

Dr. O wrote:
(designing a 'new' Saturn V-like vehicle would
be way too expensive).

A new Saturn V class vehicle would not be that expensive to develop,
in the big sceme of things. Mainaining the necessary infrastructure
for building and launching big rockets can be very expensive (witness
shuttle).

Heavy lift on the scale of Saturn V is not required to go to the moon
and Mars.

However, building moon ferries in orbit is expensive too, if done
NASA-style (see ISS).

Hopefully NASA has learned a few things from ISS. "Assembly", in this
case, would mean docking modules together, not bringing them up in a
shuttle and relying on the shuttle and its RMS to hook the pieces
together.

Knowing NASA, I suspect the most expensive item will be viewgraphs
however...

Perhaps. It depends how many false starts and redesigns NASA has to
go through before they come up with something reasonable.

What a new capsule or program needs to be better is:
- longer staying time on moon
- more scientific equipment carried to the moon

This just means that there is a requirement to land large amounts of
cargo on the moon, in addition to people. These need not land on the
same vehicle, although the same lander could land either a crew
module, or a cargo module. Note that there were conceptual designs,
derived from the manned LEM, to land cargo on the moon.

Snazzy computers, or other technology items are not necessary.
(Which technologies would You expect?)

This is true. Putting people on the moon required no more than the
computers that were on Apollo.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 10:33:21 +0100, in a place far, far away, "Dr. O"
dr.o@xxxxx made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to
indicate that:

Just because a new lunar capsule will have a newer, snazzy computer doesn't
make it fundamentally better, IMHO. What breakthrough advances have there
been since Apollo that will enable us to do it better (and hopefully
cheaper) this time?

Much better materials, much more knowledge of the lunar environment,
much better understanding of entry heating, improved energy storage
technology, vastly improved solar cells, better radiator designs, much
more rapid capability to design and fabricate with better margins
(another consquence of cheap computers).

The only area in which we've regressed (at least at NASA) is in
program management and systems engineering.

jeff findley wrote:

Robert Kitzm=FCller writes:
=20
Dr. O wrote:
(designing a 'new' Saturn V-like vehicle would
be way too expensive).
=20
A new Saturn V class vehicle would not be that expensive to develop,=

in the big sceme of things. Mainaining the necessary infrastructure
for building and launching big rockets can be very expensive (witnes=
s
shuttle).
=20
Heavy lift on the scale of Saturn V is not required to go to the moon=

and Mars.
=20
However, building moon ferries in orbit is expensive too, if done
NASA-style (see ISS).
=20
Hopefully NASA has learned a few things from ISS. "Assembly", in thi=
s
case, would mean docking modules together, not bringing them up in a
shuttle and relying on the shuttle and its RMS to hook the pieces
together.

I do think there might be a case for using big launchers instead of
orbital assembly.

Basically, developing a big launcher means developing an item for which=

the cost is known to a high degree. Granted, that the cost will be high=
,=20
since this big a launcher will not be needed or sold on the commercial=20=

market, so the upkeep of launch pad, assembly lines etc. will fall on
the small number of launches for moon/mars.

How big a launcher would be needed for the "no docking" option depends
on the crew size and the carried equipment in the capsule. Also on how
strict the weight is reduced during development. This means that a
reasonable sized capsule (no single seater, please) will not be able to=

fit on an existing (and still operational) rocket, but will not need
a launcher as big as Saturn V or Energija.

On the other side, I believe the cost of orbital assembly cannot be kno=
wn
at this time, since we are talking about docking unknown vehicles of an=

unknown size using unknown method. Granted, everything involved was don=
e
one time or the other, but a moon ferry will not be able to carry a thi=
rd
of its weight in docking and maneuvering equipment to the moon. (and th=
is=20
is about the mass fraction of Salyut). Hence this will have to be eithe=
r
lightweight, or dual-purpose, or removeable (how? astronauts?)

One would have to look a lot more than I have done into these problems,=

before deciding how best to proceed. Thus my preference is for a big=20=

launcher, but think that alternatives should be studied.

Robert Kitzmueller

"Dr. O" wrote:

http://www.space.com/businesstechnol..._040303-2.html

This article claims that most of the infrastructure of the Apollo era is
still and place and 'enormous advances have been made' since. But except for
some faster computers, the required technology is still very similar, if not
identical. Besides, the large moon rockets have been scrapped, so this time
most likely we'll need to do it by assembling the lunar craft in orbit
(designing a 'new' Saturn V-like vehicle would be way too expensive).

Just because a new lunar capsule will have a newer, snazzy computer doesn't
make it fundamentally better, IMHO. What breakthrough advances have there
been since Apollo that will enable us to do it better (and hopefully
cheaper) this time?

It doesn't require breakthroughs to do it better and cheaper. Apollo
wasn't designed for low costs - it was designed to get to the Moon as
quickly as possible in order to beat the Russians. It was a brute-force
approach with a virtual blank check. Going back to the Moon for a
quarter of the cost of the Apollo Program would be easy.

Robert Kitzmüller wrote in message ...
Dr. O wrote:
(designing a 'new' Saturn V-like vehicle would
be way too expensive).

A new Saturn V class vehicle would not be that expensive to develop,
in the big sceme of things. Mainaining the necessary infrastructure
for building and launching big rockets can be very expensive (witness
shuttle).

I would rather that they figure out a way to modularize Delta or Atlas
so that you could stack 2, 3, or 4 of them on a pad. That way you have
standardized launchers and can have a bit of savings from volume
manufacturing.

However, building moon ferries in orbit is expensive too, if done
NASA-style (see ISS).

Depends. If it is just three things that dock in orbit, clamp together
and then do minor assembly, that's not such a big deal.

Knowing NASA, I suspect the most expensive item will be viewgraphs
however...

Sigh. Does eveyone really think that NASA is only about making things
expensive?

Just because a new lunar capsule will have a newer, snazzy computer
doesn't make it fundamentally better, IMHO. What breakthrough advances
have there been since Apollo that will enable us to do it better (and
hopefully cheaper) this time?

What a new capsule or program needs to be better is:
- longer staying time on moon
- more scientific equipment carried to the moon

I won't argue.

Snazzy computers, or other technology items are not necessary.
(Which technologies would You expect?)

Nothing wrong with doing robotic missions either, IMO.

I would look at ways to extend the life support options. Bio options
for air-recycling and supplementing food supplies would be a big one,
IMO. Once you are on the moon, you can get all the mass you need to
protect you from solar storms.

I'd go for a semi-inflatable habitat that you can use sand/dust for
mass-shielding. At least for a sleeping/storm shelter arrangement.

Robert Kitzmueller

Arthur Hansen

In article ,
Robert =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kitzm=FCller?= wrote:
How big a launcher would be needed for the "no docking" option depends
on the crew size and the carried equipment in the capsule...

Remember also that if we are talking about "back to stay", not another
handful of flags-and-footprints missions followed by a stand-down, that
the size of the missions will *grow* with time. A launcher that is just
barely adequate for an initial mission will rapidly become inadequate.
So pretty soon you're doing launcher development *again*.

Whereas with orbital assembly, you just add one more flight.

On the other side, I believe the cost of orbital assembly cannot be known
at this time, since we are talking about docking unknown vehicles of an
unknown size using unknown method...

By the same coin, we could say that the cost of a new big launcher cannot
be known at this time, since we're talking about building an unknown
vehicle using technologies that were never used for the purpose before.

This is silly. We've done orbital assembly many times, *including* on
Apollo. (The CSM and LM were launched as separate vehicles -- although
on the same launcher -- and the mission could not be carried out without
first putting them together.)

...a moon ferry will not be able to carry a third
of its weight in docking and maneuvering equipment to the moon.

It would be silly to build docking and maneuvering equipment into each
module, or to include a removable tug on each launch. Far more sensible
is to have a single tug based in orbit, which goes and gets each module
and brings it back. (This also lets you launch the modules into an orbit
lower than the assembly orbit, increasing launcher payload. Yes, it's a
net increase even after allowing for the need to ship up tug fuel.)
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

In article ,
Dr. O dr.o@xxxxx wrote:
Just because a new lunar capsule will have a newer, snazzy computer doesn't
make it fundamentally better, IMHO.

Actually, the significance of the improvements in electronics is not newer
and faster computers, but *lighter* computers, and lighter electronics in
general. The electronics of the Apollo capsule were incredibly massive by
modern standards, and needed lots of power and lots of cooling. There
were also a number of places where small, lightweight, low-power computers
would have made things easier elsewhere in the spacecraft. (Even between
Block I and Block II Apollos, the onboard computer's responsibilities were
expanded to permit eliminating other hardware.) Using modern electronics,
with some modest increases in capability where it would do real good, would
have favorable impacts in a dozen systems. Even the wiring becomes a lot
simpler (and lighter... and the weight of wire aboard an Apollo was not
insignificant) when the devices on the end all have their own computers.

What breakthrough advances have there
been since Apollo that will enable us to do it better (and hopefully
cheaper) this time?

Much of the spaceflight-specific technology has stagnated since the 1960s,
unfortunately. But a few areas have improved, and even in the stagnant
areas, often there were 1960s improvements that came too late for Apollo.
And there have been big improvements in areas which have non-space
applications.

The big one is light, strong materials. There would be carbon composites
everywhere, and a lot less aluminum.

Solar cells are vastly better; a new Apollo probably would have solar
arrays instead of fuel cells. This is one area where a decision that
looked sensible at the start of Apollo looked old-fashioned by the end.

Propulsion is another. LOI and descent propulsion almost certainly would
use LOX/LH2, probably with RL10 engines in fact. This is hardware that
actually could have been on Apollo, except that at the time when the basic
decisions had to be made, LH2 technology was very new and people didn't
trust it yet. (Return propulsion probably would still use storable fuels,
though, and if people were being conservative, the technology wouldn't be
all that different from what Apollo used.)

A number of things would be less conservatively designed, simply because
we understand the requirements better. Things like the LM legs and the CM
heatshield were seriously overdesigned because basic decisions had to be
made too early.

More fundamentally, we would seriously consider taking the return vehicle
down to the lunar surface. Apollo's LOR mission profile was fundamentally
optimized for a short lunar stay as a side trip from a mission mostly
spent in orbit. This was partly because they were starting from existing
notions for an orbital spacecraft -- the Apollo CSM concept pre-dated the
requirement for a lunar landing. For a long lunar-surface stay with a lot
of equipment, the *lander* dominates the spacecraft, and the overhead of
bringing a small, light return vehicle(*) down to the surface can be less
than the overhead of leaving it in orbit.

(* It's not clear that this approach is compatible with using the CEV as
the return vehicle, mind you.)
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

jeff findley wrote:
Robert Kitzmüller writes:

However, building moon ferries in orbit is expensive too, if done
NASA-style (see ISS).

Hopefully NASA has learned a few things from ISS. "Assembly", in this
case, would mean docking modules together, not bringing them up in a
shuttle and relying on the shuttle and its RMS to hook the pieces
together.

Hopefully NASA has learned something from MIR as well. Docking
modules together carries a large hidden cost in the deadweight and
non-reusability of the docking and maneuvering systems.

Doing things in space for the lowest reasonable cost requires analysis
and design, not knee-jerk rejection of something because 'NASA did it
that way'. The flaws in the Shuttle-ISS system are in the
implementation, not the concept.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.