New Mars Forums

Note how I'm not capitablizing the h GCN.  However Zubrin's engineering and simplicity has gained support enough to finally influence NASA, regardless of how extreme (which I will admit at times) his personal philosophy can be.

Getting back to being stranded in Cislunar space if the CEV is damaged then the crew would turn to utilizing the LSAM, if the LSAM is damaged then the CEV.

I will say the good that came out of Apollo 13 is the fact that even if a vehicle wasn't designed to do something doesn't mean it's incapable and I'm sure every engineer knows.  The LSAM would definetely be a great back-up if the CEV totally melts-down.  It would probably have enough fuel to initiate a burn to return even w/o circling the Moon in a free-return; likely it'd enter LEO and either rendevous w/ ISS or another CEV, assuming the mission CEV was incapable of reentry.  If the senerio is reversed then the CEV may, in order to perform the nessicary maneuvers with a sufficently reduced mass, would probably jettison the LSAM (assuming the helpful LSAM was completely destroyed or empty of fuel) and cruise in free-return trajectory.

I made my statement before under the assumption of a spacecraft nearing or already in Lunar Orbit with sufficent damage to render a return to Earth impossible.  Being stranded in orbit over a barren planetoid is pretty bad...being on the surface is no worse off though.

After reading through the Lockheed Martin proposals for lunar landers alot of intruiging ideas occur to me and I will definetely be interested in seeing what other potential competitors like Boeing or perhaps the smaller up-and-coming orbital companies (SpaceX as example) suggest.

Concept 1 is definetely Lockheed's poster child of the trio.  I think what is initially striking and difficult to initially accept is the horizontal layout.  Unless it is winged like the shuttle or the spaceshipone, no spacecraft has had a horizontal landing configuration.  Still horizontal is relative, since during spaceflight this LSAM would be as vertical as any other with the docking module fore and the main engine aft.  Only during landing itself does it change after the main descent burn with smaller engines taking over largely for maneuving for a softer descent than the Apollo LEM.  Despite relying on nitroxides and hydrazine they do emphacise cycling oxygen and nitrogen along with hydrogen and oxygen from the descent stage to create a completely integrated life support and propellant system.  Even Mir or Mars Direct didn't have a way to cycle nitrogen whereas the nitroxides, normally envoking a hiss from enthusiasts, provides a source of nitrogren and oxygen not considered at all.  The configuration also allows easier egress for both cargo and crew and mobility you couldn't get as easily with a vertical lander.

Concept 2 is essentially a mini-Concept1.  The noted difference is the descent stage is jettisoned which solves and creates problems at once, one of the problems being litering the lunar surface and creating a potential threat.  This option is the least viable of the three to me but NASA may still consider it.

Concept 3 is something I have been suggesting myself: a single stage, potentially reuseable, LSAM.  Lockheed actually suggest this option may be the cheapest suprisingly and for good reason: one set of propellant tanks and engine to handle LOI, descent, and ascent.  This in turn minimizes mass and minimizes propellant loss with single tanks instead of multiple ones.  The only downside, and this is one I've always noticed myself in futuristic lander designs, is problems with delivering big cargo...namely habitat modules.  It is configured as a more "traditional" vertical lander so it would be akin to the LEM moreso than the original VSE version.

Out of the three, I can not help but want to opt for concept 1, namely because it integrates so much into a single module.  The descent stage of such a craft alone is a built in propellant tank, solar arrays, fuel cells, thermal control system, and life-support unit in one, and mobile to boot!  To a lunar base one of these vehicles is a God-send!  Mana from Earth!  When a cargo vehicle descends the cargo section (which replaces the ascent obviously) would pop off for whatever need but the descent stage could be wheeled next to the base, switched on, and become part of an entire array of utility modules with plumbing and wiring only nessicary to hook it to the habitats.

However, while I would vote for #1 I would want #3, the SSLSAM (or RLSAM as I'd hope to call it in time), to be set as a back-burner study and eventually a project to replace #1 once the nessicary lunar infrastructure is in place.  It is a simpiler lander with its only flaw being lack of a place to put big-honkn' equiptment, but for a reuseable crew vehicle that isn't a priority.  #1 should still be utilized in cargo fashion but from then on #3 ought to be the lunar vehicle of choice.

Again both designs are brilliant and would put the VSE a definete step beyond Apollo's legacy.  Now we just need to see what any contenders can do.

This sounds like a potential application for the moon with a lander modified into a suborbital 'hopper' but I don't think the same could be done at Mars, not when you have an atmosphere to plow through.  On Mars a dedicated rover or blimp is required for large areas or multiple site surveys.

For the initial Lunar missions though I wouldn't recommend this approach.  I would wait until we have two small bases each with LOX production - one could be polar while the second could be located at a distinct near-equatorial site such as Copernicus crater or Aristarchus.  Between the two a hopper could investigate a sizeable section of the surface as this paper suggests, however instead of the CEV it would more be the bases providing support.

All the CEV itself does would be taxi capability.  If there is a base established near the equator then all orbit-to-surface transport could be concentrated there to minimize propellant expenditures for orbital maneuvering (to any lattitude or inclination).  In the long run the CEV should be treated as the Soyuz and Shuttle for the ISS now, so regardless of how we maneuver on the surface we would only need to launch as many CEVs as needed for crew rotations and the occassional emergency.

Stirring to hear.  Have they deployed the camera lens off CRISM yet or whichever intrument as well?

...also a launch platform is unnessisary.  As I believe I and others have thouroughly explained as well the ISS isn't in the proper orbit and I doubt a new space station is on anyone's mind.

Read Zubrin's Mars Direct mission - the name says it all and any kind of space station is not direct.

...now a moonbase or a Martian base, where the materials to construct something are, might be a better choice.

Extremely impressive.  This is no longer merely just a pit-stop...this IS a mission objective now.

Considering the nearly decade-long span between Jupiter and Pluto and the probe's power supply at its peak versus it being at 90-75% capacity when the KBO segment of the mission begins, this is simply New Horizons at it's best with the best technology of planet Earth backing it up full.

Not that investigating the Galilean satellites are moot, but what I think is an astounding first are dedicated efforts to image Red Spot Jr. and investigating two of Jupiter's enigmatic irregular satellites.  The only probe I can think of that's resolved an irregular effectively would have been Cassini with Phoebe just prior to it's OIM.  Obviously this won't be a close fly-by but I'm willing to bet LORRI, Ralph, and Alice will reveal more to the nature of these unknown satellites that only Phoebe's closer inspection would exceed.  And Red Spot Jr. is especially astounding since it may be linked to a planetary climate change on a gas giant - THAT is a first equal to the Shoemaker-Levy 9 impact; how much do we know about the cycles of gaeous planets?

I am definetely eager for another visit to Jupiter!  8)

This was from my CEV/Orion post but since talk of the Ares I is mentioned I figured to add it here: