New Mars Forums

a reusable-LSAM is an EXCELLENT idea with MANY advantages!

however, a refuelable version is not efficient because it must lift from the moon also the tank's weight

my suggestion is to build a 10+ times reusable-LSAM with expendable descent-fuel tanks

the first 30 missions will need only FOUR reusable-LSAM (three for the missions + one spare LSAM) than may wait docked to a little long-life lunar orbit module with assembly tools/canadarm3, a pressurized living/emergency module for the astronauts, solar panels, extra (orbital/lunar) life support (oxygen, water, food, etc.) and a little engine for orbital adjust/moving

one (of MANY) advantages of a reusable-LSAM is that the lunar-missions/landing-sites may DOUBLE, triple (or MORE)

since the CEV/SM life will be up to SIX months (in stand-by) and the lunar-orbit-module can be built (like the ISS) for 15+ years of life (with re-supply) EACH 4-astronauts' crew can accomplish TWO-THREE or MORE lunar missions to TWO-THREE or MORE different landing sites!!!

the only need the LSAM's descent-TANKS/descent-ascent-FUEL for 3+ missions sent from earth with the CEV/SM and assembled in lunar orbit with the assembly module/tool/canadarm3

also, since in the original ESAS plan the LSAM fuel will be used also for CEV/SM/LSAM's LOI, the reusable-LSAM (sent alone) will needs LESS fuel for LOI and ONLY ONE TIME, then, in all lunar missions, it will need only the descent/ascent fuel while the crew+cargo weight will be TWICE or more the crew+cargo weight of an expendable-LSAM

------------------------------------

but I suggest you to don't talk to much (on space-forums and blogs) of "reusable-LSAM"... if you don't want to be attaked (like other peoples, that, in last six months, have suggested the same idea) by dozens of furious " " " " "indipendent" " " " " experts... because the LSAM-business of the first 30 missions will be...

with expendable-LSAMs:

$5 billion R&D + $800 million x 30 LSAMs = $29 billion

with reusable-LSAMs:

$6 billion + $1 billion x 4 LSAMs + $100 million x 30 refueling-tanks = $13 billion

also... four reusable LSAMs + one lunar-orbit-module may KILL (both) the CLV and the CaLV !!!!!

because 60%+ of a moon missions weight is due to the LSAM + EDS fuel for TLI with three times the CEV/SM weight!

then, a 177, or 150 or 130 mT CaLV will be COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY since each mission will need to launch only the CEV/SM + 20 mT of new LSAM tanks/fuel and a smaller EDS... probably less than 80 mT per mission!

with only 80 mT per mission to launch, a single "small-CaLV" with two 4-seg.SRB and 2 SSME or RS-68 will be sufficient and the CLV simply deleted!

.

I agree that the RS-68 is simpler than the SSME and may cost less

but, all the people who want/like/support the RS-68 "evaluates" (by himself...) that an SSME will costs 60, 80, 100, 400 million$$$ each while the RS-68 will falls from $20M to 15, 12, 7, 3, 1, the price of a car, the cost of a PC and, in 2046, only $1 each!

this is not the realty but only propaganda

however, no matter if NASA will use the SSME or the RS-68 because the MAIN advantages and money-saving of my proposal comes from build ONE rocket instead of TWO

about the payload you evaluate... we can discuss about the (real) max payoload the Super SLV can lift, but we CAN'T say that, with MORE enginees/boosters, it will be UNDER the Shuttles' weight+payload!

.

I've said "99.9%"... you're in the 0.1%

.

"time" means... years... dozens years... generations... we can't know/explore all and now!

we need TIME

.

.

just a question GCNRevenger...

since you write three times my posts, five times long and in half minutes... and that only on my two threads !!!

do you are a (single) person... or a (contractors') "PR-Team"... ?

.

with TIME... like we have done on earth...

with only 12 "one-week" moon missions (and only 4 astronauts) in the next 20 years, it's impossible (and very very expensive) to explore so much coming "from the sky", while, via surface, the exploration may double or more

of course, the 12 moon missions will happpen ONLY if the VSE funds will be sufficient and if its TV audience will not falls under 3% of share after the second mission.......
.

the same reason an helicopter costs more than a car

every time you want to explore a new site coming from the earth you must spend $6+ billion for a SPECIFIC mission to a SPECIFIC landing site

if you send on the moon some pressurized rovers you can explore hundrends sites (and craters, mountains, via surface and at a lower cost (the cost of the rovers, energy, food, etc.)

TRUE !!!

with so high radiation and sun flares, the lunar-hardware "MAY DIE" within a few years, while, the "human-hardware" WILL DIE in a few hours...

.

a ("simple"...) "all booster" that costs $7 Billion of R&D and an (optimistic) $5 Billion for the first 25 launches' hardware...

.

if NASA plans to use the LAS or the SM to reach the right CEV orbit... that means the new CLV (with one J-2x) will NOT launch MORE payload but LESS

however, the discussion/battle about the cargo-CEV is completely useless since it will be ready in 2014-up, will have only 3.5 tons (or more, if you want!) of payload and each launch will use the same hardware of a crew-CEV launch (then, a very very very expensive hardware!) while the ATV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Transfer_Vehicle will be ready to launch within 2-3 years, can lift up to NINE tons of payload and each ATV (with TWICE the payload of a cargo-CEV!!!) will costs only $200M to launch with an Ariane5

when the (very-expensive and half-payload) cargo-CEV will be ready to do its first test launch, the (cheaper) ATV will already be "in service" from 5+ years !!!!!!!!!!!

about the ISS' hardware/experiments/trash return to earth with the CEV....... that option will be SOOOOOOOO EXPENSIVE that NASA and ESA must become COMPLETELY CRAZY to use it !!!!!!!!!         

.

it's simply IMPOSSIBLE since the Super SLV don't needs to develop/build/launch the very expensive (especially for R&D costs!) 5-segments SRB and CLV

.

the ISS needs: crew rotation, re-supply, experiments and (if possible) new hardware/modules

despite I think it's unnecessary to send them with the very expensive cargo/crew-CEV, in my articles I suggest to use the SLV/FAST-SLV/SuperSLV big payloads to launch mixed crew/re-supply/new-hardware missions

evaluating the costs of 3-5 separate launches vs. ONE launch, the latter option is clearly better, cheaper and more efficient

.

my opinion about the Shuttle is that, next time a (little) piece of foam will falls from the ET, the entire Shuttles' fleet will be ultimately grounded

the total "dumb" payload is over 15 tons, but that figure includes the CEV/SM structure, the SM fuel, etc.

the max (usable) payload of the Block 1B ISS Pressurized Cargo CEV was 3.5 mT with the 5.5mt. CEV and around 3 mT with the new 5mt. CEV

.