You are not logged in.
RGClark wrote:A manned lunar landing flight for less than $100 million in launch cost, assuming the Falcon Heavy really does hit the $1,000 per pound price point:
Budget Moon flights.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/0 … ights.htmlBob Clark
Notably this uses European stages for the translunar injection and lander stages. Then you could have an all European mission if using an Ariane 5 ME and a separate human-rated European launcher for crew instead of a Falcon Heavy.
As I discussed before, a European human-rated launcher is doable by just selecting for the Ariane 6 the all-liquid fueled version. This could also be ready by the same 2017-2018 time frame for the Ariane 5 ME.
This is another advantage of the liquid-fueled version of the Ariane 6. It could also allow low cost European manned lunar flights around the same time as the Americans.FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 2013
The Coming SSTO's: multi-Vulcain Ariane.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/0 … riane.htmlBob Clark
Discussion of a low cost European crew capsule:
Budget Moon flights: lightweight crew capsule.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/0 … -crew.html
Bob Clark
SwRI study finds liquid water flowing above and below frozen Alaskan sand dunes, hints of a wetter Mars.
San Antonio TX (SPX) Apr 01, 2013
Recent measurements of air temperature and pressure recorded by the Mars Science Laboratory on the Curiosity Rover, which landed in Gale Crater last August, suggest that liquid water potentially would be stable there during the warmest portion of each day.
http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/SwRI_s … s_999.html
Bob Clark
I missed this story when it came out last month:
Weather On Mars Surprisingly Warm, Curiosity Rover Finds.
by SPACE.com Staff
Date: 01 October 2012 Time: 07:00 AM ET"If this warm trend carries on into summer, we might even be able to foresee temperatures in the 20s [Celsius], and that would be really exciting from a habitability point of view," Gómez said. "In the daytimes, we could see temperatures high enough for liquid water on a regular basis. But it’s too soon to tell whether that will happen or whether these warm temperatures are just a blip.”
http://www.space.com/17828-mars-weather … overy.html
Bob Clark
The Winds Still Blow in Thin but Active Martian Atmosphere.
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=33999&cpage=1
It is notable that daytime ground temperatures are above the air temperatures. Eyeballing the ground temperature plot, I estimate the highest ground temperature reached as about 15 C, about 60 F. Depending on the amount of water vapor in the air near the surface this could allow small amounts of water to condense to liquid for short periods.
It would be interesting to find out if the relative humidity would allow water to condense on the surface in the thin Martian atmosphere.
Bob Clark
...
$2 billion for a lunar base with fuel production, including the first manned mission for several decades? That's... quite affordable by a consortium/corporation of companies, wealthy individuals, and interested people buying shares in the company, even without government help.
We could do this by the 50th anniversary, it's over 6 years away...
Great news here:
SPACE
NASA Plans to Make Water on the Moon.
APR 12, 2013 07:50 PM ET // BY IRENE KLOTZ
NASA is developing a lunar rover to find and analyze water and other materials trapped in deep freezes at the moon’s poles and to demonstrate how water can be made on site.
Slated to fly in November 2017, the mission, called Regolith and Environment Science and Oxygen and Lunar Volatile Extraction (RESOLVE), will have a week to accomplish its goals.
To stay within a tight $250 million budget cap — including the rocket ride to the moon — project managers are planning to use solar energy to power the rover’s systems and science instruments. However, sunlight on the places where water and other volatiles may be trapped only occurs for a few days at a time.
http://news.discovery.com/space/making- … 130412.htm
This mission builds on the LCROSS mission. I consider LCROSS to be one of the most successful planetary missions ever developed since it returned such profoundly important results at such low cost, i.e., the cost/benefit ratio was tremendous. (As a mathematician I suppose I should express that as the benefit/cost ratio was tremendous. ) I hope NASA selects the same award-winning managers as for the LCROSS mission.
There was some research that showed locations with near year round sunlight that were nearby shadowed craters. Perhaps we could use these sites to get a longer mission.
Bob Clark
Interestingly, the ULA paper gives the cost of the program as $5 billion per year until crewed missions start, after which it's $7 billion a year. However, SpaceX have demonstrated that they can bring launch costs down by 60%, so a non-ULA lunar infrastructure program could possibly be mounted for $2 billion a year and then $2.8 billion per year when the crew launches begin.
...
Which ULA paper are you referring to?
Bob Clark
A manned lunar landing flight for less than $100 million in launch cost, assuming the Falcon Heavy really does hit the $1,000 per pound price point:
Budget Moon flights.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/0 … ights.htmlBob Clark
Notably this uses European stages for the translunar injection and lander stages. Then you could have an all European mission if using an Ariane 5 ME and a separate human-rated European launcher for crew instead of a Falcon Heavy.
As I discussed before, a European human-rated launcher is doable by just selecting for the Ariane 6 the all-liquid fueled version. This could also be ready by the same 2017-2018 time frame for the Ariane 5 ME.
This is another advantage of the liquid-fueled version of the Ariane 6. It could also allow low cost European manned lunar flights around the same time as the Americans.
FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 2013
The Coming SSTO's: multi-Vulcain Ariane.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/0 … riane.html
Bob Clark
I've been away from these forums for a few years and see I missed some really good threads. I'd like to reinvigorate this one if others are interested.
Welcome back to the forum.
Bob Clark
Please post any suggestions you have here for the New Mars Forums.
Mentioned this before, but the old board before the crash was best compendium on the net for informed ideas for exploring Mars. We should emails to those former contributors to bring them back to the new board.
Bob Clark
A manned lunar landing flight for less than $100 million in launch cost, assuming the Falcon Heavy really does hit the $1,000 per pound price point:
Budget Moon flights.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/0 … ights.html
Bob Clark
Ahem. Talking about a return to Luna by 2019, let's start putting together a viable plan for such.
Falcon Heavy will be able to launch, probably, 10 tonnes to the Lunar surface. 10 tonnes with probably be enough for an automated Lunar fuel production and storage facility, using the empty tanks of the lander to store the fuel. Another launch would get us a Bigelow module to the surface, which can be buried under regolith and the tanks on the lander also used for fuel storage (so perhaps we can store ~90 tonnes of fuel). Once sufficient fuel has been produced, the next step will be to launch the crew, requiring a Falcon Heavy launch for the transfer craft and a Falcon 9 launch for the crew.
I think we could pull this off with 3 launches of FH and 1 of F9. Though if we used another FH launch, we could expand the capabilities of the mission. Much of what we'd need would be off-the-shelf by that point, with perhaps only the Lunar mining and processing, and the transfer craft, to be designed. The total cost might come to about $1.5-2 billion, low enough that a combination of private funding and selling a couple of the seats to governments might be able to pay for the mission.
At the end of the mission, we'd have a reusable transfer craft, probably with some fuel already in it, and a Lunar base. An additional mission might only require a Falcon Heavy launch to refuel the transfer craft, allowing us to rapidly build up our Lunar presence. Later missions might construct a fuel depot in EML1 and LEO, allowing us to really start going...
I like your plan. I think it's very doable.
Bob Clark
Speculation here that such an impact could make Mars habitable:
Rush to Mars: Comet impact could make Red Planet inhabitable.
Published time: February 28, 2013 16:32
http://rt.com/news/mars-comet-tito-flyby-601/
Bob Clark
Guys, I made a small breakthrough. I got sidetracked from looking at Mars missions: I looked at small spaceplanes from LEO, re the cheap access problem. I found a way to use a low density ceramic composite as a non-ablative fully-reusable heat shield. I found a way to balance convective entry heating against skin temperature in a configuration that could be built, and stay below the solid phase-change temperature limitation for the material. For LEO, this is restricted to low ballistic coefficients of small spaceplanes entering belly-first, with folded wings to avoid non-survivable airloads at 90 degree angle-of-attack attitudes.
The heating environment for Mars entry, especially from LMO, is a whole lot easier. The same heat shield material should work there on capsule-shaped craft with far higher ballistic coefficients. The "reusable Mars ferry" or "reusable landing boat" dream is indeed feasible. This material is only a little bit denser than styrofoam. No more heavy ablative heat shields...
GW
Great news GW. Perhaps you can send it in as a grant proposal to NASA. They are certainly looking for solutions to the landing of large mass on Mars problem.
Bob Clark
what's up with all the new spamlinks in the profile pages of the newer users?
What's happening to this place?
I looked at the Userlist and selected the new users option. Some new users did have spam links but most did not. Perhaps an additional protection is that they could be required to include a cogent, relevant post with their application to the forum. Or perhaps they could be required to include a short bio that describes their interest in Mars exploration.
Bob Clark
Hi Falkor,
I was referring to the restoration of the 2-3 years of posts when I said "Unfortunately it is not going well. We have 90 GB of MySQL *.bin log files, but no database schema to restore them with."
That is still the case. I have the files which I can share out but we need somebody with some mad SQL skills to reconstruct the DB from just these log files. I have talked to a few people and they say it can be done, but I have not been able to do it myself and havent found anybody else who has been willing to try.
"The gratitude of an entire Nation will be with you." if somebody (maybe somebody reading this) could successfully accomplish this task.
Perhaps you should put the request out on the Usenet compsci groups and the various user forums on the topic.
Bob Clark
Thanks for the interesting links and good luck with the scorps!
Bob Clark
Interesting articles:
NASA MSFC Says That SLS Performance Specs Fall Under ITAR.
http://spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1697
Report: NASA in Huntsville won't release performance specifications for new rocket.
By Lee Roop | ****@al.com
on January 25, 2013 at 3:23 PM, updated January 25, 2013 at 3:51 PM
blog.al.com/breaking/2013/01/report_nas … _wont.html
Rand Simberg suggested to me the reason why NASA keeps saying the Block 1 version of the SLS will only have a payload of 70 mT, same as for the Block 0, is to maintain the pork of the expensive upper stage.
Citing ITAR for the current Block 1 version makes no sense since they were willing to give the 70 mT capability of the Block 0. Also, another conclusion you can draw from this is the payload capability of the Block 1 will not really just be 70 mT otherwise they would have just given this number again for the FOIA request.
My guess about why NASA kept giving the 70 mT number of the Block 0 and not the real number of the Block 1 was because they just didn't take the time and effort to do the analysis on the capability of the upgraded rocket. It was easier to just cite 70 mT because they knew the new version would at least reach this. But now I'm beginning to think perhaps Simberg was right.
Certainly the cite of the ITAR restrictions just raises more questions.
Bob Clark
One of NASA's little dark secret that if a good scientist or reporter looked deep enough into NASA's information that was already published they will find that Curiosity has organic identifying fluorescents that they used to take this image at night on Mars, a 365 nm light source. This is the right light source to look for organics. The original image of the one below is much more detailed and had hundreds of different dots about 1 pixel wide that is red, yellow and green, something you might identify as organic so those small dots may be either be organic or an artifact? I'm talking about the dots not those verticle streaks you see that are artifacts. Note this orginal image is 4.0 mb 1632 x 1200 pixels??.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-2Gh9 … 169-11.png
The right UV light source to look for organics with Florissant's weren't on any other Martian Lander's or rover's, it was first suggested right after the MER Rover's landed, Phoenix Lander didn't have it either. I have a flashlight black light, UV, that I look for scorpions in my house at night, it is very effective in exposing organic compounds that can be later confirmed with their other instruments. Imagine them finding something crawling around under an upturned rock or in a drilled rock like this.
Here is a link to what a scorpion looks like in a similar UV black light source as Curiosities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nXYJRhxoIk
For kicks and giggles, I made a time lapse movie of several different images including the one above at different times of the night, here is what it looks like here:
http://youtu.be/CrRDQME5dAU
As you can see unfortunately we didn't make first contact yet...
Thanks for that. I hadn't heard that Curiosity had the capability to make detections in the ultraviolet. I had wondered if we could improve our mineral discrimination capability if we used all of optical, infrared, and ultraviolet wavelengths. Do you have a reference for papers written on this?
BTW, how do you get scorpions in your apartment? Not something you see just scurrying around, at least not in my neck of the woods.
Bob Clark
Active geysers have been observed in the south polar region of Mars:
Martian Geysers.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_geyser
A new program asks the public to help identify them:
Scientists need you to analyze unseen images of Mars.
By James Holloway
January 15, 2013
http://www.gizmag.com/planet-four-analyze-mars/25801/
BTW, the current theory is they are formed by CO2 sublimation. I raised the possibility that subsurface liquid water is involved in their formation:
North polar geysers?
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread. … ost1040432
Bob Clark
A recent report suggests using the hydrogen tank of an upper stage for the SLS as a space station:
Skylab II: A NASA 'Back to the Future' Concept to Open Up Space Exploration
By Mark Whittington | Yahoo! Contributor Network – Fri, Dec 21, 2012
http://news.yahoo.com/skylab-ii-nasa-ba … 00842.html
Note there had been suggestions before of using the space shuttle external tank(ET) as a space station:
The Space Island Project
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYIo-0qo9FA
STS External Tank Station
www.astronautix.com/craft/stsation.htm
The External Tank Torus.
A Technical Review by David Buth
http://freemars.org/studies/torus/ettoru2.html
Using the External Tank From the Space Shuttle as a Space Station ...
aeromaster.tripod.com/grp.htm
At an empty tank mass of 26.5 metric tons(mT) this would be well within the
capability of the 70 mT SLS of getting this to LEO, as at least an outer hull
of a space station. Note for this purpose we could remove the ET bulkheads so
it would even weigh less than this.
This would have a two and a half times the volume of the ISS.
And at the 130 mT payload capacity of the later SLS version, using Centaur
style in-space stages we could even transport this to the Moon.
Bob Clark
Hop wrote:...
It seems to me one of the problems is achieving an FMR of 16:1 and having a spacecraft strong and temperature resistant enough to endure re-entry.
Watching Musk's Grasshopper video it looks like he hopes to use reaction mass to shed re-entry velocity in addition to aerobraking. If he hopes to achieve some re-entry delta V with propellant, this makes his FMR even more challenging. Get the FMR too high and you have a very tenuous, fragile vehicle even less able to endure re-entry. I'm not giving Musk's TSTO RLV even odds.
However, given propellant in orbit, I believe it's quite doable to decelerate the upper stage and land it intact on the launch pad. Thus I believe lunar supplied propellant depots would enable TSTO RLVs.And not just TSTO's, and not just to orbit. But in fact SSTO's all the way to the Moon and back. It is a well known fact that if you have SSTO's, then with orbital refueling you can travel all the way to the Moon, land, lift off, and travel all the way back to Earth on that one single refueling. Another one of the many advantages of SSTO's. Note that this is not true for TSTO's whose second, orbital stage might get a delta v of, say, 6,000 m/s, insufficient for the round-trip to the Moon even with refueling in LEO.
I've been arguing that SSTO's are actually easy because how to achieve them is perfectly obvious: use the most weight optimized stages and most Isp efficient engines at the same time, i.e., optimize both components of the rocket equation. But I've recently found it's even easier than that! It turns out you don't even need the engines to be of particularly high efficiency.
SpaceX is moving rapidly towards testing its Grasshopper scaled-down version of a reusable Falcon 9 first stage:Reusable rocket prototype almost ready for first liftoff.
BY STEPHEN CLARK
SPACEFLIGHT NOW
Posted: July 9, 2012
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1207/10grasshopper/SpaceX deserves kudos for achieving a highly weight optimized Falcon 9 first stage at a 20 to 1 mass ratio. However, the Merlin 1C engine has an Isp no better than the engines we had in the early sixties at 304 s, and the Merlin 1D is only slightly better on the Isp scale at 310 s. This is well below the highest efficiency kerosene engines (Russian) we have now whose Isp's are in the 330's. So I thought that closed the door on the Falcon 9 first stage being SSTO.
However, I was surprised when I did the calculation that because of the Merlin 1D's lower weight the Falcon 9 first stage could indeed be SSTO. I'll use GW Johnson's estimates for the Falcon 9 specs here:WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2011
Reusability in Launch Rockets.
http://exrocketman.blogspot.com/2011/12 … ckets.htmlThe first stage propellant load is given as 553,000 lbs, 250,000 kg, and the dry weight as 30,000 lbs, 13,600 kg. The Merlin 1C mass hasn't been released, but I'll estimate it as 650 kg, from its reported thrust and thrust/weight ratio. The Merlin 1D mass has been estimated to be 450 kg. Then on replacing the 1C with the 1D we save 9*200 = 1,800kg from the dry weight to bring it to 11,800 kg.
The required delta v to orbit is frequently estimated as 30,000 feet per second for kerosene-fueled vehicles, 9,144 m/s. When calculating the delta v your rocket can achieve, you can just use your engines vacuum Isp since the loss of Isp at sea level is taken into account in the 30,000 fps number. Then this version of the Falcon 9 first stage could lift 1,200 kg to orbit:310*9.81ln(1 + 250/(11.8 + 1.2)) = 9,145 m/s.
Then the Falcon 9 first stage could serve as a proof of principle SSTO on the switch to the Merlin 1D.
Bob Clark
Experimental Private Rocket Makes Highest Test Hop Yet.
by Miriam Kramer, SPACE.com Staff WriterDate: 26 December 2012 Time:
11:04 AM ET
"In the latest test at SpaceX's proving grounds in MacGregor, Texas,
the Grasshopper rocket flew for 29 seconds and reached a height of
more than 130 feet (40 meters). A video of the Grasshopper test flight
shows the rocket soaring up into the Texas sky, then smoothly
descending to land on four spindly legs."
http://www.space.com/19039-spacex-priva … -test.html
With reduced weight of the Merlin 1D engine while at increased efficiency, the Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage will have SSTO capability. Then ironically Elon is emulating the original purpose of the DC-X program in testing the Grasshopper VTVL stage, without realizing it.
Bob Clark
Argues the first version of the SLS will have payload capability of 95+ mT, not 70 m, and that addition of a small propulsive stage a fraction the size of an Atlas V or Delta IV upper stage, can give the SLS a 130 mT payload capability:
SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11, page 2: Orion + SEV design.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/1 … -50th.html
Bob Clark
NASA administrator Charles Bolden told the NRC committee on human spaceflight that an asteroid mission didn't necessarily have to be a far trip:
Bolden: Don't Have to Travel Far to Asteroid to Meet President's Goal.
Marcia S. Smith
Posted: 19-Dect-2012
http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/b … dents-goal
Perhaps he was referring to the Planetary Resources, Inc. proposal to bring a small asteroid to lunar orbit. But another possibility is a mission to near Earth asteroids that can be accomplished in about a month round trip travel time. See the table of NEO's here:
Near-Earth Object Human Space Flight Accessible Targets Study (NHATS).
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/nhats
Select max delta-v <= 12 km/s, visit time => 8 days, unlimited visual magnitude, the H parameter, and unlimited orbital uncertainty, the OCC parameter. Then there are several asteroids at 26, 34, and 42 day travel times, including stay times at or above 8 days. If you subtract off that stay time to make it only a day or so then the round trip travel time will be in the range of a month or so.
This could serve as an intermediate step for BEO missions between the Apollo missions at max. 12 days and a Mars mission at 6 months one-way travel time.
Bob Clark
Detailed discussion of the fact that with the higher payload capability of the Falcon 9 v1.1 we can do circumlunar missions on a *single* launch of the Falcon 9 v1.1 + Dragon:
"Golden Spike" circumlunar flights.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/1 … ights.html
Bob Clark
Reading the "Golden Spike" paper now:
http://goldenspikecompany.com/wp-conten … ockets.pdf
It gives several different architectures and types of missions. But on page 8 it gives the payload capability of the Falcon 9, presumably the new version, as 16,700 kg. However, on the SpaceX site it's given as 13,100 kg:
http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php#launch_and_placement
Interestingly at the 16 mT number you can do a manned circumlunar mission on a single Falcon 9 + Dragon, even including a LAS, by using a half-size Centaur as the in-space stage. But at the 13 mt number it becomes much more iffy.
Such a mission would be very important to accomplish. Recall the Apollo 8 mission was a manned lunar flyby that served as the prelude to the Apollo 11 mission. It is regarded then as being a part of the very costly Apollo program, requiring the expensive Saturn V launcher.
The skepticism among many about the Golden Spike plan or other commercial lunar plans is that idea it would require large, hugely expensive Saturn V class launchers. However, if the manned flyby could be done by a single launch by what is still just a medium size launcher in the Falcon 9 v1.1 it would show that by going small and following a low cost, commercial approach, that a low cost return to the Moon is feasible.
The Falcon 9 v1.1 will cost in the $60 million range, and we might estimate the half-size Centaur to be in the $15 million range. So the launch cost for such a mission might be in the $75 million range.
As I mentioned before in regards to using the first test flights of the Falcon Heavy for unmanned BEO test flights, the test flights of the Falcon 9 v1.1 could serve for unmanned test flights for this lunar flyby. Since SpaceX needs to do such tests anyway most of the cost of the Falcon 9 and Dragon capsule would be borne by SpaceX. Then you could have Golden Spike only paying ca. $15 million for the half-size Centaur.
There would be some development cost of course beyond that for this half-size Centaur. For one thing you would have to make the cryogenic propulsion undergo less boiloff for 1 to 2 week missions. ULA has done studies on this so should be doable but still it has to be carried out in practice. An advantage of this would be that this half-size Centaur is about the size you need for the lander. So the lander could be derived from this, and the development cost for the two stages could be reduced.
Bob Clark