New Mars Forums

gaetanomarano

Member

From: Italy

Registered: 2006-05-06

Posts: 701

Re: gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station

...Its not just LOI...

the EDS must already have its "jets" for a correct earth orbit insertion and TLI

the computer & navigation system will be derived from CEV/LSAM and don't need extra R&D costs

that computer may be expensive but very little, then, when the fuel ends, it may be retrieved and sent to earth for reuse

the big tank don't needs to dock with the LSS (it's too dangerous) nor does any maneuvers

it will remain at a reasonable distance from LSS and the LSAMs will refuel like military fighters

...the CEV will already only carry enough fuel for TEI...

it will have a larger-SM to have the fuel for LOI and TEI (like the Apollo)

.

---

[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]

Rxke

Member

From: Belgium

Registered: 2003-11-03

Posts: 3,669

Re: gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station

the big tank don't needs to dock with the LSS (it's too dangerous) nor does any maneuvers

it will remain at a reasonable distance from LSS and the LSAMs will refuel like military fighters
.

So.... Big tank, no maneuvering ability, in an unstable orbit, close to a station in same orbit, but with maneuverability...

Sounds like a good, safe and simple solution to me, oh yes.

But the LSAMs have to do docking manoevres twice: once with the tank, once with the station. Or do the astronauts jump aboard, EVA-style? That might be a very good solution, don't you think? No docking required!

Safe and simple!!! I like it!!!! weird nobody else has thought about this!!!!111!!!!

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station

The EDS will not need its own maneuvering jets, this capacity will be supplied by the LSAM that rides on top of it.

And, the fact that something is derived from something else only affects development costs, not manufacturing costs.

The computer systems for the tanker cannot be returned to Earth, that would be much too difficult to remove it from the tanker. The tanker is not pressurized either, forcing the astronauts to do a complicated task in a space suit.

The tanker has to have maneuvering jets, otherwise it can't even point its LOI engine, and no vehicle can hold exactly stationary to another without jets, they will naturally drift apart. Plus, for long storage, objects will naturally spin and be unuseable without jets or gyros, either one of which will have to be powerd.

If the CEV-SM has to carry LOI fuel, then it will have to carry half-empty fuel tanks home. If it has to carry LOI fuel, then that cuts deeply into the lander fuel you expect to bring with you on that SLV flight.

Your plan is falling apart, its time for you to give up.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

gaetanomarano

Member

From: Italy

Registered: 2006-05-06

Posts: 701

Re: gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station

The EDS will not need its own maneuvering jets, this capacity will be supplied by the LSAM that rides on top of it.

the EDS is also the CaLV 2nd stage, then, it NEEDS manouvering and navigation systems to reach the earth orbit and for TLI

...the fact that something is derived from something else only affects development costs, not manufacturing costs...

all R&D costs, but NEVER like destoy ALL vehicles after ONE use!

R&D pays itself (dozens times) if it is used to design cheaper and better vehicles!

...that would be much too difficult to remove it from the tanker. The tanker is not pressurized either, forcing the astronauts to do a complicated task in a space suit...

CSPO strikes again!

if you put it IN THE TANK will be impossible to retrieve, of course... but I hope it will be in a simple place so the astronauts can remove it with a simple arm or a brief EVA

...tanker has to have maneuvering jets...

no, its position doesn't matter, the LSAM can manouvers around it to reach the fuel probe (like military fighters does)

...cuts deeply into the lander fuel you expect to bring with you on that SLV flight...

yes, but not "deeply"... the CEV fuel for LOI will be LESS than the fuel used by LSAM for LOI (since the CEV/extra-fuel mass at LOI will be less than half than CEV/LSAM mass) and it is in the order of "tons"

...Your plan is falling apart...

my plan is excellent since it can produce more missions with less costs

.

---

[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station

the EDS is also the CaLV 2nd stage, then, it NEEDS manouvering and navigation systems to reach the earth orbit and for TLI

Why? Why can't the LSAM do this?

all R&D costs, but NEVER like destoy ALL vehicles after ONE use!

R&D pays itself (dozens times) if it is used to design cheaper and better vehicles!

Then we should abandon your plan! Because it requires throwing away all those expensive tankers for only a handfull of surface missions, and the development for the tanker would make up most of the difference between expendable LSAM versus reuseable LSAM + fuel from Earth.

but I hope it will be in a simple place so the astronauts can remove it with a simple arm or a brief EVA

There are no simple EVAs in zero gravity! Thats stupid! You don't know anything.

And won't the arm cost as much as the electronics you are saving? And what about the cost of making the computers easy to remove? And the shielded, insulated housing will be heavy, which will cut into the overall mission mass. And where will you put it in the CEV cabin?

No more of this "CSPO" blathering, if a problem is complicated, thats MORE reason to address it, not less.

no, its position doesn't matter

Yes it does! Because if it won't hold still or enters a spin, you'll never dock with it!

Your plan is in shambals, and the only one here who doesn't think so is you, and that only because you are patently ignoring all the problems.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

gaetanomarano

Member

From: Italy

Registered: 2006-05-06

Posts: 701

Re: gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station

...Why can't the LSAM do this?

in the ESAS plan (if it is not changed again these days...) the EDS engines burns two time, to enter earth orbit and for TLI

...those expensive tankers...

a big tank is only the sum of the volume of many little tanks (but without the very expensive LSAM...)

...simple EVAs in zero gravity...

if the value of the electronics is high the EVA is not useless

...the arm cost as much as the electronics...

it don't need to be the canadarm3 it may be only a little tool

...easy to remove? And the shielded, insulated housing will be heavy...

not with to-day's and 2020's technology (the full electronices may have the dimensions of a notebook or LESS!)

...Yes it does...

no

the orientation of the tank doesn't matter since at zero gravity the LSAM can be easy moved like also the (very old) Progress does

.

---

[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]

Offline

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station

I will try and make this... short

• >The LSAM will remain docked to the EDS during both burns, and will be able to control EDS both times
  >The tanker is not just a fuel tank, its a vehicle of comperable complexity to LSAM

  • -engine for LOI
    -power for several months
    -maneuvering jets to point the LOI engine
    -maneuvering jets to hold steady for docking
    -computers and control systems, probably communications
    -docking, cryogen plumbing, and cryogen pumping systems

  >Zero-gravity EVAs are not a practical nor safe way to retrieve tanker parts, Hubble was built for EVAs and it was still difficult to do
  >The arm required to salvage the electronics module must be able to reach several meters, withstand hot/cold cycling and radiation, plus be able to perform a delicate task (removing module) and a coarse one (moving it half a dozen meters to LSAM). It will not be cheap

  • -the arm can't possibly cost less then the electronics if you include fuel required to get the arm to the Moon and electronics back

  >How will you get the module into the CEV? Does CEV have to dock with the tanker to effect retrieval too? Robot arms are practical to move items between objects tht are not docked
  >The electronics are not just computers, also included are gyroscopes, heating/cooling systems, insulation, power conditioning, and optics for starfinders perhaps. All these things are what makes them expensive in the first place. These items have not shrunk much in 15yrs, nor will they in the next 15yrs. If you put them in the CEV, where does the crew go?
  >If the tanker doesn't hold still, it will never be practical to routinely dock with it. Progress cannot dock with an object that is drifting or spinning around, nor can LSAM

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

gaetanomarano

Member

From: Italy

Registered: 2006-05-06

Posts: 701

Re: gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station

.

full answers in the reusable-LSAM's thread

.

---

[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]

gaetanomarano

Member

From: Italy

Registered: 2006-05-06

Posts: 701

Re: gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station

.

Will "my" Lunar Space Station be built by ESA/FSA?

Flight International's Jun 13 article here:

www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/06/1 … psule.html

and, of course, the "new" lunar vehicle will needs "my" ArianeX www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/007arianeX.html

.

---

[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]

RedStreak

Banned

From: Illinois

Registered: 2006-05-12

Posts: 541

Re: gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station

www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/06/1 … psule.html

I have to admit that looks possible: modified Jules Vernse ATV, Space Station Module, and a Soyuz Return capsule.

I can see this as a European (I suppose Russia does qualify as European too    ) orbital vehicle, maybe even their equivelant of the US CEV.

However this is only an orbital ship, not a lunar lander.  Have all the headache's worth of fun with the space station but I'm sure even in Europe that phase will die out.  More to the point unless something more powerful than Ariane V is developed I doubt this could be lifted by a European rocket (Ariane X nonsense ignored).  Some equivellant of a EDS would be needed to boost this to the moon and there's still the need of a lander since a manned orbiter mission makes little sense when lunar probes/satellites can do the job already.

If this is done right, maybe this hypothetical vehicle could fit into the VSE lunar architecture.  It could be a counterpart to the CEV - if a universal docking port is used perhaps this craft could mate with a LSAM as well or the CEV - use our EDS or some future European booster and the mission could follow like VSE.

I don't see this vehicle as essential but, I suppose, encouraging for international cooperation in the VSE.  Our intetnational counterparts shouldn't focus on specified mission components (i.e. the Russionas build the booster, Europeans the Mars Lander, Americans the Orbiter...yadda yadda) but instead independently capable vehicles that just can dock with one another as the mission/situation calls for it.

gaetanomarano

Member

From: Italy

Registered: 2006-05-06

Posts: 701

Re: gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station

(Ariane X nonsense ignored)

why NASA can build a bigger rocket with its ready available hardware while ESA can't?

however, the ESA/FSA lunar vehicle already is a good example of Lunar Space Station (with the ATV module able to reboost it with its engines/fuel) that can be made at a reasonable cost (of ZERO costs for NASA, if that module will be the ESA/FSA part of an international cooperation)

.

---

[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]

publiusr

Banned

From: Alabama

Registered: 2005-02-24

Posts: 682

Re: gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station

(Ariane X nonsense ignored)

why NASA can build a bigger rocket with its ready available hardware while ESA can't?

There is an unfair bias against big boosters on the part of those who oppose new LV development.

gaetanomarano

Member

From: Italy

Registered: 2006-05-06

Posts: 701

Re: gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station

.

When I've seen the May 13 Flight International's article about the "ESA/FSA Moonship Concept"...

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...r+capsule.html

...I'm pleased to see that it looks very close to my Lunar Space Station May 5 article http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/009_LSS.html

Not only the idea is very close to mine, but, also the image of the ESA/FSA Concept looks very similar to the image I've made for my article.

But, after analyzing the ESA/FSA concept, I think (and I hope...) that it can't be a true ESA/FSA design!

I don't know the Flight International's source of the articles, but, since on internet there are LOTS of "new spacecrafts" from newspapers, space-websites and space-forums (many "ascribed" to NASA, ESA, etc...) the mistake of think about a drawing as a real concept is possible.

When I've had doubts about the concept's origin, I've searched the "new vehicle" in other websites from USA, Europe and Russia but I've found only a few articles and posts ALL refer to the Flights International's article.

And, also the ESA website don't has any news about the new "lunar vehicle": http://www.esa.int/esaCP/index.html http://www.esa.int/esaCP/index_previous.html

Why I think it can't be an ESA/FSA lunar vehicle:

With some changes (a multi-hatches node instead of the Soyuz-like capsule) and a better engine (+ more fuel than ATV for LOI) the "ESA/FSA vehicle" may be a good and cheap Lunar Space Station (like I've suggested) since it used ready available (or easy to build) ESA vehicles/modules.

But it is ABSOLUTELY BAD as a "lunar orbit travel vehicle" for many reasons:

1. the ATV may have sufficient engines' power and propellant for some lunar orbit reboosts of the vehicle but NOT for its Lunar Orbit Insertion, then, it will crash on the moon!
2. the ATV and the rest of the "lunar vehicle" don't have the engine and the fuel for Trans Earth Injection, then, it can't come back to earth!

3. the ATV has up to 9 mT of payload (FOUR times the Progress!!!) that may re-supply the (big!) ISS for TWO years with three astronauts or ONE year with six... then, it may be good for a two-three years Lunar Space Station re-supply... but 9 mT of "re-supply" are COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY (only a BIG "dead weight") for a two-weeks-only travel to (and around) the moon!

4. and (for the same reason of point #3) also the ISS-like module in the center of the "lunar vehicle" is COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY (only a BIGGER "dead weight") since the ATV has more internal space than Soyuz's orbital-module and the "spherical" Soyuz-like capsule on the top of the "lunar vehicle" appears twice the dimensions of a standard Soyuz's reentry module!

5. the (ESA/FSA?) "lunar vehicle" may need a rocket BIGGER than CaLV to send it towards the moon with a single launch!!! The ATV weigh 20 mT, an ISS-like module may weigh 15 mT and the twice-than-Soyuz capsule may weigh 6+ mT... but we must add to that weight of the engienes and fuel for LOI and TEI... at least 35 mT (since its weight remains the same in, both, earth-moon and moon-earth travels, while, the CEV/SM will not have the 45 mT LSAM when it burns for TEI) ...for a total weight of over 75 mT!!!

6. last but not least, the cost of a single moon-orbit-only missions with that absurd "lunar vehicle" will be ENORMOUSLY EXPENSIVE since it needs a bigger CaLV-like rocket (despite the missions will NOT land on the moon!!!), a NEW Soyuz-like capsule (why use a new capsule instead of TWO standard Soyuz? ...like in my "LSAM+Shenzhou" article!), an ATV (with only 10% of its supply used!) and a BIG $2+ Billion ISS-like module that will BURNS IN THE ATMOSPHERE AT THE END EVERY MOON-ORBIT-ONLY MISSION!!!!!!!!

YES!!! a (very very very expensive!) ISS module BURNED with EVERY mission!!!!!

ESA and FSA have many EXCELLENT space engineers, then, the CAN'T DO (and, I think, they have NOT done) so many and so stupid mistakes!

The "ESA/FSA lunar vehicle" appears only a "photomontage" of some ESA and FSA vehicles, not made by space engineers, but (probably) only a simple drawing made by a (young) student or a (young) space-enthusiast and posted/published on internet with the ESA logo...

.

---

[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]

RedStreak

Banned

From: Illinois

Registered: 2006-05-12

Posts: 541

Re: gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station

Anyone else officially bored with this lunar space station idea?

Rxke

Member

From: Belgium

Registered: 2003-11-03

Posts: 3,669

Re: gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station

Verily

gaetanomarano

Member

From: Italy

Registered: 2006-05-06

Posts: 701

Re: gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station

Anyone else officially bored with this lunar space station idea?

However, I think it's interesting to know something more about this "ESA Moonship".

Unfortunately, I've not found any link about the source on Flight International nor on Google nor on the ESA portal.

Do you have any link about the source of that news?

.

---

[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station

Uh, you brought up the article about the ESA's possible Lunar plan gaetano...

But yeah, I thought about writing a reply, but there really is no point... he's just here to advertise and get patted on the back, not to discuss anything, since he keeps on making excuses or makes plans more vauge whenever pressed while expecting better from others.

that it can't be a true ESA/FSA design!... so many and so stupid mistakes!

Yep, NASA is stupid, the ESA is stupid, we're stupid... everybody is stupid but gaetano...

By the way, could somebody please get rid of the accursed bold red text that gaetano now threatens to spread to other threads by way of his signature?

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

gaetanomarano

Member

From: Italy

Registered: 2006-05-06

Posts: 701

Re: gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station

...on making excuses or makes plans more vauge whenever pressed while expecting better from others...

I post detailed replies of all points posted (and all readers can see that's true)

the problem is that you want ONLY replies that agree 150% with your opinions, and, if you don't receive the posts you like, you write replies full of insults

...the ESA is stupid...

if you read (but... you're able to read?) my post about the Flight International article, you can discover that I say exactly the inverse of your claim!

the Moonship of the article is so absurd that it CAN'T BE a true ESA project... since ESA engineers are NOT stupid... then, they CAN'T BURN a $2B ISS module at every lunar-orbit-only travel with that vehicle

do you understand now?

about my signature... it's the same on ALL forums... all articles and threads are different but I can't open dozens similar threads on dozens forums

.

---

[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station

Oh yes, the ESA proposes something you see as stupid, but the ESA is not stupid, makes perfect sense!!!

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

gaetanomarano

Member

From: Italy

Registered: 2006-05-06

Posts: 701

Re: gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station

Oh yes, the ESA proposes something you see as stupid, but the ESA is not stupid, makes perfect sense!!!

please... read my posts before write replies

I THINK THAT IT IS NOT A TRUE ESA PROJECT since the ONLY source of the "moonship" is Flight Internationl and NOTHING there is on the ESA website!

probably it is only a "private" concept, with the ESA logo... NOT a true ESA project!

.

---

[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 28,838

Re: gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station

gaetanomarano I have been holding off my reply since there was an initial thought that the title had been miss leading. Kliper dropped for lunar capsule In that the klipper was no longer a selection by the ESA for investment. There are other threads containing much about the choice for not investing at this time.
 
The EU/Russian Minishuttle: The Clipper

New Russian Spacecraft

Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner

Now why would the klipper be of poor choice for a moon ship and what makes a better choice is in this quote;

Winged vehicle considered too risky to develop as ESA and FSA await funding approval for Moonship study

The joint ESA/FSA transport system study would examine a Moonship consisting of capsule, service and habitation modules. The lunar return capsule would be based on the Russian Soyuz vehicle.

Now taking the short cut much like Nasa has done with the CEV/CLV/CaLV reuse of shuttle hardware the ESA has taken this much in the same vien.

The service and habitation modules could be developed from ESA’s International Space Station Columbus laboratory and its Automated Transfer Vehicle ISS resupply ship.

Comparing images from Flightglobal first to that of the ESA's page for the ATV.
Flightglobal

ESA ATV

The Automated Transfer Vehicle

I THINK THAT IT IS NOT A TRUE ESA PROJECT since the ONLY source of the "moonship" is Flight Internationl and NOTHING there is on the ESA website!

probably it is only a "private" concept, with the ESA logo... NOT a true ESA project!

Usually when articles leak like this it is due sometimes those that have an inside connection to the info which will comeout in the future weeks, months and years off.

gaetanomarano

Member

From: Italy

Registered: 2006-05-06

Posts: 701

Re: gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station

...Klipper...

Russia can build the Kliper with their (oil) money

they don't need the ESA funds

but I don't think we will see it fly (or not soon)

...joint ESA/FSA transport system study would examine a Moonship consisting of capsule, service and habitation modules...

I've explained in my posts that this "ESA Moonship" is simply absurd and (I think) it is NOT an ESA project for two reasons:

1. it is too wrong and absurd to be an ESA engineers' design

2. it is (still) published ONLY on Flight International that DON'T GIVE ANY SOURCE/LINK

...the ESA has taken this much in the same vien...

NO, it's NOT an ESA project

I've sent a mail to the journalist that had written the F.I. article but I've not received any reply and I've not seen any article's update with a source of the project

I don't know (and, probably, not F.I. know) from where that "ESA Moonship" come... I still wait for better news

Comparing images from Flightglobal first to that of the ESA's page for the ATV www.esa.int/esaMI/ATV/ESAE021VMOC_1.html

right!

this is the base-image used for the "moonship" photomontage

Usually when articles leak like this it is due sometimes those that have an inside connection to the info which will comeout in the future weeks, months and years off.

it will NEVER "comeout" from ESA since it CAN'T BE an ESA project

.

---

[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 28,838

Re: gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station

RSC ENERGIA: CONCEPT OF RUSSIAN MANNED SPACE NAVIGATION DEVELOPMENT

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 28,838

Re: gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station

.

so... MY (June 5, 2006) Lunar Space Station [ http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/009_LSS.html ] was NOT a "crazy idea"... or are they (RCS ENERGIA engineers and scientists) CRAZY like me?

.

Bluntly, your space station and the RSC Energia one are not at all alike, because they are used for different purposes.

ALL (earth, lunar, mars or everyplace) space stations ARE (or can be) "general purpose" ...however, you've said (do you remember your critics?) that an LSS is (anyhow) "unnecessary" and "can't remains in lunar orbit" (due to frequent reboosting, etc.) ...but russian engineers/scientists appear have a different opinion than you...

.

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 28,838

Re: gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station

Just took a peek again at your page and it has no  means to keep it from tumbling in orbit once the landers are empty and the cev is gone.
Lunar gravity fluctuations from the uneven surface, tug of the sun when on that side and when in between the earths gravity will tug it in that direction.