A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

RGClark · 2012-12-22 09:03:44

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

Last edited by RGClark (2012-12-22 09:12:21)

RGClark · 2012-12-26 19:52:27

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

RGClark · 2013-01-09 06:01:44

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

RGClark · 2013-01-29 01:27:26

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

louis · 2013-02-01 19:07:58

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21293258

Well things might be on the move. Foster and Partners are a big, serious company.

I think there is less to this story than meets the eye - piling regolith over a structure is not exactly rocket science! However, it is interesting that big profit-orientated companies are taking an interest in lunar development.

Void · 2013-02-01 21:08:48

There are so many proposed new things, I am getting somewhat excited. True, reality will come to all of this over and over again, but I just have to think that eventually someone will hit the jackpot, and from there it will be a dreamers paradise.

Many things will be tried, most will not work out, but eventually something real, something big.

In the book "The Fourth turning" it suggests that the American baby boom generation was all about turning from the material to the spiritual. Which is not all bad. They were able to invent quite a few things, and dream of many more. However the Prophets (Baby Boomers) are followed by the Nomads and the Heros, who are very interested in the material, since they did not have the benifits of the material that the Baby Boomers inherited from the Nomads, Heros, and Artists who preceded them. So, I am optimistic that the Nomads and Heros comming into maturity will follow such a potential if there is some reasonable hope of a payoff. Particularly the Heros will endure extreme hardship to see it through.

I know that perhaps I have made references that are obscure to you, but actually I believe that that book has something, since I worked out a fair part of what they say on my own 20 years ago. Also there are references in that book to people who noticed these patterns many times centuries ago. (It is mostly a feature of the whole Anglo cultural sphere).

I am quite excited to see how these people are moving into the material reality. I am fully supportive, but very supprised at their excellent abilities. Very pleased in fact.

Last edited by Void (2013-02-01 21:11:28)

louis · 2013-02-02 10:11:37

Thinking about it logically, there must be a point at which low launch costs kick start lunar development. If it cost $100 per person to get to the Moon, there would be no doubt we would see all sorts of lunar developments. If it cost $1000 per person, still the case. $10,000 still the case. $100,000 - well now we are getting into a phase where we can see development opportunities narrowing. There aren't that many people with $100,000 spare cash. $1million per person...still potential but less so. $10million per person - a much narrower base for development. $100 million per person? Hardly any scope. $1 billion? No scope.

So the question really is where are we today and where will we be in say 10 years.

Today, we seem to be approaching launch costs of something like $5000 per kg. You could probably set up a base on the moon for $500 million and ferry people back and forth for maybe $1-3million per person.

If Musk gets it right we may see those figures reduced by something like 70-80% over the next ten years. You can see how lunar tourism for the super-rich could take off.

Void · 2013-02-02 14:02:45

Those points, and also the two asteroid (NEO) mining organizations.

If the asteroid mining operations work, then it sort of dampens the notion of the Moon for non-Moon resources.

So, the Moon is an object in itself, perhaps a bit like Antarctica, but with space tourism?

I would think that an item of research might be how the human body holds up in the Moons gravity field, so perhaps tourists could get a discount, if they agree to be part of such a study.

That information might give clues on how humans might do in the Martian gravity field.

An interesting notion might be if there may be people who would want to live on the Moon long term, as a sort of home for a awhile. Artistic type people.

Of couse Scientists would likely have actions such as Telescopes on the far side? Or would that actually be automation with a few repair people on hand?

louis · 2013-02-02 17:09:10

There will be all sorts of reasons why people will engage in lunar trade.

Before I have suggested a few including the Moon as the perfect place for disposal of people's ashes after death - with loved ones able to look on the Moon and associate it with the departed.

Lunar jewelry would be another, given the romantic connection.

I think we might have lovers writing their names on lunar stone robotically.

People have suggested that patients with arthritis or similar complaints would find great relief in the virtually weightless conditions on the Moon, though there may be a lot of practical issues with that.

Lunar tourism incorporating visits to sites like Apollo 11 landing site will have great pulling power I believe.

Void wrote:

Those points, and also the two asteroid (NEO) mining organizations.
If the asteroid mining operations work, then it sort of dampens the notion of the Moon for non-Moon resources.
So, the Moon is an object in itself, perhaps a bit like Antarctica, but with space tourism?
I would think that an item of research might be how the human body holds up in the Moons gravity field, so perhaps tourists could get a discount, if they agree to be part of such a study.
That information might give clues on how humans might do in the Martian gravity field.
An interesting notion might be if there may be people who would want to live on the Moon long term, as a sort of home for a awhile. Artistic type people.
Of couse Scientists would likely have actions such as Telescopes on the far side? Or would that actually be automation with a few repair people on hand?

Void · 2013-02-02 20:40:20

I like all of your notions.

I might add a strange one. I recall that one of the Sci Fi books I read as a kid had a guy visiting a monistary, which I think was a sort of a cycling spaceship. I think that for philisophy, the Moon would be quite a stimulus. The near side puts the whole Earth in view at times, as the Apollo missions briefly demonstrated. The far side would be another thing as well, only the stars in the sky of the universe.

Monks typically do not require large material needs, but are willing to toil for their group. Not many are called for such a thing, but there are some.

I would think that for them the Moon would be quite a place of contemplation, with the remoteness from worldly matters, and the celestial views, and the truth of the death of the human body just outside of the shelter.

It is true that religion has been at times a prompter for human wandering.

Last edited by Void (2013-02-02 20:42:08)

Terraformer · 2013-02-03 08:24:49

Monks... like Jedi Knights, perhaps?

What can happen there depends, as always, on the costs to get there. I reckon we could get the cost down to perhaps $500k/person after a mature system has been developed, though if launch costs drop all the way down to $10/kg (launch loop, microwave/laser launched craft, Airship to Orbit, mass accelerator, maybe even a reusable T/SSTO...) there's no reason why it should cost more than the median person can afford if they're set on it.

louis · 2013-02-03 13:13:24

Void wrote:

I like all of your notions.
I might add a strange one. I recall that one of the Sci Fi books I read as a kid had a guy visiting a monistary, which I think was a sort of a cycling spaceship. I think that for philisophy, the Moon would be quite a stimulus. The near side puts the whole Earth in view at times, as the Apollo missions briefly demonstrated. The far side would be another thing as well, only the stars in the sky of the universe.
Monks typically do not require large material needs, but are willing to toil for their group. Not many are called for such a thing, but there are some.
I would think that for them the Moon would be quite a place of contemplation, with the remoteness from worldly matters, and the celestial views, and the truth of the death of the human body just outside of the shelter.
It is true that religion has been at times a prompter for human wandering.

Very true - Irish monks got to Iceland before the Vikings. I am would be surprised if all sorts of religions wouldn't want to establish a presence on the Moon. And it will no doubt become competitive.
The same sort of thing will happen with Universities I believe. If MIT have a research centre on the Moon won't Harvard and Yale want one and then won't Cambridge, Oxford, Paris and Bologna want one? And of course companies as well. When Ford get an adapted 4X4 on the Moon won't Toyota want one there? These enterprises won't necessarily be profitable in a strictly commercial balance sheet sense, but they will be important to all these organisations in showing that they are the forefront of this advance on to a new celestial body.

Terraformer · 2013-03-02 13:16:54

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...

RGClark · 2013-03-06 08:58:34

Terraformer wrote:

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

RGClark · 2013-03-06 09:06:03

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

RGClark · 2013-04-09 06:10:19

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.html

Bob 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

Terraformer · 2013-04-09 07:44:56

What about the 150-200 tonne to LEO rocket SpaceX is working on, which they won't reveal much about? If it's only 150 tonnes, we could still land at least 20 tonnes on the Lunar surface, which is enough for a small craft to execute a direct return to LEO from the surface if it uses aerobraking.

More interestingly, we could launch a fuel production plant to one of the poles using one of the launches, landing the injection stage to use as a fuel tank, and then do the manned mission. If we have 120 tonnes of propellent already stored there, then our return craft can be a lot bigger and we can carry more crew and equipment. If we were willing to do 3 launches, then we could get an entire base set up as well, and only need a refuelling and recrewing launch to do the next trip.

I've been rereading the ULA report. We need to do an up to date one, taking into account the polar ice.

Terraformer · 2013-04-09 13:07:31

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.

Though, I think the ULA plan can be improved a lot by bringing Lunar fuel in from the start. Using Falcon Heavy as our launcher, we can get about 10 tonnes to the surface if we use hydrogen, which it makes sense to do so since we need the tanks to store Lunar hydrogen anyway. That includes the lander/injection stage (although the Falcon upper stage could do the injection... but big tanks are good anyway). Say each lander is capable of being used to store 40 tonnes of propellent. With five launches, we can land 200 tonnes worth of propellent storage and 50 tonnes, for a total launch cost of perhaps $600 million. That 50 tonnes gets us a 10 tonne inflatable habitat, a hefty power supply, a volatiles refining system and the mining robots we need. We might need to send humans to get everything connected, so maybe budget another 3 flights to get fuel to the surface to return them in case the machinery doesn't work. That's brought our launch cost to $1 billion, and we've got a Lunar base, 320 tonnes worth of fuel storage, and 30 tonnes of fuel which would allow a 25 tonne craft to execute a return flight to Terra. Like I've said before, a lot of this stuff will be off the shelf, so we might be looking at an initial cost of $2-3 billion, after which it's refuelling flights and recrewing flights.

If SpaceX delivers on the big, Energia-class launcher... assuming it's only 150 tonnes, then that's 30 tonnes to the surface, one launch gets us our emergency fuel supply. Another launch gets us the complete mining facility including power, and a third launch gets us living quarters. Any fuel not used is not wasted, since it remains in our 360 tonne storage tanks. Another launch puts our crew craft into orbit, which the crew ride up to in Dragon and transfer over to. The total cost for our mission is probably about the same as with Falcon Heavy, except this time the crew has less work to do, so we might be able to drop the need for emergency fuel.

$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...

clark · 2013-04-12 09:44:00

Figured the board would be all of this. Hmmm.

http://lasvegascitylife.com/sections/op … eyond.html

Check the search engines folks.

RGClark · 2013-04-14 09:01:26

Terraformer wrote:

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

Terraformer · 2013-04-14 09:06:18

A Commercially-derived Lunar Architecture.

Void · 2013-04-14 10:39:36

Terraformer said:

What about the 150-200 tonne to LEO rocket SpaceX is working on, which they won't reveal much about? If it's only 150 tonnes, we could still land at least 20 tonnes on the Lunar surface, which is enough for a small craft to execute a direct return to LEO from the surface if it uses aerobraking.
More interestingly, we could launch a fuel production plant to one of the poles using one of the launches, landing the injection stage to use as a fuel tank, and then do the manned mission. If we have 120 tonnes of propellent already stored there, then our return craft can be a lot bigger and we can carry more crew and equipment. If we were willing to do 3 launches, then we could get an entire base set up as well, and only need a refuelling and recrewing launch to do the next trip.
I've been rereading the ULA report. We need to do an up to date one, taking into account the polar ice.

I see that some dispute the quantity of ice available, and I want to suggest that you might think about hybrid propulsion systems for the Moon instead, and simply use any water available for smaller navigational thrusters (Hydrogen from water), and for human use on the surface.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_rocket

Actually I was chasing a wild idea about liquid lithium as a fuel, but think now that it is a small possibility, to heat it up to a hot temperature, and burn it with liquid oxygen. However, if it occurs on the Moon, it will likely be in special deposited ores, and in many cases buried deep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium

Melting point 453.69 K, 180.54 °C, 356.97 °F
Boiling point 1615 K, 1342 °C, 2448 °F

I included Titanium, because if you heat lithium to 1000 degrees C, you need a tank for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium

Melting point 1941 K, 1668 °C, 3034 °F
Boiling point 3560 K, 3287 °C, 5949 °F

Still, a hybrid using other fuels heated up to a high temperature prior to launch (But not likely liquid metal), might suit the needs.

During my search I found these references and arguments as to what might be had as raw materials on the Moon, Asteroids, and Mars. I don't think you will object. Some arguments are that they are not all the same, so there is reason to work in all three areas to create an interplanetary economy.
http://www.nss.org/settlement/L5news/1983-valuemoon.htm

Asteroidal versus lunar resources is not an either/or proposition; in fact, they're largely complementary. The bodies have different chemistries and will be useful for different things.
Asteroidal resources will be important for volatiles and for siderophile metals; cobalt, nickel, platinum. Lunar resources will be important for common lithophile elements such as aluminum, titanium, and calcium. And the Moon may also have ores of rare, incompatible, lithophile elements such as beryllium, lithium, zirconium, niobium, tantalum, and so forth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ore_resources_on_Mars

I wanted also to make a note that some time ago I saw reference to a process where ice can be impacted on to the Moon, and a while some will vaporize, a great deal of it will survive as ice (It would be done in the lunar night time).

If there is water to be had from asteroids, this would be an option. Further, if a fusion rocket using lithium rings, or a fission rocket were possible, I wonder if the Asteroid Ceres might become a possible source of large scale importation of ice in this fashion, if it proves not to be possible to fill needs from capturing and mining small asteroids?

Not trying to interfere, but I see you are a bit of a Lunar bug.

Last edited by Void (2013-04-14 11:14:17)

RGClark · 2013-04-20 06:57:37

Terraformer wrote:

...
$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

RGClark · 2013-04-27 09:42:03

RGClark wrote:

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.html

Bob 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

Discussion of a low cost European crew capsule:

Budget Moon flights: lightweight crew capsule.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/0 … -crew.html

Bob Clark

RGClark · 2013-05-05 01:02:15

According to NASA administrator Charles Bolden, NASA will not be
returning us to the Moon(*) but may engage in partnerships with other
space agencies or private entities who could.
Then it's interesting the ESA has the required lightweight in-space
stages and lightweight capsule in the Cygnus to accomplish this at low
cost.
Another key fact is that NASA has shown with SpaceX and now with
Orbital Sciences that development costs can be cut drastically (by 80
to 90% !) by following a commercial approach.
Then this could be a project NASA could encourage, at low cost to
NASA, by partnering with ESA and private entities like Golden Spike,
while at the same time satisfying the critics who want us to return to
the Moon.

Bob Clark

(*)US Won't Lead New Manned Moon Landings, NASA Chief Says
by Miriam Kramer, SPACE.com Staff WriterDate: 08 April 2013 Time: 01:41 PM ET
http://www.space.com/20557-nasa-moon-mi … olden.html

Last edited by RGClark (2013-05-05 01:11:21)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2012-12-22 09:03:44

Re: A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

#27 2012-12-26 19:52:27

Re: A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

#28 2013-01-09 06:01:44

Re: A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

#29 2013-01-29 01:27:26

Re: A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

#30 2013-02-01 19:07:58

Re: A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

#31 2013-02-01 21:08:48

Re: A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

#32 2013-02-02 10:11:37

Re: A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

#33 2013-02-02 14:02:45

Re: A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

#34 2013-02-02 17:09:10

Re: A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

#35 2013-02-02 20:40:20

Re: A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

#36 2013-02-03 08:24:49

Re: A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

#37 2013-02-03 13:13:24

Re: A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

#38 2013-03-02 13:16:54

Re: A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

#39 2013-03-06 08:58:34

Re: A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

#40 2013-03-06 09:06:03

Re: A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

#41 2013-04-09 06:10:19

Re: A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

#42 2013-04-09 07:44:56

Re: A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

#43 2013-04-09 13:07:31

Re: A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

#44 2013-04-12 09:44:00

Re: A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

#45 2013-04-14 09:01:26

Re: A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

#46 2013-04-14 09:06:18

Re: A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

#47 2013-04-14 10:39:36

Re: A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

#48 2013-04-20 06:57:37

Re: A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

#49 2013-04-27 09:42:03

Re: A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

#50 2013-05-05 01:02:15

Re: A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

Board footer