Study: NASA should return to moon before going to Mars

SpaceNut · 2015-07-26 13:13:39

RobS wrote:

This is a fascinating 100-page report that was just announced by the National Space Society today:
http://www.nss.org/docs/EvolvableLunarArchitecture.pdf
You all should take a look. It proposes, among other things:
1. A public/private partnership to go to the moon, then Mars. It estimates such a partnership will be able to accomplish their goals for 1/8 to 1/10th the cost that NASA could accomplish them.
2. They propose using Falcon and Falcon Heavy, though they note the new rocket proposed by Boeing could be used instead, but their report was too far advanced to add it in detail.
3. They use the SLS for only three launches and I don't think they use Orion at all.
4. They propose to use stretched Falcon second stages and refuel them in LEO using Falcon 9 Rs (reusables).
5. They propose to use the Dragon with two "trunks" to serve as the command/service module. The second trunk would contain 10 tonnes of additional hypergolic fuel to provide lunar orbit insertion and trans-Earth injection. The resulting vehicle would be launched by a Falcon Heavy, I think with a second stage refueled in LEO.
6. They propose a lunar module using Superdracos and hypergolic propellant. It would be capable of landing a 7-tonne ascent stage PLUS 7 tonnes of cargo, or 14 tonnes of cargo on the lunar surface. Altogether the lunar module would mass 30 tonnes. It would be orbited by a Falcon Heavy, I think, and use a refueled second stage for TLI. I suspect the dragon would provide some of the architecture.
7. The lunar transport system would start with landing crews at the equator and robots at the poles, then would start landing crew at the poles (the delta-v is 200 m/second more than at the equator), where they would set up a 4-person base using a Bigelow inflatable. Their purpose would be to maintain equipment to produce LH2/LOX propellant from polar water.
8. The lunar architecture would transition to a hydrogen/oxygen reusable vehicle for transport between the lunar surface and space.
9. Hydrogen and oxygen manufactured at the lunar poles would be used to fuel a Martian vehicle at L2. They say this would cut the cost of Martian transport.
10. The moon project would eventually fall under the responsibility of a public/private institution, the "Lunar Authority" modeled on the multinational institution that builds and expands CERN (the European atom smasher) or the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The later raises all its money commercially to expand its ports, harbors, bridges, and tunnels.
Quite interesting set of suggestions. Not much is offered about the Martian architecture, except a lot of the lunar architecture would be designed for Martian use as well, especially life support and ISRU.

SpaceNut · 2015-07-26 13:22:01

The report found NASA could send astronauts to the lunar surface in five to seven years for $10 billion. Previous estimates were closer to $100 billion.

No wonder we have not returned when its that much....

The study suggests NASA should use commercial rockets from SpaceX and ULA to launch astronauts to the moon at a more affordable cost.

Would indeed drive the price down...

Then in the 2030s, a permanent moon base would be established, where commercial ventures would mine for resources that could be used for rocket fuel propellant.

This is the carrot for the commercial industry to put up a few clams and put a stake into the space industry...

Study: Returning Astronauts to Moon Cheaper Than Thought

“The ELA strategic objective is commercial mining of propellant from lunar poles where it will be transported to lunar orbit to be used by NASA to send humans to Mars,” according to the report’s executive summary. “The study assumed A) that the United States is willing to lead an international partnership of countries that leverages private industry capabilities, and B) public-private-partnership models proven in recent years by NASA and other government agencies.”
The study estimates that NASA could return astronauts to the moon within five to seven years using two independent commercial providers. The initial landing could be followed up within 10 to 12 years with a permanent industrial base capable of providing 200 MT of propellant annually for a cost of $40 billion (plus or minus 30 percent).
“An International Lunar Authority, modeled after CERN and traditional public infrastructure authorities, may be the most advantageous mechanism for managing the combined business and technical risks associated with affordable and sustainable lunar development and operations,” the report states.

SpaceNut · 2015-07-26 13:22:33

The executive summary follows.

Economic Assessment and Systems Analysis of an Evolvable Lunar Architecture that Leverages Commercial Space Capabilities and Public-Private-Partnership

Executive Summary

This study’s primary purpose was to assess the feasibility of new approaches for achieving our national goals in space. NexGen assembled a team of former NASA executives and engineers who assessed the economic and technical viability of an “Evolvable Lunar Architecture” (ELA) that leverages commercial capabilities and services that are existing or likely to emerge in the near-term.

We evaluated an ELA concept that was designed as an incremental, low-cost and low-risk method for returning humans to the Moon in a manner that directly supports NASA’s long-term plan to send humans to Mars. The ELA strategic objective is commercial mining of propellant from lunar poles where it will be transported to lunar orbit to be used by NASA to send humans to Mars. The study assumed A) that the United States is willing to lead an international partnership of countries that leverages private industry capabilities, and B) public-private-partnership models proven in recent years by NASA and other government agencies.

Based on these assumptions, the our analysis concludes that:

•Based on the experience of recent NASA program innovations, such as the COTS program, a human return to the Moon may not be as expensive as previously thought.
•America could lead a return of humans to the surface of the Moon within a period of 5-7 years from authority to proceed at an estimated total cost of about $10 Billion (+/- 30%) for two independent and competing commercial service providers, or about $5 Billion for each provider, using partnership methods.
•America could lead the development of a permanent industrial base on the Moon of 4 private-sector astronauts in about 10-12 years after setting foot on the Moon that could provide 200 MT of propellant per year in lunar orbit for NASA for a total cost of about $40 Billion (+/- 30%).
•Assuming NASA receives a flat budget, these results could potentially be achieved within NASA’s existing deep space human spaceflight budget.
•A commercial lunar base providing propellant in lunar orbit might substantially reduce the cost and risk NASA of sending humans to Mars. The ELA would reduce the number of required Space Launch System (SLS) launches from as many as 12 to a total of only 3, thereby reducing SLS operational risks, and increasing its affordability.
•An International Lunar Authority, modeled after CERN and traditional public infrastructure authorities, may be the most advantageous mechanism for managing the combined business and technical risks associated with affordable and sustainable lunar development and operations.
•A permanent commercial lunar base might substantially pay for its operations by exporting propellant to lunar orbit for sale to NASA and others to send humans to Mars, thus enabling the economic development of the Moon at a small marginal cost.
•To the extent that national decision-makers value the possibility of economical production of propellant at the lunar poles, it needs to be a priority to send robotic prospectors to the lunar poles to confirm that water (or hydrogen) is economically accessible near the surface inside the lunar craters at the poles.
•The public benefits of building an affordable commercial industrial base on the Moon include economic growth, national security, advances in select areas of technology and innovation, public inspiration, and a message to the world about American leadership and the long-term future of democracy and free markets.
An independent review team — led by Mr. Joe Rothenberg, former head of NASA human spaceflight — and composed of former NASA executives, former NASA astronauts, commercial space executives, and space policy experts — reviewed our analysis and concluded that “Given the study scope, schedule and funding we believe the team has done an excellent job in developing a conceptual architecture that will provide a starting point for trade studies to evaluate the architectural and design choices

SpaceNut · 2015-07-26 13:33:01

Report Says Commercial Partnerships Can Slash Costs of Human Lunar Missions - SpaceNews.com

The report offers a three-phase approach for establishing a permanent human base on the moon. In the first phase, short-term “sortie” crewed missions would land in the moon’s equatorial regions, while robotic spacecraft scouted for sites at the lunar poles most likely to have accessible water ice.

This water ice mining is a key to permanent base.

Those sortie missions could be carried out primarily with launch vehicles and spacecraft existing or under development today. The concept described in the report uses SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles, Dragon spacecraft and a new lunar lander. An alternative approach, using United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan launch vehicle and Boeing’s CST-100 spacecraft, “is projected to be price competitive” with SpaceX, the report states, but was not studied in detail.
In the architecture’s second phase, human sortie missions would go to the lunar poles, testing technology for extracting ice and converting it into liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants. The third phase creates a four-person permanent base to oversee production of 200 metric tons of propellant per year.

Sortie missions are why we stopped in the first place.....that and funding

The report argues the best approach for at least phase one is a public-private partnership similar to what NASA used in for developing commercial cargo and crew transportation systems. Those efforts made use of funded Space Act Agreements rather than conventional contracts, and required companies to contribute funding.
“It’s technically feasible to leverage commercial systems to return to the moon five to seven years from authority to proceed,” Miller said. The estimated cost of achieveing that is $10 billion using two providers, which he said was important to maintain competition and reduce costs. The full cost through completion of the lunar base is about about $40 billion.

RobertDyck · 2015-07-26 13:55:35

Major problems with this:

NASA and corporate executives for Old Space companies are STILL trying to do the "90 Day Report", complete with its $450 billion price tag. That's in 1989 dollars; in today's dollars that would be $750 billion. The "90 Day Report" included a space station as large as ISS, plus equivalents to SLS and Orion, but good luck getting corporate executives to deduct anything. Going to the Moon first means sticking to the "90 Day Report". So that means sticking to a plan that Congress will never approve.
Any spacecraft designed for the Moon cannot be used for Mars. Or an asteroid. A spacecraft designed for Mars could be easily modified for the Moon or an asteroid. Details: Orion has Avcoat heat shield, able to return from the Moon, but not Mars. And it's far too cramped for the 6 months transit to Mars. No artificial gravity, no room for zero-G exercise equipment, and non-recycling life support that will last just 2 weeks. A Near Earth Asteroid is multiple months from Earth, so same issues. "The Case for Mars" shows how a Mars Direct hab could be modified for the Moon. Just remove the umbrella-style heat shield and parachute; the landing rockets and legs are enough for the Moon's lower gravity. And the ERV would not use ISPP, but again with the Moon's lower gravity it can land fully fuelled. For Mars the ERV would have a descent/landing package, plus two ascent stages. For the Moon it would only have descent/landing, plus one ascent stage, specifically the upper stage.
Simplify: Mars is hard. A craft designed for the difficult destination can be easily modified for the easy destination, but a craft for the easy destination cannot be used in any way for the difficult destination.
With NASA's current budget, it can do everything it currently does plus sent humans to Mars. Or the Moon, or an asteroid. But only one. That would be done by redirecting funding for SLS and Orion to the selected destination. But to do both the Moon and Mars, NASA would need substantially more money.
Congress should not panic because SLS would be used for Mars, so that really only requires cancelling Orion. Keep Dragon v2, CST-100, and fund DreamChaser. And for cargo there's Dragon v1 and Cygnus. That's 5 American craft, not counting international partners; we don't need Orion.

SpaceNut · 2015-07-26 15:15:32

Problem 1.

"Going to the Moon first means sticking to the "90 Day Report". So that means sticking to a plan that Congress will never approve."

If a private company can use what is made for Nasa to go to the moon then we cut out the bloat of cost. Space x will soon have the Dragon and Boeing's CST 100 for manned flight; so what heat shield modification need to be done for a lunar return to be safe in these. Even with that add developement costs that will be cheaper than an Orion.

Next up is a lunar lander from either company as a private developed design.

Problem 2.

"Orion has Avcoat heat shield, able to return from the Moon, but not Mars. "

This is a Mars problem still not taken into account?

"No artificial gravity, no room for zero-G exercise equipment, and non-recycling life support that will last just 2 weeks. "

These would be taken care of on a base that gets built on the lunar surface one would hope thats in the plans when we would go.

"Simplify: Mars is hard. A craft designed for the difficult destination can be easily modified for the easy destination, but a craft for the easy destination cannot be used in any way for the difficult destination."

Thats why they are funded seperately and not confused as one leads to the other as they loss comonality soon after launch occurs for both locations as You indicate they are not the same.

Problem 3.

"funding for SLS and Orion"

In the end run gets a Big dumb booster and a capsule that Boeings plus Space x would be capable of with shield modification. So all that is remaining of SLS is the boost capability that as you noted is a Mars and not totally needed for a moons mission initial Sortie's to get going with but would be a plus once base build did begin.

SpaceNut · 2015-07-26 16:11:10

I think that I have miss read the "Orion has Avcoat heat shield" post as it really is in respect to its heavy mass to cart around all te way to Mars, the useage time that we need it for only once reaching Earth once more and the fact that the cramp volume inside the orion lends its useage time to under 2 weeks and not to the ability of the heat shield to protect the crew for a Mars Earth return.

RobertDyck · 2015-07-26 22:29:42

I've argued before, if you want to do Mars Direct, then Dragon Rider (crew version of Dragon v1) or Dragon v2 could do it. But Orion is way too heavy. Dragon has a total launch weight of 8.0 metric tonnes, Orion is 28.0 metric tonnes. So the propulsion stages of Mars Direct ERV could throw Dragon into TEI, but not Orion. Both have the problem of being cramped, but the engineers of Mars Direct (Robert Zubrin & David Baker) will willing to live with astronaut deconditioning on return to Earth. They were careful to ensure astronauts were not deconditioned on arrival at Mars.

I don't have mass figures for heat shields: Avcoat vs PICA-X. However, the PICA-X is based on PICA, which NASA developed in the early 1970s as an upgrade for the Apollo command module to let it directly enter Earth's atmosphere on return from Mars. Dragon can return from ISS 4 times before the heat shield has to be replaced. Or once from Mars. The Avcoat heat shield has to be replaced after every return. This is yet another feature of reuseability of SpaceX hardware.

SpaceNut · 2015-10-09 18:57:26

NASA Releases Plan Outlining Next Steps in the Journey to Mars

While it says all the buzz words there is not much or details...

The journey to Mars crosses three thresholds, each with increasing challenges as humans move farther from Earth. NASA is managing these challenges by developing and demonstrating capabilities in incremental steps:
Earth Reliant exploration is focused on research aboard the International Space Station. From this world-class microgravity laboratory, we are testing technologies and advancing human health and performance research that will enable deep space, long duration missions.
In the Proving Ground, NASA will learn to conduct complex operations in a deep space environment that allows crews to return to Earth in a matter of days. Primarily operating in cislunar space—the volume of space around the moon featuring multiple possible stable staging orbits for future deep space missions—NASA will advance and validate capabilities required for humans to live and work at distances much farther away from our home planet, such as at Mars.
Earth Independent activities build on what we learn on the space station and in deep space to enable human missions to the Mars vicinity, possibly to low-Mars orbit or one of the Martian moons, and eventually the Martian surface. Future Mars missions will represent a collaborative effort between NASA and its partners—a global achievement that marks a transition in humanity’s expansion as we go to Mars to seek the potential for sustainable life beyond Earth.

http://go.nasa.gov/1VHDXxg

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-10-11 09:28:21

RobertDyck wrote:

Major problems with this:
NASA and corporate executives for Old Space companies are STILL trying to do the "90 Day Report", complete with its $450 billion price tag. That's in 1989 dollars; in today's dollars that would be $750 billion. The "90 Day Report" included a space station as large as ISS, plus equivalents to SLS and Orion, but good luck getting corporate executives to deduct anything. Going to the Moon first means sticking to the "90 Day Report". So that means sticking to a plan that Congress will never approve.
Any spacecraft designed for the Moon cannot be used for Mars. Or an asteroid. A spacecraft designed for Mars could be easily modified for the Moon or an asteroid. Details: Orion has Avcoat heat shield, able to return from the Moon, but not Mars. And it's far too cramped for the 6 months transit to Mars. No artificial gravity, no room for zero-G exercise equipment, and non-recycling life support that will last just 2 weeks. A Near Earth Asteroid is multiple months from Earth, so same issues. "The Case for Mars" shows how a Mars Direct hab could be modified for the Moon. Just remove the umbrella-style heat shield and parachute; the landing rockets and legs are enough for the Moon's lower gravity. And the ERV would not use ISPP, but again with the Moon's lower gravity it can land fully fuelled. For Mars the ERV would have a descent/landing package, plus two ascent stages. For the Moon it would only have descent/landing, plus one ascent stage, specifically the upper stage.
Simplify: Mars is hard. A craft designed for the difficult destination can be easily modified for the easy destination, but a craft for the easy destination cannot be used in any way for the difficult destination.
With NASA's current budget, it can do everything it currently does plus sent humans to Mars. Or the Moon, or an asteroid. But only one. That would be done by redirecting funding for SLS and Orion to the selected destination. But to do both the Moon and Mars, NASA would need substantially more money.
Congress should not panic because SLS would be used for Mars, so that really only requires cancelling Orion. Keep Dragon v2, CST-100, and fund DreamChaser. And for cargo there's Dragon v1 and Cygnus. That's 5 American craft, not counting international partners; we don't need Orion.

What if NASA were simply to subsidize commercial activity directed at the Moon, just enough to make it profitable, so the rest of the money could come from private hands, investors would still make risks, but a NASA subsidy could reduce the cost risks enough to make the rest of the investment palatable, So instead of NASA paying to whole bill for returning astronauts to the Moon, it pays for only part of it, and private companies pay for the rest, and of course they must extract profits by mining the Moon's surface. The Moon has the potential to be more profitable that Mars, primarily because of its location in relation to Earth, and the greater amount of Solar energy which hits its surface.

SpaceNut · 2015-10-11 16:44:59

To whom would we be subsidizing for this commercial activity directed at the Moon that you speak of Tom? Are you speaking of the rocket developement to be able to land on the moon?

What would be the profit after the full payment on the rocket launcher is paid for by the vendor that makes the rocket to be able to land on the moon?

Private companies would need to extract profits by mining the Moon's surface of what in particular would be of interest to be sold here back on Earth once it returns?

I agree that the moon does have a place with Mars but its more of a barter system than being cash for the Martians.

SpaceNut · 2015-10-11 19:43:26

Nasa is the mission control at this time regardless of what launcher gets used and pays out to a contractor to do the work required for the mssion unmanned or manned. It is this model of funding ( this includes ESA, Russia, Japan ect) and control that needs to change under commercial useage of space. The only comercial market at this time generating contracts is the communications industry.

Void · 2015-10-11 20:11:43

If you don't mind sir. (With true respect)
The only viable markets just now would be for satellite fuel to maintain or improve orbits, and perhaps to 3D print parts for satellites.
That plugs into the Earths economy just fine. Other than that Platinum metals if you can get them and return them to Earth.
These things I believe are being persued by those who hope to extract water from small asteroids with automation.

Beyond that, some day they hope to build things in orbit with ordinary metals, but before they can do that they will have to find a market for what those "Things" can do for Earth.

But you knew that.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-04-13 04:20:48

Artemis I Wet Dress Rehearsal Update

https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/04/ … al-update/

Calliban · 2022-04-13 04:51:27

In support of early Mars missions, a return to the moon is irrelevant. However, as the number of colonists andvamount of equipment heading to Mars increases, space manufacturing of things like large ships and orbital space stations, becomes an important opportunity for reducing costs. Starship works best as a surface to low orbit vehicle. Ultimately, all traffic between low orbits and all other destinations will be served by dedicated space vessels. This negates the need for any orbital refuelling of starship, as all payloads beyond LEO are carried on other vessels. And this is where a return to the moon is valuable. It is a huge reservoir of metal oxides in a low g, vacuum environment. The main potential for the moon is for mass mining operations. The main unsolved problem is the accurate delivery of materials from the surface to an L5 receipt facility.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-04-13 04:59:01)

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-13 07:59:06

For Calliban re #15

This is NOT a criticism ... far from it ... however, out of curiosity ... when L1 is readily available and within easy Spin Laucher reach, why did you choose L5?

The fixed nature of the Spin Launcher, as shown in images of the existing test facility, implies that if it is pointed at L1, it will stay pointed at L1.

(th)

Calliban · 2022-04-13 08:02:28

tahanson43206 wrote:

For Calliban re #15
This is NOT a criticism ... far from it ... however, out of curiosity ... when L1 is readily available and within easy Spin Laucher reach, why did you choose L5?
The fixed nature of the Spin Launcher, as shown in images of the existing test facility, implies that if it is pointed at L1, it will stay pointed at L1.
(th)

Uncertain. I believe the original concept involved placing the receiver station at L5. I may be wrong. I don't know why L1 wasn't chosen instead. Maintaining position at L1 does require some amount of propellant to correct for changing gravitational fields. But the receiver station would need to expend propellant anyway to counteract the change in momentum as the soil and rock packages accumulate in the bag. Maybe L1 is the best location. It would appear to be closer to the Lunar surface, which is an advantage.
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/ … nge-point/

One unanswered question in my mind, is how accurately a lunar mass driver would be able to target a facility at L1. We want the packages to arrive within a radius no greater than about 50m and preferably, with as little velocity as possible. We could use magnetic fields to tune their velocity very precisely after leaving the mass driver. Ion beams from the facility at L1, could perform additional tuning.

A mass driver discharging continuous small payloads has the advantage of a fairly constant power demand. Energy can be stored in flywheels or banks of capacitors. We have discussed the option of lunar rocket sleds in the past. These would accelerate much larger payloads. They would presumably be accelerated using some sort of lunar made propellant. One advantage of larger payloads is that they can include some sort of guidance system, with cold gas thrusters for course correction. Whether such an option is needed, will depend upon how accurate the mass driver can be.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-04-13 08:24:31)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-09-21 14:39:52

Yet Another NASA Artemis Document: “How” And “What” – But No “WHY”

https://nasawatch.com/artemis/17439/

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-03-14 04:40:13

Mining & making solar panels on the Moon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7kYkoO4oRc

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2015-07-26 13:13:39

Study: NASA should return to moon before going to Mars

#2 2015-07-26 13:22:01

Re: Study: NASA should return to moon before going to Mars

#3 2015-07-26 13:22:33

Re: Study: NASA should return to moon before going to Mars

#4 2015-07-26 13:33:01

Re: Study: NASA should return to moon before going to Mars

#5 2015-07-26 13:55:35

Re: Study: NASA should return to moon before going to Mars

#6 2015-07-26 15:15:32

Re: Study: NASA should return to moon before going to Mars

#7 2015-07-26 16:11:10

Re: Study: NASA should return to moon before going to Mars

#8 2015-07-26 22:29:42

Re: Study: NASA should return to moon before going to Mars

#9 2015-10-09 18:57:26

Re: Study: NASA should return to moon before going to Mars

#10 2015-10-11 09:28:21

Re: Study: NASA should return to moon before going to Mars

#11 2015-10-11 16:44:59

Re: Study: NASA should return to moon before going to Mars

#12 2015-10-11 19:43:26

Re: Study: NASA should return to moon before going to Mars

#13 2015-10-11 20:11:43

Re: Study: NASA should return to moon before going to Mars

#14 2022-04-13 04:20:48

Re: Study: NASA should return to moon before going to Mars

#15 2022-04-13 04:51:27

Re: Study: NASA should return to moon before going to Mars

#16 2022-04-13 07:59:06

Re: Study: NASA should return to moon before going to Mars

#17 2022-04-13 08:02:28

Re: Study: NASA should return to moon before going to Mars

#18 2022-09-21 14:39:52

Re: Study: NASA should return to moon before going to Mars

#19 2023-03-14 04:40:13

Re: Study: NASA should return to moon before going to Mars

Board footer