50th Anniversary Moon Mission

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-08-26 17:02:39

July 20, 2019 will be the 50th Anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, it would seem appropriate that we should schedule a manned moon landing for that date, and conveniently enough, the first full test of the SLS rocket will be in 2017, this gives us two years to put together manned mission to the Moon. I think the objective should be the Lunar North or South Poles, to scout out the location for a Moon base. We'll need an area where there is constant sunlight and constant communication with Earth, and some areas where there is constant shadow, where we can prospect for water and other volatiles to support the base, and thus keep the costs down due to resupply missions. 2017 is also the first year of the new Administration, whoever it may be. I think a manned moon mission is doable, as NASA is already developing a "moon rocket" for it.
SLS+Vehicle+Configurations+2.PNG

RobertDyck · 2015-08-26 18:32:14

We already have 2 discussion threads about this. The second created by you.
A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.
SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

SpaceNut · 2015-08-26 19:57:02

Another forum oddity occurs when clicking on the links is that for those that login in at http://www. forum name will appear that you will be logged out in the http:// forum name entry method as the topic appears red for not being logged into.

As for the topic sure would be sweet to have Nasa pull it off, but I am not holding my breath.....

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-08-27 04:58:01

SpaceNut wrote:

Another forum oddity occurs when clicking on the links is that for those that login in at http://www. forum name will appear that you will be logged out in the http:// forum name entry method as the topic appears red for not being logged into.
As for the topic sure would be sweet to have Nasa pull it off, but I am not holding my breath.....

Its not NASA's decision, its the President's. The President decides what NASA does, theoretically with the approval of the Congress. A manned landing on the Moon is the next logical step, especially after developing the SLS, which will put us right on the Moon's doorstep. There is no reason not to go there, now that we've gotten rid of the Shuttle. The Space Shuttle was the main reason why we didn't go back to the Moon sooner! We already did a space station in low Earth orbit, the next step is to put one on the Moon. It is a lot easier than going to Mars, and a quick evacuation from the moon is possible if something goes wrong, not the case with a manned Mars mission. I am reminded of the upcoming movie The Martian which is an example of what can go wrong, and it is not so much the sudden death which threatened Apollo 13, but the lingering slow death that might occur in a Mars mission, knowing that a person is doomed and there is no way to save him, that is the nightmare that occurs in NASA mission planners offices. Perhaps we'll want an assured return vehicle on the Moon before we attempt to land astronauts there. That is a vehicle that can lift off the Moon's surface and go directly to Earth. Perhaps ICBM technology could be used for this, that is a solid rocket motor, something which can sit on the Moon's surface indefinitely, a kind of "escape pod" in other words.

RobertDyck · 2015-08-27 09:47:12

The 90-day Report called for:
- a big launch vehicle as large as a Saturn V
- a space station in Low Earth Orbit, as large as ISS
- a human mission to the Moon, with a re-do of Apollo
- permanent human base on the Moon
- mines on the Moon, smelters, the oxygen produced from oxide ore stored
- fuel tankers to carry lunar oxygen back to LEO
- a fuel depot in LEO to store lunar oxygen
- a second space station to act as a ship yard
- a giant spacecraft for Mars with nuclear engines and greenhouse farms onboard
- this spacecraft would take 26 months from Earth to Mars and back. Only half the crew would descent to Mars surface, the other half stranded in Mars orbit. The crew that do set foot on the Red Planet would only spend 2 weeks before returning to Earth.

All this for the low low low price of $450 billion, in 1989 dollars. Apply inflation to today, that works out to $750 in today's dollars. Congress in 1989 took one look at the price tag and said "You want what!?!?!" And that was the end of that.

Now we have the first items from that list, and you care calling for the next two. This is the 90-Day Report in pieces. Tom, do you really not see the problem?

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-08-27 10:21:19

RobertDyck wrote:

The 90-day Report called for:
- a big launch vehicle as large as a Saturn V
- a space station in Low Earth Orbit, as large as ISS
- a human mission to the Moon, with a re-do of Apollo
- permanent human base on the Moon
- mines on the Moon, smelters, the oxygen produced from oxide ore stored
- fuel tankers to carry lunar oxygen back to LEO
- a fuel depot in LEO to store lunar oxygen
- a second space station to act as a ship yard
- a giant spacecraft for Mars with nuclear engines and greenhouse farms onboard
- this spacecraft would take 26 months from Earth to Mars and back. Only half the crew would descent to Mars surface, the other half stranded in Mars orbit. The crew that do set foot on the Red Planet would only spend 2 weeks before returning to Earth.
All this for the low low low price of $450 billion, in 1989 dollars. Apply inflation to today, that works out to $750 in today's dollars. Congress in 1989 took one look at the price tag and said "You want what!?!?!" And that was the end of that.
Now we have the first items from that list, and you care calling for the next two. This is the 90-Day Report in pieces. Tom, do you really not see the problem?

Part of that was already done, we already have a space station and we are developing the Moon Rocket whether we wish to call it that or not, the rest is a lander and lunar hardware, not so expensive once you have the vehicles to get there.

RobertDyck · 2015-08-27 11:57:55

My last post to "SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM" proposed an alternative. Cancel Orion, and convert CST-100 to do the job. I consider CST-100 to be Orion that's fixed. Build a new service module for CST-100 that has enough propellant for both LOI and TEI. And LOI with a lunar module attached. Use LCH4/LOX, as Orion's service module was originally supposed to, not hypergolics. And build a compact lunar module, able to carry all 4 astronauts to the lunar surface and back, but not LOI. Again, use LCH4/LOX for the lunar module. Size the thing so the entire stack can be launched by a single SLS block 2B: CST-100 capsule, SM, LM.

Then the big thing: send a Mars direct hab to the Moon. Use that as the lunar base. Use this new lunar module to ferry crew to/from the Moon. Put recycling life support in the hab, not the LM. That would demonstrate technology for Mars, so the Moon program isn't a waste, it actually will get us to Mars.

Note: I said SLS block 2B. Constellation required Ares V to launch the Altair lunar module into Earth orbit, and have enough propellant left in the Ares V upper stage for TLI. Orion would launch on Ares I. When SLS was first announced, SLS block 2 would do the job of Ares V, and SLS block 1 the job of Ares I. SLS block 2 would be as powerful as Saturn V. But I didn't even ask for SLS block 2, I said block 2B. That's block 1B with the 5-segment SRBs replaced with liquid boosters.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-08-28 09:35:36

Why not just call it an Orion Capsule? Sure sound better than giving it a bunch of letters and numbers as if it were a Star Wars Droid! You don't sound smarter by calling it a CST-100 than you do if you call it an Orion, and besides Orion rolls off the tongue more easily. I would seriously consider altering the Apollo configuration. Like for instance having an Earth Return ship that can return to Earth without rendezvousing with a mother ship in Lunar orbit, and we don't need to waste human labor to babysit the mother ship either like we did on the Apollo program. I think the Earth return ship should be able to last on the Moon's surface for up to a year or longer. I think we can anticipate changing the Moon crews as often as we change the crews of the ISS, that means a continuous presence on the Moon. We did flags and footprints with Apollo. We can land an Earth Return stage with empty tanks and then land the fuel, later on we can do in situ propellant manufacturing once we have a mining infrastructure on the surface.

RobertDyck · 2015-08-28 12:58:20

Orion is 28 metric tonnes launch weight, CST-100 is 10 metric tonnes. Orion is 16.5 feet diameter, CST-100 is 15.0 feet diameter. Orion uses the obsolete launch abort technique of a rocket above the capsule, which requires an exhaust shield over the entire capsule. CST-100 uses the service module for launch abort.

And you don't need a crew member to babysit the capsule. With modern computers, the capsule can stay parked unattended. That's true with Orion or CST-100.

Apollo was originally designed to land the Command and Service Module (CSM) on the Moon. That's why the service module engine was so large; it was designed to lift off from the Moon. But it was too heavy, even a Saturn V couldn't launch it. Engineers broke the service module into two stages: descent and ascent. Still, too heavy. They redesigned it several times, but every time it was too heavy for a Saturn V. They seriously considered Nova, aka Saturn C-8, which would have had 8 F-1 engines for the first stage, and 8 J-2 engines for the second stage. But NASA was concerned about vibration this would cause during launch, and Congress didn't want to pay for a rocket even larger than a Saturn V. Then one engineer showed the total launch weight is dramatically reduced if you break the craft into mother ship and Lunar Module. His proposal for the mother ship was the same Command Module (capsule) that NASA was already developing, but the service module would be dramatically reduced. The Lunar Module would be two stages: descent and ascent. Notice that's what was built. LM as built had smaller windows, and the descent stage was octagonal instead of round; other than that it was the proposal by Dr. Joseph F. Shea. And physics remains the same.

Robert Zubrin suggested landing a full Mars Direct mission on the Moon. That starts with the ERV landed unmanned, crew land in the hab. For the Moon, no heat shield or parachute, just rocket landing. With the Moon's low gravity, he estimated the rocket landing pack for Mars would be about the same size as the Moon. But the Mars ERV uses ISPP, taking CO2 from Mars atmosphere for propellant. The Moon doesn't have an atmosphere. And polar ice is far too rare and hard to harvest. I'm concerned trying to land a Mars Direct ERV fully fuelled would have the same problems as Apollo.

John Wickman developed Lunar Soil Propellant in the 1980s. It uses powdered aluminum suspended in liquid oxygen as mono-propellant. Aluminum smelted from lunar ore, with oxygen as byproduct. This can be harvested from any location on the Moon, but requires an aluminum smelter. He demonstrated the fuel tank won't explode, and combustion will not burn up the fuel line to the fuel tank. But safety of a mono-propellant is an issue. He also demonstrated this system as a bi-propellant, with powdered aluminum blown into the combustion chamber with pressurized nitrogen. The problem is nitrogen doesn't occur on the Moon.

That's why I suggest an Apollo style CSM/LM instead of Mars Direct ERV. Using CST-100 instead of Orion because it's smaller and lighter. So a Single SLS can launch the entire stack: CSM & LM. And a new LM built for all 4 crew, and with modern carbon fibre / epoxy propellant tanks, and LCH4/LOX instead of aerozine-50/N2O4. So Apollo LM had Isp 290 seconds, LCH4/LOX would have 360 seconds. All the weight saving is to carry 4 astronauts instead of 2.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2015-08-28 15:11:04)

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-08-29 18:22:56

suppose you had a one stage Lunar Module, and instead of a lift off stage you placed a CST-100 on top? The lander lands on the Moon, and then you land another lander on the Moon right next to it, but this time its entire payload is a fuel tank containing LCH4 and LO2 in separate chambers, there are hoses attached, a robot dismounts from the first lander, it is remotely controlled from Earth, the drone connects the hose from the fuel tank lander to the empty tanks of the lander with the CST-100 on top, it transfers the fuel from the tanker lander to the Earth Return Vehicle until its fully fueled and capable of returning to Earth. Both landers have landed in a shadowy crated at the Moon's North Pole to minimize the insulation requirements and to prevent boil off. Once NASA has confirmed the Return lander if fully fuels and functional, the send the astronauts in a third lander which is all hab. The astronauts live in that hab until they are done, then they haul all the rock samples they want to return to Earth plus themselves to the Earth Return Vehicle and then lift off and return to Earth. How does that sound, the Mission would require One 105T_Block_IA and two 105T_Block_IA Cargo SLS rockets. The astronauts would stay on the Moon's surface for an entire year, and then return to Earth. Another three such rockets would be launched to carry the next crew, and they' reuse the old hab left on the Moon's surface from the previous crew in addition to the hab they bring with them. After all no sense in letting it go to waste.
SLS+Vehicle+Configurations+2.PNG

RobertDyck · 2015-08-30 01:56:12

They're talking about cutting down SLS already. It hasn't even launched once, yet they want to cut it down. They want to build just one core stage, with 4 RS-25 (SSME) engines. Block I was supposed to have 4 main engines, block II would have 5 engines. But they don't want to build that. And they want to reduce the upper stage. Block I will use the interim cryogenic upper stage, which is the upper stage from a Titan IV rocket. Block II was to have a larger upper stage, with same diameter as the core stage, and taller to carry more propellant, and use J-2X engines. It would be configurable for the mission: 1, 2, or 3 engines. That is one engine to launch low payload mass to a distant destination such as the Moon or Mars, or 2 or 3 engines for heavier mass to LEO. The upper stage of Atlas V has this option: 1 or 2 engines for its upper stage. But the manufacturer of RL-10 engines lobbied to sell their engines. They're smaller, but higher Isp. NASA has stopped all work on J-2X, it looks like the manufacturer of RL-10 has won. The "exploration upper stage" will carry 105 metric tonnes of propellant and use 4 RL-10C-2 engines. And they don't want to use advanced boosters for intermediate versions of SLS. So anything other than block II will use 5-segment SRBs.

This is a long-winded way of saying SLS block 1A will not be built. SLS block 1B will. And block II may not be built either. So your graphic is out of date. Here's the updated one.

Notice the changes. The "exploration upper stage" is the only change from block 1 to block 1B. And has 4 RL-10 engine, not J-2X. And 5-segment SRBs, not advanced boosters.

SpaceNut gave us a nice chart of SLS blocks, in "Space Policy":

The row that says "2xF-1B LRB" means block 2B with a pair of Liquid Rocket Boosters, each of which has 2 F-1B engines. This is the most likely to be built. We won't get block 1A or block 2, we will get block 2B. That will have a core stage with only 4 RS-25 engines, and exploration upper stage with 4 RL-10 engines. The only difference from block 1B to block 2B is replacing SRBs with LRBs.

So the first problem with your proposal is SLS block 1A will not be built. The next is you require 3 launches for each mission. My proposal requires 1 SLS block 2B to launch the Mars Direct habitat, unmanned. And a second SLS block 2B to launch an Apollo style mission. That mission would land beside the Mars Direct hab, because the hab would be the permanent Moon base. Each subsequent mission requires a single SLS block 2B.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2015-08-30 02:31:35)

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-08-30 10:59:31

My problem is every time a lunar module lands on the surface, you don't know whether you are able to take off again. If you have something waiting for them, you can be sure the astronauts can get off from the moon before they actually get to the Moon. do you really want a scenario of having astronauts stranded on the moon having their supplies slowly running out? Do you want that to happen? At least if the astronauts crash while landing on the moon, they do that fairly quickly, and there are no decisions to be made except how to conduct their funeral, to have astronauts stranded on the Moon with no way off, would be a nightmare, wouldn't you agree?

Lets say we landed an Apollo Style Lunar lander, the astronauts collect the rocks and do some exploring, then they get into the LEM, the push the button and nothing happens? Lets say there is something wrong with the upper stage engines and they won't start?

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2015-08-30 11:01:49)

RobertDyck · 2015-08-30 12:39:41

Um, what? Why are you saying an Apollo style LM is unsafe? And why are you saying pre-landing an ERV is safer? The same scenario could happen with a pre-landed ERV. And there is a rescue option. The hab will have several months of food and supplies, but the Moon is just 3 days from Earth. Send another mission, with another capsule, service module, and LM.

That raises an interesting question: should the LM be designed to be able to land unmanned? With 4 crew on the Moon, and an LM only able to carry 4, a rescue ship would have to land unmanned. CST-100 is designed for 7 crew, so one pilot plus 4 empty seats for the rescued crew would be a bit of a squeeze, but possible. Probably someone would have a duffel bag of food and lithium hydroxide canisters on his lap all the way back to Earth, and forget bringing any samples back. But if the LM failed, the original capsule/SM may still function. Two capsules entering Earth's atmosphere in formation?

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-08-30 20:48:15

RobertDyck wrote:

Um, what? Why are you saying an Apollo style LM is unsafe? And why are you saying pre-landing an ERV is safer? The same scenario could happen with a pre-landed ERV. And there is a rescue option. The hab will have several months of food and supplies, but the Moon is just 3 days from Earth. Send another mission, with another capsule, service module, and LM.
That raises an interesting question: should the LM be designed to be able to land unmanned? With 4 crew on the Moon, and an LM only able to carry 4, a rescue ship would have to land unmanned. CST-100 is designed for 7 crew, so one pilot plus 4 empty seats for the rescued crew would be a bit of a squeeze, but possible. Probably someone would have a duffel bag of food and lithium hydroxide canisters on his lap all the way back to Earth, and forget bringing any samples back. But if the LM failed, the original capsule/SM may still function. Two capsules entering Earth's atmosphere in formation?

There were only 6 missions that landed men on the Moon, the LEM worked every time, but six missions is not statistically significant. the Apollo Configuration was designed to beat the Russians to the Moon, there was a trade off from safety to get there first, the mission planners took a risk and fortunately no one died, but we can still make the LEM safer by not requiring a rendezvous in Lunar orbit in order to return to Earth. The lander should be designed to reach lunar escape velocity instead of merely Lunar orbital velocity, that lander should include a reentry capsule on top to maximize the safety for the astronauts on the Moon's surface.

RobertDyck · 2015-08-30 22:49:24

Orbital rendezvous was developed by Gemini, used regularly by Apollo, the Apollo-Soyuz mission, Apollo-Skylab. Then Shuttle-Hubble, Shuttle-Mir, Shuttle-ISS, Dragon-ISS, Cygnus-ISS, ATV-ISS, HTV-ISS. Orbital rendezvous was new in the 1960s, today it's a mature technology. That's like saying driving a car is unsafe, so we have to ride a horse.

And your alternative requires surface rendezvous. Yes, we can use a radio beacon that the automated system can land on. But if you're going to obsess about risk, we have much less experience with surface rendezvous than orbital rendezvous. Apollo 12 landed within walking distance of Surveyor 3. That's one. Perhaps most risky is robotic refuelling.

Your plan requires 3 SLS launches per mission. Mine requires one to establish the base, then one per human mission. Congress is obsessed with cost; and considering these costs, they should. So fewer launches makes it more likely to happen. And your mission plan doesn't look like Apollo. Mine does. Those who want Apollo back will be happy.

Perhaps you want it to look more like Mars Direct. But you realize my mission plan for Mars uses a Mars Ascent Vehicle that doesn't have an entry vehicle. It will rendezvous with the reusable interplanetary spacecraft parked in Mars orbit. So this lunar mission does look like the Mars mission.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-08-31 05:08:54

In case you forgot, our reusable Space Shuttle wasn't very cheap, it probably kept us from going back to the Moon for 30 years because just launching ate up so much of our budget. We have no experience operating an interplanetary vessel, we have no experience servicing one in space. Anything that is used over and over again without maintenance will eventually wear out and break, and we can't bring an interplanetary vessel back down to Earth for servicing, where are people who do the servicing are! Getting them into orbit and housing them there in a space station would be expensive, and we would need a space station that would dwarf the ISS. A space Station that might look like this:

Just building this space station would be expensive.

SpaceNut · 2015-08-31 09:15:06

RobertDyck, I am all for building just a couple versions of sls but they need to make them cost concious not workfare as it will threaten and not work for mars or for the moon if its not affordable..

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-08-31 09:47:10

One way to reduce the cost is to automate the production of the stages, reduce the number of workers in the factory, thereby reducing the amount of salary and wages paid, if the rockets are still expendable and thrown way afterwards, that is fine. An expendable booster doesn't need to be serviced or maintained if manufactured right. (we don't want an Apollo 13 either!) Any reusable vehicle will have to spend some of its time on Earth in order to be where the people are to maintain it. A reusable vehicle that goes from Low Earth Orbit to the Moon's surface and or orbit around it will have problems in its maintenance, as people don't live in orbit to maintain it. Perhaps teleoperated robots in low Earth orbit can do the maintenance, but they themselves will have to be maintained or replaced as they wear out.

RobertDyck · 2015-08-31 10:33:35

SpaceNut wrote:

RobertDyck, I am all for building just a couple versions of sls but they need to make them cost concious not workfare as it will threaten and not work for mars or for the moon if its not affordable..

Mars Direct calls for a rocket as large as Saturn V, built from Space Shuttle parts. SLS block 2 or block 2B is just that. And Congress appears determined to build it, and it appears to be intended for return to the Moon. So that's what I suggested. Work with the guys who control the money, rather than against them. Controlling cost may simply be a matter of getting rid of Old Space contractors. But Congress favours those guys. Perhaps SpaceX and Orbital Sciences can give them a sufficient kick in the pants.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-08-31 10:42:14

RobertDyck wrote:

SpaceNut wrote:
RobertDyck, I am all for building just a couple versions of sls but they need to make them cost concious not workfare as it will threaten and not work for mars or for the moon if its not affordable..
Mars Direct calls for a rocket as large as Saturn V, built from Space Shuttle parts. SLS block 2 or block 2B is just that. And Congress appears determined to build it, and it appears to be intended for return to the Moon. So that's what I suggested. Work with the guys who control the money, rather than against them. Controlling cost may simply be a matter of getting rid of Old Space contractors. But Congress favours those guys. Perhaps SpaceX and Orbital Sciences can give them a sufficient kick in the pants.

I agree, Congress wants to built the Saturn V analogs, and admittedly we need something to replace the Shuttle anyway, since we got rid of it, why not something that will extend our reach towards the Moon? I would like something that is comparable to the ISS but sitting on the Moon instead, we can use inflatable transhabs on the Moon instead of the usual aluminum bodies that are traditionally used to save weight.
bigelow-base-1-100414-02.jpg?1292270288
Something like this Bigelow model would do nicely in cutting down on the mass needed to be delivered to the Moon, thus supporting an initial Moon crew of around 6-7 people as we currently do now with the ISS. Once built, we should decide whether we should keep the ISS going or replace it with the Moonbase. Hopefully we can get launch costs down so we can move on to grander things beyond this!

RobertDyck · 2015-08-31 11:55:34

Uh, Tom. I've blathered so many times about my plan for Mars that I shouldn't have to repeat. But since you insist:
Landing the Earth return capsule on Mars, just to lift off again is a waste of propellant. Mars Direct goes to great lengths to reduce launch weight, so this waste is just not consistent. Keep the Earth return capsule parked in Mars orbit. But we can do even better.

With my mission plan, the ITV will be a habitat optimized for the ITV. About the size of the upper floor alone of Mars Direct, without the lower floor. Life support will take space, but you don't need a lab in the ITV. Add an Adept heat shield, that is a carbon fibre fabric heat shield that opens like an umbrella. This heat shield will be used for aerocapture to enter orbit at both planets: Mars, and return to Earth. At Mars it will remain in highly elliptical high Mars orbit. At Earth it will then use aerobraking to successively drop orbital altitude until it can rendezvous with ISS. As a backup, in case aerocapture into Earth orbit fails, it will include a Dragon capsule. This is a life boat, what science fiction calls an escape pod. And yea, the ITV will require thrusters for those orbital manoeuvres. So there are just 3 parts to this ITV: habitat + heat shield + Dragon. The ITV will remain docked at ISS until ready for it's next mission. And ISS can be used to assemble the stack. The Mars habitat will be docked to the ITV before launch to Mars. Since the ITV will be living space for transit both ways, it will have food those transits. And Mars habitat will have food for the surface stay. So all food will be brought with astronauts, so if a free return is necessary, all that food is with them. Mars Direct has food for the return transit in the ERV, not available during free return. So this is another advantage. The Mars habitat will have its own heat shield, also an ADEPT fabric umbrella, used for atmospheric entry from Mars orbit, not direct entry. That makes entry lower energy, so safer. The TMI stage will be expendable, and attached to the ITV + Mars hab stack with a long cable, and rotated for artificial gravity. The Mars Ascent Vehicle will be small and light weight, like an Apollo LM. In fact it could be unpressurized to save even more weight, essentially just a fairing with seats. Astronauts would wear their space suits during ascent. The MAV would carry extra fuel, because the MAV would be the TEI stage. No fuel transfer, instead the MAV docks to the ITV and pushes it into trans-Earth trajectory. The MAV will also be expendable, and also used as a counterweight for artificial gravity. Like Mars Direct, upon approach to Mars the cable would be cut, ending artificial gravity and discarding the TMI stage. Similarly, on approach to Earth the cable would be cut, discarding the MAV. Weight of the Mars hab could be reduced by making it an inflatable. So just a capsule with seats for the astronauts to ride down to Mars, then everything else inflatable. It wouldn't be inflated until landing. So the Mars hab could be lifted to ISS for assembly by a Falcon Heavy instead of SLS. Ideal would be to pre-land a lab beside the MAV, before astronauts leave Earth. The lab would also be inflatable, and carry backup life support.

The Moon base wouldn't have the separate lab, just the hab. And the Apollo style LM would be equivalent to the MAV. For the Moon we would have an Apollo style capsule + SM, but for Mars we would need a much larger ITV. One big question is hard wall hab vs inflatable. Falcon Heavy is powerful enough to lift either to ISS. And SLS block 2B can launch it to the Moon. But a hard wall hab has the same diameter as the SLS core stage. SLS can do that, but Falcon Heavy is limited to 5 metre fairing.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2015-08-31 11:56:58)

SpaceNut · 2015-08-31 19:50:44

RobertDyck wrote:

SpaceNut wrote:
RobertDyck, I am all for building just a couple versions of sls but they need to make them cost concious not workfare as it will threaten and not work for mars or for the moon if its not affordable..
Mars Direct calls for a rocket as large as Saturn V, built from Space Shuttle parts. SLS block 2 or block 2B is just that. And Congress appears determined to build it, and it appears to be intended for return to the Moon. So that's what I suggested. Work with the guys who control the money, rather than against them. Controlling cost may simply be a matter of getting rid of Old Space contractors. But Congress favours those guys. Perhaps SpaceX and Orbital Sciences can give them a sufficient kick in the pants.

One way for the other companies is to create duplicate copies of any part that would be used in the sls as in cloning. We now where that got us in the electronic industry.....Use the automobile industry multiple vendor approach to make it cost compedative.

SpaceNut · 2015-08-31 21:43:32

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

I agree, Congress wants to built the Saturn V analogs, and admittedly we need something to replace the Shuttle anyway, since we got rid of it, why not something that will extend our reach towards the Moon? I would like something that is comparable to the ISS but sitting on the Moon instead, we can use inflatable transhabs on the Moon instead of the usual aluminum bodies that are traditionally used to save weight.
http://i.space.com/images/i/000/005/166 … 1292270288
Something like this Bigelow model would do nicely in cutting down on the mass needed to be delivered to the Moon, thus supporting an initial Moon crew of around 6-7 people as we currently do now with the ISS. Once built, we should decide whether we should keep the ISS going or replace it with the Moonbase. Hopefully we can get launch costs down so we can move on to grander things beyond this!

The image is interesting but lacks the shielding for the inflateable habitat for long term useage as the regolith woul need to cover the units which then makes it so that we would need to up the internal pressure to compensate for the heavy load. The other thing that I not would be that the capsule landers would needed to be modified to rid the heavy heatshield from landing on the moon but then we could not use them for returning back to earth. I would also land them in like a silo so at to create a shielded environment for the crew to exit into once the top closes.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-09-01 05:39:53

Well you know if the habs were buried, you would not see them in that model. the point of the model was to show what the habs would look like. Besides, you all you know there could be water tanks inside those inflatable walls.

SpaceNut · 2015-10-05 20:24:34

Pictures are worth a thousand words..... High resolution Apollo mission and they fantastic....

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2015-08-26 17:02:39

50th Anniversary Moon Mission

#2 2015-08-26 18:32:14

Re: 50th Anniversary Moon Mission

#3 2015-08-26 19:57:02

Re: 50th Anniversary Moon Mission

#4 2015-08-27 04:58:01

Re: 50th Anniversary Moon Mission

#5 2015-08-27 09:47:12

Re: 50th Anniversary Moon Mission

#6 2015-08-27 10:21:19

Re: 50th Anniversary Moon Mission

#7 2015-08-27 11:57:55

Re: 50th Anniversary Moon Mission

#8 2015-08-28 09:35:36

Re: 50th Anniversary Moon Mission

#9 2015-08-28 12:58:20

Re: 50th Anniversary Moon Mission

#10 2015-08-29 18:22:56

Re: 50th Anniversary Moon Mission

#11 2015-08-30 01:56:12

Re: 50th Anniversary Moon Mission

#12 2015-08-30 10:59:31

Re: 50th Anniversary Moon Mission

#13 2015-08-30 12:39:41

Re: 50th Anniversary Moon Mission

#14 2015-08-30 20:48:15

Re: 50th Anniversary Moon Mission

#15 2015-08-30 22:49:24

Re: 50th Anniversary Moon Mission

#16 2015-08-31 05:08:54

Re: 50th Anniversary Moon Mission

#17 2015-08-31 09:15:06

Re: 50th Anniversary Moon Mission

#18 2015-08-31 09:47:10

Re: 50th Anniversary Moon Mission

#19 2015-08-31 10:33:35

Re: 50th Anniversary Moon Mission

#20 2015-08-31 10:42:14

Re: 50th Anniversary Moon Mission

#21 2015-08-31 11:55:34

Re: 50th Anniversary Moon Mission

#22 2015-08-31 19:50:44

Re: 50th Anniversary Moon Mission

#23 2015-08-31 21:43:32

Re: 50th Anniversary Moon Mission

#24 2015-09-01 05:39:53

Re: 50th Anniversary Moon Mission

#25 2015-10-05 20:24:34

Re: 50th Anniversary Moon Mission

Board footer