Apollo 8, redux

GW Johnson · 2017-05-13 09:32:19

Well, lessee here. NASA will not fly EM-1 unmanned until 2019 or later, depending upon what slips next.

Meanwhile, Spacex may fly something like an EM-1 mission, and do it manned with paying tourists, in 2018, unless they bump into another Murphy's Law problem. That'll be a crewed Dragon atop a Falcon-Heavy.

I haven't seen much to indicate that the landing tests are going on to prove out crew Dragon's propulsive landing capability, but if they get it done in time, there's enough delta-vee "oomph" in that crew Dragon to land propulsively on land in the tourist flight.

What portends here is a stunning upset to NASA: a private firm on private money sending paying tourists past the moon and back, a year or more before NASA can even do the same thing unmanned.

That kind of demonstration might stimulate the likes of a Bigelow to get on with the war of building more than one private space station in a better orbit. The standard for doing things may not be NASA anymore.

If Bigelow was thinking past NASA's box (no guarantee that they are yet), they would build one of these private space stations to spin for partial gravity, and rent the facility to NASA to do the research NASA never did in this area.

Newer hardware is less of a risk to astronauts on board than older hardware. We saw it with the Salyuts, Mir, and now its beginning again with ISS.

Just observations and extrapolations on my part.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-05-13 09:34:52)

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-13 10:46:07

GW-

Your views and mine seem to coincide. NASA has simply "lost it," and is flailing to justify it's existence. The SLS rockets are scheduled to cost $650,000,000 each, above the cost of the R & D time spent on them. This serves to illustrate the "efficiency of the cost-plus system" of contracting. Not. ULA is simply on the Corporate Welfare gravy train, not out there leading the way.

Sorry if these comments step on anyone's "mental toes."

SpaceNut · 2017-05-13 21:36:29

From the opening post it was felt that Space x with its newest rocket would be able to achieve the goal of bringing man back to the moon and it was only a wish that Nasa would rise up to that challenge but alas its seems that they would rather hide behind piles of money and decades of delay before going for that brass ring once more....

SpaceNut · 2017-05-17 22:16:24

Nyet says
Russian Rocket Chief Throws Some Shade on Elon Musk's Moon Plan

The head of Russia's most prominent spaceflight company questioned whether Elon Musk's SpaceX will be able to launch people around the moon next year and "As for the state of affairs specifically at Elon Musk's company, it would be difficult to carry out such a mission in 2018, and even in 2020," Vladimir Solntsev, general director of RSC Energia, the primary contractor for Russia's human spaceflight program, said in a wide-ranging Q&A with the Russian news agency TASS. "Nobody has yet even seen the designs. There’s no launch vehicle, no spacecraft," Solntsev added. "The Crew Dragon spacecraft designed for missions to the ISS and Falcon 9 launch vehicle are a far cry from a spacecraft and a rocket that are needed for a mission towards the moon."

If the crewed dragon can not do this then we really are in a case of we are not ready....

Terraformer · 2017-05-18 07:19:53

This wouldn't be the same Russians who wanted to use a Soyuz capsule for a similar mission, would they?

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-18 08:00:52

Is this involving the same Elon Musk, who everyone (NASA included) thought that recovering first stages of launch vehicles was "impossible?"

RobertDyck · 2017-05-18 09:56:13

Terraformer wrote:

This wouldn't be the same Russians who wanted to use a Soyuz capsule for a similar mission, would they?

Energia is one of the major space corporations of Russia. They're the Russian equivalent to Boeing or Lockheed-Martin. And yes, their plan was to use Soyuz to do the same mission.

In the 1960s, the Russian plan for the Moon was similar to NASA's. Instead of an Apollo CSM, they would use a Soyuz with an enlarged service module. The larger service module would have sufficient propellant to return to Earth from Lunar orbit. To enter Lunar orbit they would use a separate stage: Block D. And they would have an LK Lunar Kraft attached.

They had difficulty getting the N1 launch vehicle to work, their equivalent to the Saturn V. Because of that, they had plans to launch a modified Soyuz around the Moon. The same mission that SpaceX is currently planning to do with Dragon. And Apollo 8 was originally going to do that as an unmanned test of equipment. But the Soviets did it just 3 months before Apollo 8, using an unmanned version of Soyuz. So NASA asked for volunteers to ride Apollo 8. Absolutely every astronaut volunteered. The modified Soyuz had the same service module as the Earth orbit version of Soyuz, the orbital module aka mission module removed, and additional life support added to the descent module (capsule) to support 1 cosmonaut for the 1 week trip to the Moon and back. Because it had the smaller service module, it couldn't enter Lunar orbit. Just Free Return: use the Moon's gravity to do a U-turn like Apollo 13. This smaller Soyuz would be launched on Proton; the unmanned mission before Apollo 8 was launched on Proton.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-18 11:01:40

The Proton M is an extremely powerful heavy lift booster! Uses NTO and UDMH as fuels. No cryogenics involved.

RobertDyck · 2017-05-18 11:45:30

Oldfart1939 wrote:

The Proton M is an extremely powerful heavy lift booster! Uses NTO and UDMH as fuels. No cryogenics involved.

True, but just to be picky. In the 1960s NASA used the term "heavy lift" for Saturn V. "Medium lift" meant something like Saturn 1 or Saturn 1B. The Soviet "N1" rocket was also called "heavy". The letter "N" in the Russian alphabet is pronounced "H", so "N1" meant "Heavy 1". Later the Soviets redefined the term "heavy" to mean something the size of Proton or Saturn 1B, and created the term "super heavy" for N1 or Saturn V. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, when Russian rockets became available to Western customers, Boeing and Lockheed-Martin decided to use the Russian terms to define their largest launch vehicles. It's just marketing.

In the 1960s, the vehicle intended to launch Soyuz L1 was Proton-K/D. And it did launch the unmanned version around the Moon. That's Proton-K with a Block D upper stage. Proton-M is the modern version, and Block DM is available as an upper stage.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-18 15:46:45

Robert-

I fully understand that. In terms of today's launchers, Proton still does a good job in launching heavy loads. In some of my hypothecation about a Mars architecture, I looked favorably at the Proton second and 3rd stages as Earth Departure boosters.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2017-05-18 16:01:00)

SpaceNut · 2017-05-18 18:01:23

I will not say that these parts could not get into any design its just highly unlikely at this point in politics that they will. Having a mixed vehicle concept also means lots of coversions and chances for error to occur and they do. So its best just to stick with one or the other.

If Space X is ready then we will hear lots more noise and happenings on the cape as that is where these ship will launch from.

Here is putting mud on your face nasa and hopefully that sleeping gaint will awake and do tromendous things once more.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-18 20:46:03

SpaceNut-

It isn't necessary that Musk buy the complete units from Russia; just an engine or 2, then reverse engineer! They obviously have a lot of NTO/UDMH propellant experience. UDMH is also sufficiently stable for regeneratively cooled engines.

SpaceNut · 2017-05-18 21:15:15

Ya you would thing that reverse engineering of the engines would be simple but just look at the RD180 engine fiasco just to see how wrong we might be...sures its a different fueled device but its still an engine....But in either case I agree that we need to look at these fuels for at least the earth return trip for what we leave in mars orbit and for possibly the flight out if we need to do assembly in orbit to be able to go.

As far landers for mars and ascent vehicles thats another question depending on what we can deliver to the surface of mars for mass and whether or not we are trying to do insitu refueling.

kbd512 · 2017-05-18 21:50:17

Why waste any more money building giant rockets when we have so much experience with orbital assembly?

If you throw a few extra tons of payload to Mars using a better upper stage, but add on another decade of development time and associated costs, what would you even have money left to send that would require the giant rocket?

If we just wanted to put all the checks in the blocks so we can do the mission, what's the simplest way to do that?

My contention is that we use the rockets we have (Falcon Heavy) or will have (New Glenn and Vulcan Heavy in the next five years or so), because those rockets have so much general purpose utility for so many different customers that the cost is within the realm of reasonability, even if none of them were reusable, which is fortuitously not the case.

Let's concern ourselves with BFR's (SLS, ITS, and the like) after the exploration campaign begins in earnest. SLS, like Saturn V, is proving to be a very long lead time development item. I don't think anyone in Congress had any inkling about how difficult or costly using STS hardware for things it was never designed for would be. If Congress is dead set on funding SLS, then I want the first flight, an every subsequent flight, to be Singer Sewing Machine smooth. For the price we've paid, any SLS launch had better be flawless.

There will come a time when using brute force will be easier than figuring out how to break up the payload into easy-to-assemble sub loads, but now is not that time. Apart from the life support equipment, EDL equipment, Earth orbital injection and ascent stages, everything required to do lunar or Mars mission is flight proven technology, even if it hasn't flown yet. We don't need to reinvent the rocket to go to Mars. We know how to make and fly rockets. It's admittedly complicated, but well within our capabilities and these programs are and have been spectacularly successful. The handful of times we messed up, we fixed the problems and moved on.

Let's just do a full dress rehearsal mission around and on the moon to demonstrate our tech closer to home, attempt one opposition class orbital mission around Mars, and then go for the conjunction class mission with a landing on Mars. That's a reasonable progression in mission complexity, given our level of space flight experience.

* Use Falcon Heavy / Vulcan Heavy / New Glenn rockets. Those rockets use non-bleeding-edge technologies and still achieve excellent general performance. I like the fact that NASA continues to push the limits of rocket technology, but there is such a thing as an appropriate use for a Ferrari vs a Ford truck. The moon and Mars missions are a simple matter of tonnage delivered. Between a truck you can drive every day vs a supercar that needs a few days in the shop for every day on the road, this should be a no-brainer, even if the supercar can technically pull a heavier load than the truck because everything else was sacrificed for raw performance.

* Use Cygnus or ISS modules for habitats and landing people in. Only two astronauts at a time landed on the moon during the Apollo Program and there's no reason why we can't work our Mars missions the same way. It doesn't matter how many people you put into one spacecraft if something goes seriously wrong, the result is generally the same. Keep it small and simple so someone can figure out how it works and the rest of us can afford to pay them to figure out how it works.

* Expend the effort to refine existing cutting edge life support technologies into utterly reliable systems. This is the one technology set that should be continuously refined and better technologies relentlessly pursued until we arrive at Star Trek style life support systems.

* Don't myopically focus on any specific aspect or technology set for the mission, because every tool and technology must be ready for prime time to assure success. We can't simply drop development of chemical rocket technology to pursue other technologies, no matter how promising. In other words, we must recognize that as difficult as it was just to get into orbit, that was the easy part. The further we travel from home, the more complete and reliable our technology set must be.

* Never do anything just to please a constituency. There's no way to please everyone all the time. Every tool and technology implemented must service a specific requirement for a particular mission. If it's not needed, then those involved must demonstrate enough intellectual honesty to accept the difference between what's absolutely required versus what would be really nice to have.

Anyway, we've done this sort of thing before with far less technology and that's just a fact. There's nothing fundamentally new here. Define the objectives, make sure the objectives are practical and reasonable, and then backtrack from objectives to hardware required to accomplish the objectives. If we already have a tool or technology required for a mission, then it's time to move on to provide solutions for whatever else is required. Collectively, we're humans, we're smart, and we have the sort of stuff required to do this. Nothing is beyond our reach. Anyone who thinks otherwise thought wrong.

RobertDyck · 2017-05-19 01:34:12

If you're worried about leading edge technology, I have to point out SLS block 2 and 2B are scheduled to use advanced solid rocket motors. This was described as part of Ares in Mars Direct in 1990. It means a new formulation of solid fuel, using "high energy" oxidizer to replace some of the ammonium perchlorate. That's either RDX or HMX, both are the primary explosive in plastic explosives. This mixture has been used in solid rockets for military missiles, but never used for anything as large as an SRB. The advanced solids are also supposed to use graphite composite casings instead of steel. It would make the solids expendable, not reusable, but that's Ok. Shuttle found recovering and recycling SRBs cost 90% the price of new ones. Shuttle used 4 segment SRBs, SLS block 1 and 1B will use 5 segment. ATK has proposed the new advanced SRB will be 4 segment. One limitation is getting them through train tunnels from Utah to KSC in Florida. This means rubber O-ring segment seals will still be beside the LH2 tank of the core stage. This new advanced solid will be entirely new.

However, one alternate proposal is to use F-1B engines for liquid boosters. F-1 were used for the first stage of Saturn V. In 1969 the manufacturer developed F-1A, which would produce 20% more thrust and direct bolt-in replacements. The new proposal for F-1B would use modern electronics and use modern 3D printing to fabricate some components, but performance would be exactly the same as F-1A. The manufacturer already demonstrated the gas generator for the engine. Liquid boosters would have 2 engines per booster and use RP-1/LOX, just line the first stage of Saturn V, and like Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and the core stage of Atlas V. So no rubber O-rings. And this is updated Saturn technology, not bleeding edge. And analysis shows performance of these liquid booster will be slightly better than advanced solids. As well as a smoother ride, ability to throttle, and abort capability.

RobertDyck · 2017-05-19 02:20:45

kbd512 wrote:

* Use Cygnus or ISS modules for habitats and landing people in.

I have to disagree with you there. You can use the same technology, the same hull material, but the space habitats are not designed for a body with gravity. They're narrow and long, with round floor and ceiling. A spacecraft designed for gravity must have a flat floor, and must have a large floor area with limited height. Completely different requirements. Besides, attempts to use ISS modules result in...

or

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-19 08:25:15

kbd512-

I'm in agreement overall with your statements. The focus of NASA on the SLS system has become a gigantic black hole of funding--as is the ISS. The latest NASA schemes violate everything in my principles of how to do projects and science in general; I always lived by "KISS: Keep it Simple, Stupid." What's really needed is an intermediate vehicle as I've ranted about several times, the Falcon X concept vehicle. The BFR concept is too distant in the future to even worry about! We should get more clues about what Musk has in mind as we approach the SpaceX circumlunar flight, and after the Dragon 2, man-rated capsule is flown to ISS.
NASA's latest iteration of a way to get to Mars, vis a vis a lunar orbiting space station is utterly stupid, as Dr. Zubrin has more eloquently than I, stated succinctly.
We have (and have had for 40 years!) all the necessary rocket technology to do a Mars mission; we don't need nuclear-thermal, we don't need electric propulsion, we have all the needed components other than the life support systems for on-mars habitat living. Doesn't anyone in NASA administration have 2 remaining functional brain cells rubbing together to understand?

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-19 08:35:54

Question: Are these ATK SRBs too big to be flown on a C 17? I don't have any information in regard to the maximum diameter load possible. What's the weight (mass) of these boosters? The Falcon 9 is held at 12' diameter for transportation reasons cited by Robert. Tunnels. We need a 16-17' diameter vehicle. (5 meters). Possibly need to build all these BFRs in either Texas or Louisiana, with access to barge transportation to the Cape.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-19 08:37:44

I was just thinking that many modular homes are built in 16' wide segments; so what's the problem?

RobertDyck · 2017-05-19 09:03:56

Wide homes are hauled by truck over open roads. But rail has to run through tunnels dug through solid rock. So width is limited to width of a railroad tunnel. If your route doesn't go through a tunnel then you could carry a wide load, but then you have to worry about railroad control signals, etc. However, the route from Utah to KSC does go through at least one tunnel.

RobertDyck · 2017-05-19 09:13:44

Wikipedia: Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster

General characteristics
Height 45.46 m (149.16 ft)
Diameter 3.71 m (12.17 ft)
Gross mass 590,000 kg (1,300,000 lb)

What's the length of the cargo hold of a C-17 Globemaster III? Or C-5 Galaxy? Or Super Guppy? Or Boeig 747 Dreamlifter?

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-19 09:20:58

RobertDyck wrote:

Wide homes are hauled by truck over open roads. But rail has to run through tunnels dug through solid rock. So width is limited to width of a railroad tunnel. If your route doesn't go through a tunnel then you could carry a wide load, but then you have to worry about railroad control signals, etc. However, the route from Utah to KSC does go through at least one tunnel.

That's certainly the most direct pathway, but going south through Arizona, new Mexico, Texas, and the gulf states should avoid that issue.

kbd512 · 2017-05-19 14:14:08

Oldfart1939,

The C-5 can lift the payload, but you're talking about 10 C-5 flights flights per SLS and development of special payload pallets for that purpose, plus 1 to 2 C-17 flights. It's not worth the cost of the jet fuel, never mind the maintenance on the C-5's or yet another pointless distraction for NASA's engineers to exploit. The SRB's are delivered by rail because that's the only realistic way to do it and by far the least expensive.

If you look at my posts in this forum, you'll see just how much I harp on life support development. Our reusable chemical rockets are more than sufficient to get the job done.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-19 14:50:43

kbd512-

I agree that rail transport is easily the most economical for the ATK SRBs. I was posing the size question in anticipation of possibly flying a 5 meter diameter Falcon X to the cape. Limiting everything to 3.71 meters diameter is not great.

kbd512 · 2017-05-19 16:12:02

Rob,

Hang the ration bags on the walls of Cygnus using kevlar cargo strapping / netting and QD swivel buttons. That takes care of consumables stowage for artificial gravity operations. Apart from that, the module requires a tether to the expended Falcon Heavy upper stage. PE foam liners, ration bags, and the water tank at the base of the module is sufficient radiation shielding and it's the best we can do right now. When non-structural hydrogenated BNNT liners become available, then we should go with those to reduce weight and improve radiation shielding characteristics. NASA wants to make BNNT a structural material, but I just want to impregnate the BNNT with resin, use it in non-structural liner panels for Cygnus' interior to reduce GCR effects, and call it a day.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2017-05-13 09:32:19

Re: Apollo 8, redux

#102 2017-05-13 10:46:07

Re: Apollo 8, redux

#103 2017-05-13 21:36:29

Re: Apollo 8, redux

#104 2017-05-17 22:16:24

Re: Apollo 8, redux

#105 2017-05-18 07:19:53

Re: Apollo 8, redux

#106 2017-05-18 08:00:52

Re: Apollo 8, redux

#107 2017-05-18 09:56:13

Re: Apollo 8, redux

#108 2017-05-18 11:01:40

Re: Apollo 8, redux

#109 2017-05-18 11:45:30

Re: Apollo 8, redux

#110 2017-05-18 15:46:45

Re: Apollo 8, redux

#111 2017-05-18 18:01:23

Re: Apollo 8, redux

#112 2017-05-18 20:46:03

Re: Apollo 8, redux

#113 2017-05-18 21:15:15

Re: Apollo 8, redux

#114 2017-05-18 21:50:17

Re: Apollo 8, redux

#115 2017-05-19 01:34:12

Re: Apollo 8, redux

#116 2017-05-19 02:20:45

Re: Apollo 8, redux

#117 2017-05-19 08:25:15

Re: Apollo 8, redux

#118 2017-05-19 08:35:54

Re: Apollo 8, redux

#119 2017-05-19 08:37:44

Re: Apollo 8, redux

#120 2017-05-19 09:03:56

Re: Apollo 8, redux

#121 2017-05-19 09:13:44

Re: Apollo 8, redux

#122 2017-05-19 09:20:58

Re: Apollo 8, redux

#123 2017-05-19 14:14:08

Re: Apollo 8, redux

#124 2017-05-19 14:50:43

Re: Apollo 8, redux

#125 2017-05-19 16:12:02

Re: Apollo 8, redux

Board footer