New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: We've recently made changes to our user database and have removed inactive and spam users. If you can not login, please re-register.

#276 2018-12-28 20:11:55

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,325

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

I forgot we will need wheels and with a mass budget that is tight we will need to go with somethin g simular to the past but updated in Light weight rover for Mars

Online

#277 2019-01-01 17:25:45

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,325

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

Zubrins plan is to use a Falcon 9 heavy to do the work needed to get us back to the moon.

http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=8473

The Falcon 9 Heavy can lift 60 tons to low Earth orbit (LEO). Starting from that point, a hydrogen/oxygen rocket-propelled cargo lander could deliver 12 tons of payload to the lunar surface.

Correction of payload numbers
63 - 12 leaves 41 for structure and fuels...

The first cargo lander carries a load of equipment, including a solar panel array, high-data-rate communications gear, a microwave power-beaming set up with a range of 100 kilometers, an electrolysis/refrigeration unit, two crew vehicles, a trailer, and a group of tele-operated robotic rovers.

The second cargo lander brings out a 12-ton habitation module, loaded with food, spare spacesuits, scientific equipment, tools, and other supplies. This will serve as the astronauts’ house, laboratory, and workshop of the moon.

A Falcon Heavy is used to deliver another cargo lander to orbit, whose payload consists of a fully fueled Lunar Excursion Vehicle (LEV). This craft consists of a two-ton cabin like that used by the Apollo-era Lunar Excursion Module mounted on a one-ton hydrogen/oxygen propulsion system filled with nine tons of propellant, capable of delivering it from the lunar surface to Earth orbit.

A human-rated Falcon 9 rocket then lifts the crew in a Dragon capsule to LEO where they transfer to the LEV. Then the cargo lander takes the LEV, with the crew aboard, to the moon, while the Dragon remains behind in LEO.

Online

#278 2019-01-02 21:40:54

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,325

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

SpaceNut wrote:

Lunar lander smaller than Altair:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/%7Efiso/tel … 7-2011.pdf
pg 11

It is much smaller than Altair; Dry mass of 7t, wet mass of 15t (Altair was ~45t wet)
•The propulsion system is LOX/Methane and is designed to be re-fuelable

Pg 31 has more lander spec's

Posting specific content as the link I think is no longer there.
The 131 mT sls is to launch a small lunar lander, node STA, the Orion on a new 3rd stage to L1

1. The 14.95mt reusable O2/CH4 lander is emplaced at the L1 node by SLS launch.
2. 16.8mt Crew Capsule boosted by the SLS Second Stg and the Third stg (w added cargo).
3. Second stage provides half of the dV to reach L1 (2,013 of required 4,015m/s).
4. Third stage provides the remaining dV (2,002 m/s) to L1. (its first use)
5. From the L1 Hab the Crew oversee the attachment of the Third stage to the Lander
6. The partially full Third stg boosts lander into LLO (2 nd use),
7. Third Stg then provides most of the dV for descent (1,695 of 1,995 m/s required).(3 rd use)
8. Five km above the surface, lander engines are started, empty Third stage is jettisoned, and the remaining dV (500 m/s) is done by the lander.
9. Initially the Crew Lives out of the Ascent Crew Cabin
10. Later Crew transitions to the 8.6 mt Surface Hab delivered by the Cargo Lander
11. Surface power systems deployed by Crew
12. After the surface mission, the crew ascends back to L1
13. After rendezvous, the lander is refueled and prepared for the next sortie.
14. Crew returns to Earth via MPCV Capsule/SM

Online

#279 2019-01-02 21:47:10

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,325

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

Lunar System: 3 rd Stage

Tank volumes:
LH2
tank 5.5 m dia - volume 3247.2 ft3 (91.95 m3) - (includes 4% ullage vol)
LO2
tank is 4.4 m dia - volume 1108.4 ft3 (31.38 m3) - (4% ullage vol)

Tank lengths:
LH2
total tank length: 16.9 ft (5.15 m) - top dome height: 6.3 ft - cyl (barrel) height: 4.3 ft - bottom dome height: 6.3 ft
LO2
total tank length: 10.1 ft (3.08 m) - top dome height: 5.0 ft - cyl (barrel) height: 0.1 ft -bottom dome height: 5.0 ft

Stage Mass:
Total mass: 45,691 kg (45.6 mt)
Dry mass: 4,683 kg
PMF (total prop/total stg); 0.897
Inert mass: 6,001 kg
Total prop:  40,781 kg
Usable prop: 39,691
Reserve prop: 1,091 kg
RCS prop: 227 kg
Performance:
Vac Isp: 462.0 (long nozzle RL - 10) Mix ratio: 5.5

Two Engine Version:
Stack T/Wt at 3rd stg ignition: 0.31; T/W at end: 1.02

Single Engine Version:
Stack T/Wt at 3rd stg ignition: 0.16; T/W at end: 0.51

Online

#280 2019-01-02 22:14:06

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,325

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

  • mass        delta - V
    Total Systems Mass          14.98 mt

    Surface Payloads                0.50 mt

    Total Lander Mass            14.48 mt
    Crew Cabin and Systems       3.15 mt
    Dry Mass                           2.72 mt
    Propellant total                   8.61 mt

    Propellant Masses               8.61 mt    3,133 m/s
    Propel Reserves                  0.17 mt
    L1 to LLO Prop Main           n / a
    L1 to LLO RCS                    0.02 mt      5 m/s
    Terminal Desc Propel Main    1.92 mt       500 m/s
    Terminal Desc RCS              0.04 mt        10 m/s
    Ascent Propel Main              5.20 mt      1950 m/s
    Ascent RCS                       0.04 mt        10 m/s
    LLO to L1 Prop Main            1.18 mt       640 m/s
    L1 RCS Prop                     0.04 mt        18 m/s

Online

#281 2019-01-03 21:34:48

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,325

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

The act of refueling whether its in LEO or at a fuel depot or at a lunar station the effect is less mass is lifted to orbit and makes a mission possible.
Methane Lox seems to be the candidate for the moon as well...

Online

#282 2019-01-27 18:49:15

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,325

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

Trying to make a buck or really saying we should celebrate an great achivement
US Mint Launches Sale of Coins Celebrating Apollo 11 50th Anniversary

aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzA4Mi80NzQvb3JpZ2luYWwvdXNtaW50LWFwb2xsbzExLTUwdGgtY29pbnMtc2FsZTAxLmpwZw==

Online

#283 2019-04-29 16:52:49

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,325

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

Nasa is starting to get real about going to the moon again by 2024. NASA tweaks call for lunar lander concepts

lunarlander-apr19-879x485.jpg

Prior to the announcement by Vice President Mike Pence March 26 that called for a human lunar landing in five years, NASA was going on a two-track approach for developing human-class lunar landers. In February, it released a separate solicitation for studies of transfer vehicles and descent stages, also as part of NextSTEP and designated Appendix E. At the time, NASA said it would keep studies of the ascent stage within the agency.
The updated plans provide a second chance for those who did not participate in the earlier lander studies solicitation or who do not get awards. “Appendix H offerors who are not awardees on Appendix E will be afforded the opportunity to propose similar work, to the extent it is necessary for their Appendix H proposals,” NASA stated in the revised procurement filing.

https://www.nasa.gov/nextstep/humanlander2

Online

#284 2019-06-02 18:39:15

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,325

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

Apollo astronauts almost got to fly lunar jetpacks

Bell Aerospace built a Lunar Flying Unit that would have let Apollo astronauts explore vast distances on the Moon. NASA ultimately spiked the plans.

LEADBell_One_Man_LFV_CreditBellAerospace.jpg?mw=600

For their 1969 Lunar Flying Vehicle (LFV), Bell expanded their rocket belt design into a platform, allowing it to carry more fuel. A standing astronaut controlled the vehicle’s two rocket nozzles — one on either side of the platform — with handles mimicking the controls in the LM, for which the astronauts had extensive training. The 235 pound (107 kg) platform could fly up to 70 mph (110 km/h) to distances up to 15 miles (24 km), maxing out about 75 feet (23 m) off the lunar surface.

Maybe these will be useable for the moon later

Online

#285 2019-06-03 10:21:20

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,688
Website

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

Williams_X-Jet_-_side_view.jpg
Williams X-Jet

Offline

#286 2019-06-07 21:10:43

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,325

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

The 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 is weeks away.

apollo-11-buzz-aldrin-science-experiment.jpg

Moon landings: How NASA got there, and its plans to go back

"Beginning with missions beyond low-Earth orbit," the directive states, "the United States will lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations."

The program will eventually integrate a "gateway" spacecraft that will stay in lunar orbit while missions head down to the surface. Here's the timetable:

    Late 2019 -- First commercial deliveries/landers to the moon
    2020 -- Launch of SLS/Orion, uncrewed, in Exploration Mission-1
    2022 -- Crew around the moon in Exploration Mission-2
    2022 -- By December, setup of the first gateway element (the power and propulsion system) for a one-year demo in space, aboard a private rocket
    2023 -- Land a rover, with the help of the commercial space industry
    2024 -- Americans on the moon (including the first woman)
    2028 -- Sustained presence on moon

For reasons unknown, the president appeared to trash his own directive to return to the moon by 2024.
Trump: Screw the Moon, Mars Is Where It’s At

“For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon - We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!”

Trump criticizes NASA moon mission after promoting it earlier

U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday criticized NASA for aiming to put astronauts back on the moon by 2024 and urged the space agency to focus instead on “much bigger” initiatives like going to Mars, undercutting his previous support for the lunar initiative.


I guess impatient....

Online

#287 2019-06-09 21:14:25

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,325

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

If we consider the strength of the Russian space program along with the increased mission from China one could say a space race was on even if we do not say that we are in one.

The Second Moon Race

Some still claim that the moon was a hoak so in order to not lose a race we need to get it done.

Online

#288 2019-06-10 12:43:14

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 2,995

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

Spacenut said:

If we consider the strength of the Russian space program along with the increased mission from China one could say a space race was on even if we do not say that we are in one.
http://www.moondaily.com/reports/The_Se … e_999.html
Some still claim that the moon was a hoak so in order to not lose a race we need to get it done.

That seems true.  However, impatience was building for a long time to get back to space.  There is always a choice of "What to do", if you have a constriction of satisfaction of needs.  For instance in starvation, one response is to dig in, conserve your calories, and hope to wait it out.  Maybe summer will come, maybe the animals you hunt will come back.  It can work.  If that goes badly then starvation to death, and also possibly cannibalism are next.  The other option is to animate yourself, consume calories, and try to get to a survival situation by it.

There are many in out population who by default see movement in their local crowd, and try to subvert it so that they can consume that movement to maintain a stasis situation.  I believe that to a degree our space program fell prey to them for some time.  However I think that the Apollo program was very risky business.  Cancelation could be considered a blessing.  We left the casino with a gain, and not an extremely bad experience in general.  But still "THEY" managed to turn the dreams into their food for some time.  So, now with so much repressed dreaming, it is fortunate that our management was able to encourage private space, and that indeed there seems to be competition.  That competition is not as sinister as some might suppose I would think, but the balance, in my opinion is to not tempt your competitors by either your excessive weakness, or by backing them into a corner too much.  Sharing is the best option, I think.  But you can't share, unless you are there.

……

Hoaxing is part of the stay at home parasite program, in general.  Propaganda, or if you are more honest political lies.

My account of the library of Alexandria, may actually be an altered history, but for now until I can be updated, this is the story I have.  Interestingly, I think I got part of it from Carl Sagan.

The Egyptians used to search every ship that came to port for books.  They would take them and make a copy to put in that library, and would then return the original to it's owners.

The Romans, for purposes of conquest of Egypt supposedly damaged the Library, to distract the Egyptians.  I don't know other than fire if they otherwise purposely vandalized or censored the books.

The so called Christians are reported to have then later done some editing.  By Christian however, care has to be taken as there are and have been different sects of them.  Interestingly Middle Eastern Christians are more similar in mentality to the Muslims than are the western Christians.  In fact, the Copts, facilitated the infiltration of Muslims elsewhere.  Anyway I think people are people, and it was more likely that it was the local culture which predated both Christian, and Muslim, that still held an imprint.  And as is apparent universally, there are people who crave power and wealth.  And some of them want to get it with words.  Manipulating other people.

As I recall per Mr. Sagan, the Muslims did the final damage.  They supposedly examined the books.  If a book was not like the Koran, they burned it.  If it was supportive of the Koran, they burned it because it was not needed.

So, I think in general in a condition of conquest, the aftermath, is to edit history, to the conquers benefit to control the minions minds.

So, we can only trust our story of history so far.....And we don't really know the truth in whole.

I read a book written by someone for India.  I wish I could recall the title.  The book set out four types of people.  Of course real people are likely various mixes of these types.

Priest (Story Telling, history recalling (:))
Aquisitioner (Finances, mercantile behaviors)
Intellectual (Elon Musk, don't mistake people with fancy words as necessarily this)
Warlord (The art of war)

Anyway without doing science, and if we never go to the Moon, and if we are conquered, if it is useful to the story telling to hold power, then indeed history will say that the USA hoaxed it.  Good reason by itself to go back, and do science with some show and tell.

And America is in no position to say that it is too poor to afford it.  We are not starving and going to conserve our calories, and wait for the good fairy to bless us.

I ran into this today:
https://phys.org/news/2019-06-mass-anom … rater.html

A mysterious large mass of material has been discovered beneath the largest crater in our solar system—the Moon's South Pole-Aitken basin—and may contain metal from the asteroid that crashed into the Moon and formed the crater, according to a Baylor University study.

"Imagine taking a pile of metal five times larger than the Big Island of Hawaii and burying it underground. That's roughly how much unexpected mass we detected," said lead author Peter B. James,

Well, maybe an ore body.  Still, hundreds of miles down.  That seems like a tough one.  Maybe it fragmented though perhaps some pieces of it not so deep?

Previous story telling has it that an Iron/Nickle asteroid would vaporize on impact with the Moon, leaving nothing to mine.  That sets me to wonder.....

Something we will want is the historical nature of the Moon.  When was it completely fluid, if ever?  Did it then solidify, and yet the surface turn back into a magma ocean by the great bombardment?

The Moon as a receiver of asteroid impacts would be physically different than it is now.  If completely liquid, or mostly liquid, then the impactors are lost to the core.  If however a relatively shallow ocean of magma, perhaps a more gentle impact, with force of impact distributed across a longer time band.  Dissipating some of the impact energy with waves of splashed magma.  So, that is different.  If there was an "Ocean" floor of solids, then perhaps the core would rest there.  That could be pretty deep though.

The asteroid belt, was apparently in the "Snow Belt" during formation.  Some asteroids still apparently give off tails like comets.  So, is it possible that an impactor would be composed of a differentiated body?  Two types I think.  Smaller ones where an ice crust and mantle existed and un-melted rock for the core (Maybe), and fully differentiated, where the body would have a core of rock a mantle of lighter rock and a perhaps thick crust of ices.  If such impacted the Moon would that impact be different than if asteroids we know now impacted the Moon?

I think it would.  I think the core of the asteroid or maybe even comet would punch through it's own mantle, and icy crust.  It would be buried, and the lighter substances above it would tend to vaporize.  This would be unlike a metal asteroid today impacting, and different from a rubble pile containing clay impacting.

So, knowing the actual history of the Moon, by more data may reveal the chances of finding minable ore bodies on the Moon.  I think that is rather important, to know before we set out for other objectives.  (Mars excused, it has it's own logic as a target).

Done

Last edited by Void (2019-06-10 13:32:55)


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#289 2019-06-10 19:12:23

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,325

Re: Apollo 11 REDUX

Yes 2004 when we said that we were done with shuttle and needed a new vehicle going back to the Apollo on Steriods capsule.

Its the descision to go with legacy parts in its final form rather than using off the shelf which was consider not man rated  was the reasoning...

They could have gone clean slate and still would have over spent to get the job done.

Originally there was to be a fly off of competitors but that got nixed some how and that has lead to where we are... with the congress funded senator launch system...

Online

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB