Manned mission to Luna in 2018

SpaceNut · 2005-10-11 10:02:08

I am as well having trouble figuring out how much the LSAM weighs as well.

It speaks of it being 2700kg and cargo on the lsam image while in the article it mentions cargo as being 21M tons (1 metric ton = 1,000 kg or 2,200 pounds) with just over 2,200 kg has yet to be spoken for.

The descent stage will use a liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen fueled RL-10 derivative engine which can be throttled. This engine will be used to perform lunar orbit insertion, nodal plane change, and lunar descent. The engine will be capable of 1100 m/sec Delta V for lunar orbit insertion and 1850 m/sec for lunar descent.

Can we derive anything from this data knowing that it will start descent from 100km?

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-11 10:48:42

"It might require a little out of the box thinking... Now I think that can be kept under 40tons total"

You are simply wrong

The problem is that you must lift the Earth-return fuel off the Lunar surface and into Lunar orbit which itself requires a great deal of rocket fuel. This is where the Lunar orbit rendezvous system shines since it doesn't need as much fuel, and the fact that you don't have to lug a heavy capsule - hardend for the stresses & heat of reentry - off the Lunar surface either. It actually increases the total Lunar payload.

To put something in Lunar orbit, you require about an equal amount of Hydrogen fuel as you do dry mass. Since the CEV weighs ~25MT, and the big SDV can lift 125MT, then the LSAM weighs around 40-50MT. Of that mass, about half or a little more is the Decent/OMS stage, with the remaining 21MT being either unmanned payload or the ~18MT acent vehicle.

The use of the LSAM for a HAB doesn't make a terrible load of sense, because most of the early missions won't be to the same place. Later on, when we do have a base, we would want a buried hab too to protect against radiation. I am not very confidant at all about this "opening up and sealing back up" business.

Commodore · 2005-10-12 10:03:27

Why waste mass on a seperate accent stage when the CEV/SM can perform the same mission for less overall mass? Your saving something like 15tons at launch from earth, at the cost of landing and launching an extra 5 tons from the moon.

I don't see how they can practically land 21 tons of cargo on the lander. Theres is no way to get it off.

Its always in our best interest to make use of a component after its primary use is past, if it can be made cost effective.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-12 10:17:02

The current design plan is for the cev/sm unit to stay in orbit while the LSAM goes to the moons surface. Changing the CEV/SM to give it such capabilities would mean that we probably would no long launch it on DaStick as a result of any changes.

Commodore · 2005-10-12 10:30:14

It would require changes to "DaStack".

The 16 tons you save on the accent module could be used on the TLI stage. Add more fuel to allow it get to lunar orbit instead of falling away, and add a pair of small refueling tanks for the SM. I'm assumming the SM can get from the surface to lunar orbit. On lunar rendezvous, the SM is refueled. The TLI remains, were there is number things we can do with it.

publiusr · 2005-10-13 10:53:56

Looking for a lunar landing using as much off the shelf stuff as possible. If Russia had an HLLV, then no need for so much on orbit assembly. A plan based on re-starting Energia lines is an option, of course but then its less off the shelf. if we are talking about re-opening production lines. Rather like modular EELV versus shuttle derived HLLV.
Well, that's why I never liked O'Keefe's plan with the EELVs. It would have been tremendously expensive and risky. Griffin is right with the Shuttle derived HLLV.
Uh oh!
First time ever I accidentally abused my moderator super powers. I hit edit not quote.
Sorry. :oops:
Anyway, I agree about EELV.

Seconded.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-18 10:43:36

Some would argue that robotic exploration is the way to go and to forget the human ever doing it. This article places the effocism on robotic and why. Scientists Propose Paradigm Shift In Robotic Space Exploration

Just ask any geologist. If you're studying the history of a planet and the life forms that may have lived on it, the really good places to look are rugged terrains like canyons and other areas where water, igneous activity, wind, and seismic rumblings have left their respective marks. Flat is not so good.
But when it comes to exploring other worlds, like Mars, the strategy for ground-based reconnaissance thus far has been to land in relatively smooth places so the spacecraft won't slam into something vertical as it touches down or as it rolls to a stop in its protective airbags.

For me after the simple questions are answered by these robotic probes of condition, hazards and of biology. We should get over it (meaning exploration) and proceed to getting man there to learn to live, colonize and so much more.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-19 09:51:48

And with the announcement that Nasa was lining up to do moon missions with the Apollo on steriod approac using Shuttle derived componentry has anyone really explained why we need to go.

This article captures just one of the questions that can only be answered by going.
[url=http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3130171]Apollo astronaut assesses the moon's past - and possible future
Permanent lunar base? A return to the moon as called for by Bush could help scientists nail down its origin[/url]

Do most of you, believe in the early mars size asteriod impact as to why the moon was formed or is there another possible means.

"What is the connection between the origin of the moon and the origin of the Earth?"
Most experts are satisfied with what he called the giant impact hypothesis which holds that about 4.5 billion years ago, a Mars-sized asteroid smashed into the Earth, which ejected the early moon.
Schmitt said some evidence opposes that theory. He said the moon's lower mantle does not appear to have reached the temperatures that should have occurred. An alternative theory involves a capture event.
"The moon and the Earth formed as independent planets in the same part of the solar system, with the moon captured by the Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago," he said the theory goes.

Of course we will be sending a probe to map the moon before manned missions can start but is there more need than that?

In 2008, NASA will launch a probe that will include a device called LOLA - Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter. The project will use lasers to measure surface elevation and slope data, among other factors, to help scout out future lunar landing sites,
Potential resources include iron, titanium and a form of helium that could power envisioned fusion reactors.

But are these enough reason to go or is it just the promise of using it as a training ground for future Mars and beyound missions enough.

Palomar · 2005-10-19 19:06:26

*Howdy Pilgrims. I reckon this is the best place for the following [Search doesn't yield it up as yet posted]:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051019/ap_ … ubble_moon

Hubble takes rare look at Luna in preparation for 2018 manned mission:

"...to gauge the amount of oxygen-bearing minerals in the lunar soil that could be mined by astronauts and used in a new moon mission..."

Photographed landing sites of Apollo 15 & 17.

"...The space agency hopes to return astronauts to the moon by 2018 using Apollo-like capsules and rockets made of shuttle parts. The data also will benefit a lunar reconnaissance spacecraft to be launched in 2008..."

"...Hubble made 60 lunar observations over three days in August, around the time of the full moon. It has observed the moon just once before, in the late 1990s. The moon is a difficult target for the space telescope, which was not designed to track the fast-moving orb..."

Cool.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-10-19 19:56:33

The Hubble huggers are building a case for STS to fly a repair mission by making Hubble relevant to the VSE.

Not that I have any problem with that.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-19 20:02:29

Why not fund and fly HOP instead if it is that much of a contributor to the visions plan making...
More NASA's Hubble Looks for Possible Moon Resources

The new Hubble observations are the first high-resolution, ultraviolet images ever acquired of the moon. The images provide scientists with a new tool to study mineral variations within the lunar crust.
As NASA plans future expeditions to the moon, such data, in combination with other measurements, will help ensure the most valuable sites are targeted for robotic and human missions.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-20 11:19:07

These could be the images of the future if the CEV does not get going soon:

Japans trade of its centrifuge for Nuclear, plus trip
japan.moon.jpg

or perhaps an awakening to the value of manned flight by the British.
UK.moon.jpg

EuroLauncher · 2006-01-14 02:57:31

RELEASE: 06-027

NASA ADMINISTRATOR MARKS VISION FOR SPACE EXPLORATION ANNIVERSARY

The following is a statement by NASA Administrator Michael Griffin on
the second anniversary of President Bush's announcement of the Vision
for Space Exploration, a plan to return to the moon, travel to Mars
and destinations beyond.
http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20060112133122870
"Two years ago this week, President Bush committed our nation to the
Vision for Space Exploration. This Vision commits America to a
journey of discovery and exploration with new and exciting plans to
return astronauts to the moon. From there, to voyage to Mars and
beyond, while continuing to engage in groundbreaking space science
and pioneering advances in innovation, creativity and technology.
Together with the partnerships we have in the International Space
Station program, our nation has the tremendous opportunity and solemn
responsibility to lead the way toward the dawn of a new space age."

SpaceNut · 2006-04-11 20:22:06

While Nasa seems to be floundering with getting going with the SDV vehicles to get us to the moon by 2018 it may be beaten by another...

Russia's top space company targets moon

Russia's leading space company on Tuesday laid out an ambitious plan to send manned missions to the moon by 2015, build a permanent base to tap its energy resources and dispatch a crew to Mars between 2020 and 2030.

While Russia does not have the cash resources for this as Nasa does it does seem to be ahead when it comes to engines....

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-11 20:45:48

All smoke and no flame... the Russians could get to Lunar ORBIT sure, but landing and building a base? And they are a looong way from Mars, Soyuz sure won't get you there.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-04-11 22:28:43

The Ruskie flag is closer to the Moon than you think, how are we going to the Moon in these next months or yrs...are we going for a ride on that Shuttle dinosaurus ?
NASA is in a dreadful position

Jeff Bell attacks NASA

Another space news website has published a leaked NASA study called "LRA-0" which is spreading despair and gloom through the space community. Many people are surprised that the architecture for returning men to the Moon laid out in the famous ESAS report is declared to be totally unworkable in this new document.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Visio … cture.html
But no one should be surprised. I pointed this out four months ago, and anyone who has followed the announced and rumored changes to the ESAS plan since its appearance could see that it was in serious trouble.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-12 06:19:03

Here we go, Jeffy Bell pontificating again...

-These may or may not be real NASA docs, their leaking seems awfully convienant for the anti-NASA croud. Until such conformation is available, they are rumor.

-Repeats a number of things that are also rumor, like the price of the five-segment SRB development going from one billion to three.

-Who says the EDS loiter time requirement is now 95 days instead of 25?

-"The LRA-0 report assumes the use of as many as 140 layers of aluminized Mylar on the LH2 tanks. Each of these layers would have to be installed and inspected separately, by highly paid technicians"

Says who? A disgruntled dried-up astronomer in Hawaii who is not an engineer? And aluminized Mylar or Kapton are [b]very[b] light weight.

-"a small reliquification plant" is an oxymoron

...And the usual "oh the ESAS plan is doomed!" etc etc. As much as I dislike the strip-down lander, it would probobly work okay if it were made a little lighter so it could reach the Lunar poles. This might be done by ditching the hypergolics and using hydrogen for the acent stage. If it can support two for a week, it can surely handle four for a day or two to use as a base transport, and if the EDS doesn't have to push the CEV to the Moon it could still deliver base components.

Then you have Jeffy's usual litany of bad ideas and obvious conclusions following:

-The EDS loiter time, the primary source for the sudden unworkability of the ESAS plan, is arbitrary, parinoid, and too long. Obviously. If NASA can't launch the CLV with a plus/minus 90 day window, then the agency deserves to be shut down.

-Using 2-3 RS-68 and two four-segment SRBs would likly cut down payload too far, and would quite possibly be below the 80MT line.

-Didn't Jeff learn anything from the last thirty years about mixing crew and payload can be a real problem? If we are abandoning SSME, this makes man-rating the CaLV a nontrivial issue.

The ESAS plan, if you calculate a more reasonable fuel boiloff figures, is probobly very close to what the proposed launch vehicles can lift so small improvements could probobly tip the scales to practicality.

If not, Jeffy's plan isn't totally repulsive, it does solve many problems if you used five-segment SRBs and gives us a heavy lifter big and cheap enough for Mars, it will just probobly cost more and will be totally useless for ISS so it probobly won't fly.

Austin Stanley · 2006-04-12 19:41:01

The Ruskie flag is closer to the Moon than you think, how are we going to the Moon in these next months or yrs...are we going for a ride on that Shuttle dinosaurus ?
NASA is in a dreadful position

I disagree. The Russians have (basicaly) the same problem getting the moon right now that we do. That is they are criticaly short of a launcher big enough to launch a vessle that could make the trip. Sure, with some modification the Russians could launch a Soyuz capsle in a free return orbit around the moon. But there is a BIG diffrence in doing that and launching a vessle that can stop and land on the moon, or even break into and return from lunar orbit. This requires a LOT more delta-v and thus a bigger (and totaly diffrent) vehicle to do it with. Soyuz isn't big enough (it launches what 7 tons max?) not even close.

When the CEV is operational, it probably would be possible to design a varient to do the same thing, that is launch it on a free-return orbit aroudn the moon. But again, it's payload is much to small to launch a vehicle actualy capable of landing and returning.

To do a manned mission to the surface of the moon a much bigger launcher is required, something like the Saturn V, Energia, or the new HLLV that we have in the works. And while I have no doubts that the Russains COULD build a new HLV or bring the Energia back into service if they wanted to, they have given no inclination that this is what they actualy plan on doing. Without such a vessle a moon landing is impossible. So, unless and untill the change those plans they realy aren't any close then we are to returning to the moon. Our program may still be a ways off, but we at least have it in our sights. The Russians aren't even aiming in that direction right now. The future of their space program (Kliper and Super Soyuz) aren't going to do it.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2007-03-01 06:37:40

Budget crunch delays NASA's moon ship
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17390213/
Orion won't fly until early 2015, four to six months later than planned

SpaceNut · 2007-03-01 06:50:11

Yup and thats just to LEO to the ISS with no HLV developed at that point.

There are other impact areas too if congress continues to flat budget NASA when it is important to keep all areas of nasa working.

EuroLauncher · 2007-03-13 15:11:20

Hello
Is it possible that the private sector will be able to go to the Moon and to Mars
Has enough money and infastructure?

To answer both questions : No and No

SpaceNut · 2016-01-24 18:22:48

Bump

Latest news is a cislunar orbit with no landing even in the future... just more going around in circles...

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/01/23/ … pace-line/

Space Adventures does have a plan to fly two tourists around the moon in a modified Soyuz spacecraft. The company said it has signed up two customers willing to pay $150 million apiece for the flight.

Not a bad price but will it ever happen....

SpaceNut · 2018-12-09 18:39:49

It seems that we will be missing this target date that was wanted way back in 2005 with the cancellation of shuttle.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-04-04 12:45:32

NASA's big, new moon rocket begins rollout en route to launch pad tests

https://news.yahoo.com/nasas-big-moon-r … 31210.html

Orion will carry humans to the Moon and beyond.

nasa.gov/orion , https://twitter.com/NASA_Orion

LOX team has reworked procedures and is back into chilldown. Team is pressing and using every operation as test objective risk buy down. Clock will be resynced later...It allows us to configure other systems on the vehicle not related to cryo per the timeline.-JP

https://twitter.com/NASAGroundSys/statu … 6304327682

SpaceNut · 2022-04-04 18:55:24

Already 4 years past due for the mission and yet we can not land let alone get there still.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2005-10-11 10:02:08

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#77 2005-10-11 10:48:42

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#78 2005-10-12 10:03:27

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#79 2005-10-12 10:17:02

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#80 2005-10-12 10:30:14

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#81 2005-10-13 10:53:56

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#82 2005-10-18 10:43:36

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#83 2005-10-19 09:51:48

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#84 2005-10-19 19:06:26

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#85 2005-10-19 19:56:33

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#86 2005-10-19 20:02:29

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#87 2005-10-20 11:19:07

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#88 2006-01-14 02:57:31

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#89 2006-04-11 20:22:06

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#90 2006-04-11 20:45:48

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#91 2006-04-11 22:28:43

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#92 2006-04-12 06:19:03

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#93 2006-04-12 19:41:01

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#94 2007-03-01 06:37:40

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#95 2007-03-01 06:50:11

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#96 2007-03-13 15:11:20

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#97 2016-01-24 18:22:48

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#98 2018-12-09 18:39:49

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#99 2022-04-04 12:45:32

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#100 2022-04-04 18:55:24

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

Board footer