Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

SpaceNut · 2005-05-03 13:32:56

NASA Receives Crew Exploration Vehicle Proposals well at least from lockheed.

Titanium shell
As part of a flight test program, McKenzie said that an unpiloted, full-scale version of the front-end of the company’s CEV design -- a rescue module -- would be flown to verify the safety elements of getting a crew back under a wide-range of circumstances. That would take place in 2008.

Ad Astra · 2005-05-03 14:29:45

Over at Rand Simberg's site someone (not me) posted a great comment on the Lockheed CEV:
Its Kliper-iffic!

Actually, my assessment would be crap-tastic.

Obviously, an EELV-heavy will not be able to lift this monster in one throw. Perhaps it will be put up in two or three launches, but it will most likely be launched in one shot by an SDV. Apparently LockMart thinks that CEV is supposed to be some kind of make-work program for the shuttle army. People like me are shaking their heads in disbelief, saying that they should have aimed for Apollo redux.

Notably absent from the Lockmart drawing is any kind of lunar module. Sigh... It's not even clear where the lunar lander is supposed to dock.

The truth is that spaceplanes are only necessary for launching large crews or transporting people who cannot handle 4-5g re-entries. For the small crews that will initially be going to the ISS or the moon, a capsule will do just fine. Somebody pass this memo on to LockMart.

BWhite · 2005-05-03 14:40:20

Someone posted, elsewhere, that Lockmart's version weighs in at 40 MT. 40MT? GCNRevenger, we will need that fully tricked out Delta IV. GEM solids, Li tankage, slushy H2 - - all the bells and whistles.

Soyuz · 2005-05-03 15:18:55

What? What is this? What in the world are you thinking Lockheed? What in the world is the back half of that spaceplane for? Why is the docking module a seperate piece? How would you get to the ISS or deorbit if you didn't have it? The astronauts don't need an ISS HAB module to ride to the Moon in three days! Your whole vehicle is double the mass it should be!
Arrrgh! Boeing had better CRUSH this stupid piece of junk!

I think it will be able to dock without the mission module. I think they need this module to get to the required cubic meters per astronaut without making the actual ship to large. I'm almost certain the Northrop-Grumman design will have a similar mission module.

Notably absent from the Lockmart drawing is any kind of lunar module. Sigh... It's not even clear where the lunar lander is supposed to dock.

The contract is for the CEV. There probably will be a seperate contract for the LASM. And if you look at http://media.popularmechanics.com/image … g.jpg]this picture you clearly can see a docking port on top of the mission module.

Someone posted, elsewhere, that Lockmart's version weighs in at 40 MT. 40MT? GCNRevenger, we will need that fully tricked out Delta IV. GEM solids, Li tankage, slushy H2 - - all the bells and whistles.

If you read the Popular Mechanics article you will see that they plan to launch the lifting body seperatly from the mission module and propulsion stage. And together they weigh 40 MT. So two Delta-4 heavy's or two Atlas 5 Medium are enough.

RobertDyck · 2005-05-03 15:34:11

Uuuuuh. I like reusable but this doesn't look like a good idea. Titanium hull? Even Shuttle uses aluminum. Obviously they're planning to take the whole winged spacecraft to the Moon and back. I talked about a space taxi to LEO only, then a dedicated in-space vehicle to proceed on to the Moon. Why on Earth would you take a winged vehicle into deep space? And their design has living space all the way back. The corridor is long and just a waste of internal volume.

BWhite · 2005-05-03 15:38:55

Someone posted, elsewhere, that Lockmart's version weighs in at 40 MT. 40MT? GCNRevenger, we will need that fully tricked out Delta IV. GEM solids, Li tankage, slushy H2 - - all the bells and whistles.
If you read the Popular Mechanics article you will see that they plan to launch the lifting body seperatly from the mission module and propulsion stage. And together they weigh 40 MT. So two Delta-4 heavy's or two Atlas 5 Medium are enough.

Designing a re-useable lunar descent/ascent module and finding a way to park it somewhere more or less stable (L1?) still seems like a good idea to me.

Zubrin's cab idea - - mate the CEV to an unpressurized lunar module and set the whole thing done on the surface strikes me as a good idea also. This way the lunar module need not have any living accomodations at all.

Ad Astra · 2005-05-03 16:13:52

Titanium hull? Even Shuttle uses aluminum.

Titanium is actually a good thing. One of the findings from CAIB is that a heat-resistant crew cabin might have held toget

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-03 16:29:21

Someone posted, elsewhere, that Lockmart's version weighs in at 40 MT. 40MT? GCNRevenger, we will need that fully tricked out Delta IV. GEM solids, Li tankage, slushy H2 - - all the bells and whistles.
If you read the Popular Mechanics article you will see that they plan to launch the lifting body seperatly from the mission module and propulsion stage. And together they weigh 40 MT. So two Delta-4 heavy's or two Atlas 5 Medium are enough.

Ah! That solves the mystery... the last picture, the cutaway with the system labels, everybody see that light blue thing marked "active thermal control" under the pilots' seat?

Yeah, thats how Lockheed intends to keep the thing from melting on reentry, even the RCC hull isn't enough. Its a tank with liquid helium (or something else, perhaps just water) for active reentry cooling. Some of the Dynasoar-era Lunar ideas showcased a large lift body with a big tank of LHe in the nose to keep the thing from burning up... Is Lockheed really going to rely on the coolant being available and flowing to keep the crew from being "Columbia-ed?" And how is the RCC going to react to having a rapidly boiling coolant on one side and 3000K+ plasma on the other?

I don't like it. Not one little bit... is this some Popular Mechanics red-herring to spoof us from the Skunk Works' Apollo-killer capsule?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

The big question about the masses is if the little fuel tanks included in the "cheeks" of the lift body powerful enough to execute the TEI burn on their own. If so, then the big round propulsion stage is the TLI/LOC ("EDS") stage, which makes Lockheeds' CEV substantially heavier, but not much more so, compared to a capsule. The fueled weight of the spaceplane itself would then be in the 10MT range, which is on the same order as the HL-20. Launching both halves on EELV medium would then be acceptable.

However if those engines are for OMS/deorbit only, then that changes matters signifigantly... then you would have to buy either:
~An additional 40MT class launch for the TLI stage and perform a second mating on orbit
~Or else Bill is right and we are looking at a pair of EELV mediums and an SDV launch with the Lunar lander and a BIG TLI stage powerful enough for both...which would radically limit the Lunar lander payload or require building a super SDV ($$$)
~The other option I don't care for either, do each vehicle with its respective TLI stage in two seperate SDV launches.

Exactly what kind of delta-V are we talking about for TEI for a dozen-tonne vehicle? I'd like to estimate the volume of LOX/EtOH you would need, so we can determine if those tanks on the spaceplane are for TEI or not. It strikes me as unlikly that the propulsion stage would be big enough for both TLI, LOC, and TEI with the whole vehicle weighing 40MT.

Delta-IV or Atlas-V "tripple barrel" could both provide 40MT class payloads without too much trouble (no Lithium Alloy probobly) by adding small SRMs and swapping out with a more powerful upper stage (which they were going to do anyway). The real kicker is if Delta Medium could lift 20MT without adding too many SRMs to be safe (it probobly can't). It is looking like the Atlas-V is the only vehicle with enough payload without too many SRMs (2-3 tops) to do CEV with one barrel.

I am NOT thrilled with the idea of putting the assembled 40MT Lockheed monster spaceplane CEV on a big tripple-barrel EELV, all those engines make me nervous with a crew on top.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are going to be sending a big Lunar Lander/HAB seperatly, you might as well skip the open cab idea and just have the CEV transfer crew directly... What I don't get is, how is any kind of Lunar lander going to dock with this thing with the solar pannels in the way? Its like Lockheed isn't even really serious about this... The fact that they include enough space for the astronauts for a >1 month trip makes no sense for a Lunar trip either... Though the end of the PM article hints at "extended stay" capability. Why in the world would we need extended mission capability for a three-day hop?

Boeing, where are you? We need numbers!

Commodore · 2005-05-03 16:48:39

Well thats one team, and I hope the next one does better.

I'm looking at the popular mechanics piece, and the pic is a little better than the Space.com one. If anyone has a place to host it I can post it.

I'll give it two things. Its reusable and it can carry 6 people.

But otherwise I can't find any other redeeming values. A spaceplane is useless in this case. We already spend 6 months in the ISS and land in a Soyuz capsule, why would there be an issue after spending 3 months max in lunar gravity?

The propulsion module, transit module, and Lunar Access Module should all be reusable, a parked in a suitable orbit. That way the only thing we have to launch for each early lunar mission is the CEV capsule, and a disposable fuel module of variable sizes for various missions. That way we can land multiple times in a single go if we choose to. What remains is equipment for use on the Lunar surface. Perhapes it can be stored in compartments on the side of the transit module.

BWhite · 2005-05-03 16:59:30

The propulsion module, transit module, and Lunar Access Module should all be reusable, a parked in a suitable orbit. That way the only thing we have to launch for each early lunar mission is the CEV
capsule, and a disposable fuel module of variable sizes for various missions. That way we can land multiple times in a single go if we choose to. What remains is equipment for use on the Lunar surface. Perhapes it can be stored in compartments on the side of the transit module.

:up: :up:

Start the re-useable concept where it is easiest - - lunar surface to somewhere (L1 is obvious but may not be best) - - not where it is hardest, Earth to LEO.

Edited By BWhite on 1115161190

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-03 17:29:58

Having to send up an additional launcher & docking maneuver or increasing the payload required by 40MT (or costing the lander 40MT) is too high a price to pay for reuseability. Having the thing seat six isn't so special either, the old Apollo could hold five in a pinch.

http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/a/a … oresc2.jpg

Say that Boeing's capsule is a good 1m wider and 1-2m longer, there would be enough space to fit six people, especially when your computer is the size of a lunch box instead of a household trash compactor and other major bulky systems were miniaturized. There may even be room enough for a small toilet closet and galley cabinet against the back wall.

The big thing that leaves me scratching my head is where does Lockheed intend to fly the thing to? You don't need that much volume for a three-day jaunt to the Moon or to the ISS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

"What remains is equipment for use on the Lunar surface"

Reuseability is a non-option here, at least not yet. The amount of fuel needed for the Lunar lander to be fully reuseable would hurt the payload too much, and you would have to carry even more fuel to get it back to Earth. The lander itself isn't the problem, they will be relativly inexpensive, and will be expendable. It really is absolutely paramount that the lander maximize payload, ideally we're talking a ~15-20MT range, if VSE is to accomplish anything more then Apollo already did. We aren't talking kilos here, I'm talking multiple tonnes of heavy equipment you would need to start a base without having to send a seperate cargo flight. NOT JUST VISIT!

Same deal with the transit (TLI) module. So much of its mass is fuel, that you are going to be sending up a big rocket anyway to refuel it, that you aren't saving much mass. Infact, the penalty for returning it from the Moon will make it even worse mass wise then simply throwing it away. The added cost of making it robust enough for multiple uses, power supply, guidence/control, etc versus a simple throw-away job doubly dooms this idea. Later, when we have RLVs, yes... but right now, payload mass is at an absolute premium, so reuseability is not an option.

Much the same with the logistics/TEI module. Keeping it would be nice, but refueling the thing on orbit would be difficult, and building it for just one shot is easier then building it and maintaining it to last multiple flights. Furthermore, if the capsule can be held to a low enough mass (~6-9MT) then the logistics/TEI stage and the crew capsule could (and should) ride together on the same launcher, saving you a flight... Cost and mass concerns asside, this is probobly nessesarry, since the capsule couldn't come back down without it unless it were equipped with its own OMS engines, which would add weight and risk.

No way Bill, no resueability... not yet. The penalty for getting all this stuff back to LEO is too high until fuel is available cheap. Like, RLV or Lunar-produced cheap. Until w

Ad Astra · 2005-05-03 17:44:25

At this stage, the LockMart team is the underdog, and perhaps the recently-proposed "lifting monstrocity" is their attempt to innovate.

Northrop Grumman + Boeing has all of the experience wth manned spaceflight in the US. Mercury and Gemini were built by McDonnell--now part of Boeing. X-15, Apollo CSM, and the shuttle orbiter were built by North American Aviation--now part of Boeing. The LEM was built (quite magnificently, I may add) by Grumman, now part of Northrop Grumman. If these companies built on their proud and successful heritage, they could sleepwalk towards the CEV contract.

My preferred CEV concept is a capsule (the Big Gemini shape is preferred due to its increased volume, but it needs a docking tunnel in the nose first.) If additional habitation is needed, a small module could be added. The service module would resemble that on Apollo, but it would use solar arrays instead of fuel cells. The capsule would have airbags and landing rockets so it wouldn't have to land in the water. The LEM would be similar to the Grumman design, but it may have a spherical cabin like the Russian LOK. Propellants would be storable (Kerosene and either H2O2 or N2O) and non-toxic.

Shame on Lockheed Martin for dropping their gumdrop-shaped capsule that was proposed last year.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-03 17:50:00

Today News

Lockheed Martin and Boeing have signed a deal to create a joint venture company called United Launch Alliance to stop the fued and legal action that has been going on between these companies.

Interesting that Atlas and Delta Rockets will be under one joint venture company.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-03 18:06:07

Unless Lockheed has sooper-dooper Atlas-VI blueprints hidden away at the Skunk Works to fly the thing or Lockheed managed to somehow radically reduce the vehicles' mass, the Lockheed concept is a non-starter for the purpose of getting to the Moon... Excessive internal volume, impractical solar pannel layout, active reentry cooling... A terribly steep price to pay for reuseability, especially since a capsule could perhaps be reused too if it soft-lands. The only unique thing I see about it is the possibility for a small cargo bay/airlock in the mission module if you needed to service/assemble something in orbit... Which right now, there isn't anything, and the mission module is too heavy to fly with the vehicle in a single shot.

So, I wish Boeing godspeed to the Moon, and to make short work of the silly Lockheed concept. Use LOX/Methane engines for the service module, high performance and it has already been tested in the venerable RL-10, plus has no freezing or unintended reaction trouble like Peroxide or Hypergolics... Use the same engine for Mars too. The Lockheed concept, if it does indeed weigh 40MT without the TLI stage, is so bad that it makes me wonder if they are serious, or just throwing Popular Mechanics a bone to drum up publicity.

A single venture for flying Atlas and Delta makes sense. The Delta medium is too small to fly CEV, but the heavy is too large. The Atlas medium is the right size for CEV, but the heavy version would be expensive to develop. There wouldn't have been any competition anyway, barring the sudden development of a Delta with a unacceptable number of SRMs or a difficult tripple-barrel Atlas.

clark · 2005-05-03 18:11:26

Hey GCN, did you hear? Musk just got a $100 million dollar contract from DOD for his Falcon 1.

Get ready to eat your hat.

Mad Grad Student · 2005-05-03 18:13:50

Obviously, Lockheed Martin is looking at the long-term picture and trying to come up with a CEV concept that will be suitable all the way to manned Mars missions. Or at the very least, this is the image they are attempting to project. I'm not really sure why you'd need six solar pannels, a big radiator, and that extra cylindrical hab module for simple quickie trips to the ISS or the Moon; hopefully these are elements that would be absent in such a CEV. Remove the extra solar pannels from the lifting-body portion and the hab module and that would be perfectly fine for missions through spiral 2 of CEV development, and them in and the LockMart concept could potentially be used for more complex missions.

I really don't see how you could use anything remotely resembling an Earth-Moon spacecraft for a Mars mission. The two are such completely different ball games I can't even begin to imagine all of the components that would need to be changed out or upgraded for use beyond the Moon. You might as well just start with a clen-sheet design. In light of this, the entire CEV spiral development program seems fundamentally flawed. It will be such a massive jump from "extended lunar stay" missions to manned Mars exploration, we might as well not even bring Mars into the equation while we're still talking about the Moon. That said, I'm stumped as to why LockMart has created such a convoluted CEV concept, beyond the fact that it will make them look like the forward-thinking company of the bunch.

If all else fails, we still have Northrop Grumman to count on to come up with a decent CEV. Whichever company formulates a better concept ought to win out through natural selection in the end, so I'm not too worried about the CEV's development proceeding rahter smoothly. As long as Bush is in office we can rest assured that the funds, at least at previously advertised levels, should be there, so I'm not fretting as much as I did in the past about the CEV going the way of the X-31/3/4/7 and the like. Something is going to be created that will not be the Space Shuttle, at least we can be certain of that.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-03 18:22:48

The Falcon-I is still a toy... wake me when Elon starts talking about 20MT payloads.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even in the "long term picture" Lockheed's vehicle doesn't make much sense. There just isn't going to be any need for a vehicle between "three day sardine can" and "multi-month transit/surface HAB" unless you are talking about trips out to asteroids or a multi-day transit to a high-orbit destination (satelite repair, crew transfer to HEO near-breakaway Mars ship).

I think we really ought to find out if the fuel tanks on the lift-body vehicle itself are enough for the TEI burn before we decide if Lockheed just has poor judgement, or are out of their minds.

clark · 2005-05-03 18:32:29

The Falcon-I is still a toy... wake me when Elon starts talking about 20MT payloads.

I'll wake you to eat your hat. :laugh:

My bet is that

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-03 18:37:38

As for the Lockheed CEV design... you all are getting takin for a ride. That isn't what Lockheed will go with. Watch, wait. You'll see. :;):

I suspect that this might be the case, some Lockheed engineers trying to get some publicity/money by "leaking" an old design to PM, but there seems to have been some signifigant thought put into this lift-body design, and at least at a glance looks to be more a little more developed then a simple concept moldline drawing.

Lockheed here is fighting a David/Goliath battle, Boeing's team has superior experience with capsules and manned space vehicles in general... they could very well be trying to "do something special" to one-up Boeing.

Commodore · 2005-05-03 18:52:13

---------------------------------------------------------------------
"What remains is equipment for use on the Lunar surface"
Reuseability is a non-option here, at least not yet. The amount of fuel needed for the Lunar lander to be fully reuseable would hurt the payload too much, and you would have to carry even more fuel to get it back to Earth. The lander itself isn't the problem, they will be relativly inexpensive, and will be expendable. It really is absolutely paramount that the lander maximize payload, ideally we're talking a ~15-20MT range, if VSE is to accomplish anything more then Apollo already did. We aren't talking kilos here, I'm talking multiple tonnes of heavy equipment you would need to start a base without having to send a seperate cargo flight. NOT JUST VISIT!
Same deal with the transit (TLI) module. So much of its mass is fuel, that you are going to be sending up a big rocket anyway to refuel it, that you aren't saving much mass. Infact, the penalty for returning it from the Moon will make it even worse mass wise then simply throwing it away. The added cost of making it robust enough for multiple uses, power supply, guidence/control, etc versus a simple throw-away job doubly dooms this idea. Later, when we have RLVs, yes... but right now, payload mass is at an absolute premium, so reuseability is not an option.
Much the same with the logistics/TEI module. Keeping it would be nice, but refueling the thing on orbit would be difficult, and building it for just one shot is easier then building it and maintaining it to last multiple flights. Furthermore, if the capsule can be held to a low enough mass (~6-9MT) then the logistics/TEI stage and the crew capsule could (and should) ride together on the same launcher, saving you a flight... Cost and mass concerns asside, this is probobly nessesarry, since the capsule couldn't come back down without it unless it were equipped with its own OMS engines, which would add weight and risk.
No way Bill, no resueability... not yet. The penalty for getting all this stuff back to LEO is too high until fuel is available cheap. Like, RLV or Lunar-produced cheap. Until we can do that, we absolutely have to have maximum surface payload, which means no reuseability. The lander and TLI stage themselves aren't going to be that pricey, since they aren't really much more then Centaur upper stages. This "disposable fuel cartridge" is just a nice way of saying "don't worry about the mass" and passing the buck to the launch vehicle.

Well hell, if thats all were going to do we might as well call it Apollo 18.

By transit module I mean a larger life support hab so half the crew don't spend 3 days in hell staring at there fellow crewmates rear end like in that 5 man CM you provided. Its will most likely be inflatable.

And by lunar surface equipment I mean mostly hand tools, at most a rover. A rover doesn't need to be anymore advanced than a glorified ATV with a tows trailer.

The more that we have to throw away it the more money we have to spend for every mission, and the bigger rocket we'll need (aka more money).

I'd rather spend a little more money now so theres more less we have spend for every mission and more to spend for toys.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-03 19:10:42

Well hell, if thats all were going to do we might as well call it Apollo 18.
By transit module I mean a larger life support hab so half the crew don't spend 3 days in hell staring at there fellow crewmates rear end like in that 5 man CM you provided. Its will most likely be inflatable.
And by lunar surface equipment I mean mostly hand tools, at most a rover. A rover doesn't need to be anymore advanced than a glorified ATV with a tows trailer.
The more that we have to throw away it the more money we have to spend for every mission, and the bigger rocket we'll need (aka more money).
I'd rather spend a little more money now so theres more less we have spend for every mission and more to spend for toys.

No no no, it is not like that...

You will actually need a BIGGER rocket and need MORE fuel for an all-back reuseable system because until we have a Lunar base, you will have to import every last gram of fuel from Earth to get there AND get back. Plus, I don't think you have a clue how big a price tag you are talking about when you say "rather spend a little more now" when talking about reuseable vehicles.

We absolutely must have BIG payload capacity for early Lunar landers, and if we have to carry along all the fuel needed to get back, then there won't be anything left over for surface payload. This IS is a big deal, like >50% of your surface payload would just plain evaporate if you demanded the thing come all the way back to Earth orbit. Its not worth having to send two landers just so you can save a buck on them when you are buying $800M of expendable rocket to launch fuel & payload for both of them versus $400M of rocket for an expendable lander, especially when you factor in that the manufacturing expendable landers can be pretty cheap, and developing a reuseable one won't be.

The only "toys" that are involved here are the things you'll have the payload mass for if you demand reuseability... Lunar LOX factories, large HAB modules, heavy-duty nuclear reactors, digging equipment, drilling rigs, etc etc... Going to stay, not visit like Apollo. The demand is not going to be loads of little hops so we can take pictures, we must have heavy payload capacity, and reuseability without infrastructure precludes this, and infrastructure without heavy payload is impractical.

As far as crew accomodation for the three-day transit... frankly, the astronauts can suck it up and take it for three measly days. Long-haul air travelers' are in worse shape for a solid day, these guys can handle two more okay, especially if they can move around a little bit as they would be with a "Big Gemini" sized capsule. A reuseable orbit-to-orbit vehicle would be nice, but the expense of getting the crew back down really ruins the economics of it... The capsule too, by the way, could be mostly reuseable.

True 100% reuseability will come... but not now, not yet. You either need a true "no really!" RLV on the Earth end or substantial supplies of Lunar fuel first.

Commodore · 2005-05-03 19:28:47

LOX Factorys, base modules ect. should be sent up completely seperate.

Anyway, I don't know about you, but I don't think spending half of the 40mt payload of a Delta4 heavy on a fuel tank for a single mission all that unreasonable.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-03 20:13:00

If that half a Delta-IV SHLV shot is coming out of your surface payload budget, then it sure as heck is unreasonable.

A reuseable system doesn't make sense unless you really can make use of it and need it. If we're only sending a few manned missions a year, and no RLV on the Earth end or fuel supply on the Lunar end exsists, then you are still having to pay too much for your rocket fuel since it has to be launched on a big expendable. The cost for your rocket fuel will be so large compared to the cost of your vehicle, that you won't save any money, but you will wind up mortally crippling the performance of each mission.

BWhite · 2005-05-03 20:19:04

Lunar LOX is a no-brainer.

Home Depot grade reflective mylar (well not exactly) and a hot box will extract lunar LOX quite easily.

Lunar H20? Possibly NEVER.

Build an automated L1 fuel depot and accumulate Terran methane and lunar LOX. That is where you switch from the E-line (Earth) to the M-line (Moon).

Heck build a re-useable lander and you could do it with Soyuz & Shenzou and skip CEV altogether.

I smell a plot.

Edited By BWhite on 1115173214

BWhite · 2005-05-03 20:30:28

A reuseable system doesn't make sense unless you really can make use of it and need it. If we're only sending a few manned missions a year, and no RLV on the Earth end or fuel supply on the Lunar end exsists, then you are still having to pay too much for your rocket fuel since it has to be launched on a big expendable. The cost for your rocket fuel will be so large compared to the cost of your vehicle, that you won't save any money, but you will wind up mortally crippling the performance of each mission.

Methane to L1?

My favorite rocket. 5 segment RSRM with an RL-10 cluster (or RL-60) and a giant tank of methane. Direct shot - - do not circularize your orbit, do not carry crew, do not collect $200.

Florida (or even the lovely island of Grenada) direct to L1.

Lunar LOX to L1 and there you go.

Fuel City. Check the oil and change the wiper blades and you are good to go.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2005-05-03 13:32:56

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#177 2005-05-03 14:29:45

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#178 2005-05-03 14:40:20

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#179 2005-05-03 15:18:55

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#180 2005-05-03 15:34:11

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#181 2005-05-03 15:38:55

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#182 2005-05-03 16:13:52

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#183 2005-05-03 16:29:21

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#184 2005-05-03 16:48:39

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#185 2005-05-03 16:59:30

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#186 2005-05-03 17:29:58

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#187 2005-05-03 17:44:25

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#188 2005-05-03 17:50:00

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#189 2005-05-03 18:06:07

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#190 2005-05-03 18:11:26

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#191 2005-05-03 18:13:50

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#192 2005-05-03 18:22:48

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#193 2005-05-03 18:32:29

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#194 2005-05-03 18:37:38

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#195 2005-05-03 18:52:13

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#196 2005-05-03 19:10:42

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#197 2005-05-03 19:28:47

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#198 2005-05-03 20:13:00

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#199 2005-05-03 20:19:04

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#200 2005-05-03 20:30:28

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

Board footer