You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
How difficult would it be to adapt the NASA DRM to include a test of some of the landers/ERV on the moon?
I know the in-situ propellant can't be tested there but much of the other equipment could. The launcher, lander, and a modified Earth Return Vehicle (carrying enough fuel for the trip home and no mars re-entry shield or parachutes). I know it wouldn't be a perfect test but the only perfect test is actually going to mars.
Offline
Like button can go here
Actually the lack of co2 could be obtained by a little thinking outside of the box in that if you do not scrub it from the air but separated it out from the habitat area. Then cooled it to separate it from the other air content then you are part way there to making the methane fuel which would be the means of fueling the ERV. Just bring the LH2 as planned for the mars plan and move onto the next item on the list.
Offline
Like button can go here
I think we'd be better of working on a series of things that will work anywhere. After all, a HAB is a HAB, no matter if its in orbit, interplanetary space, the (m)Moon(s), or Mars. Landers built for Mars will work just as well on the (m)Moon(s). So will rovers.
Its just a manner of tweaking them to make best use of there surroundings.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
Like button can go here
Actually a planetoid Habitat as well as one for the moon or asteriods are all quite different in that it is a lander as well and quite possibly it could be the ascent stage as well back to orbit were ever you reside. Not to mention the atmospheric, or absense of on, the dust and possibly extreme pressure for one if we were capable of putting one down on Venus or say a gas giant some day make them different again.
As you put it it is a matter of tweaking it for the right conditions of use and that I do agree on. Planning fully for a more universal concept to be used in all should be a step taken.
Offline
Like button can go here
GCN says that using Mars Direct or NASA's DRM for mars hardware for a mission to the moon is overkill, and he is right, but only if we never plan on going to mars.
The President said this:
"Our second goal is to develop and test a new spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, by 2008, and to conduct the first manned mission in 2010 when the Space Station is finished and after the shuttle is retired. But the main purpose of this spacecraft will be to carry astronauts beyond our orbit to other worlds."
The Crew Exploration Vehicle (shuttle replacement) designs from Boeing and Lockheed are nothing more than small space shuttles with bathroom sized living spaces. You can't ride to mars in one of these!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Explo … on_Vehicle
You can barely take a few people to the moon in this thing with them stepping on each others toes the whole time.
If we are going to the moon and then on to mars at some point in the future why shouldn't we design a system of launchers, landers, and earth return vehicles that work for both?
Benefits of using Mars Direct or NASA DRM architecture for a moon mission:
-Save a bundle of money by cancelling the CEV. The US will have to pay the Russians and ride on the Soyuz to visit the ISS when we want to. Good for us because it's a cheaper option, and good for them too.
-Ability to conduct a short test of the equipment.
-Research and development savings by using the same equipment for both
-Saves time, perhaps as much as 10 years in development costs of a human mission to mars
Bad:
-A few moon missions using Mars Direct hardware will cost more than a few moon missions using other already established rockets and a Transhab.
-Some modifications would have to be done to use MD equipment on the moon: In-situ propellant manufacturing lander would need to make lunar LOX from regolith rather than airborne CO2.
Series of Launches:
1) Launch unmanned moon in-situ rocket propellant/habitat on an Ares type rocket, if moon landing and the in-situ LOX processing works proceed with second launch.
2) Launch unmanned dry (or fueled for backup safety) ascent stage & lander on an Ares type rocket. It lands near the in-situ lander.
3) Launch manned moon/mars habitat with pressurized rover on an Ares type rocket. It lands on the moon nearby the in-situ lander.
3) Launch unmanned NASA DRM orbiting/docking vehicle on an Ares type rocket. It proceeds to the moon and assumes moon orbit.
4) If all goes well with the orbiting/docking vehicle launch then the manned moon/mars hab (in space, almost to the moon) proceeds to land on the moon. If not, NASA makes the decision to either send the manned moon/mars hab around the moon and come back home. This moon/mars hab would not be able to enter the earth's atmosphere (could have a heat shield added??) so either we still have an operational space shuttle ready to go up and dock with it to save the crew or it docks with the ISS and the crew rides down in a Soyuz at some point in the future. On the moon they transfer fuel from the in-situ tanks to the dry ascent vehicle, test out the rover, drive around taking soil samples, and they check out other equipment.
5) The crew launches from the moon in the now fueled dry ascent vehicle and docks with the orbiting/docking hab in orbit over the moon. They return home to the earth.
Now we would have two habitats on the moon, an operational moon LOX propellant manufacturing plant, and a pressurized rover. Continuing manned missions to the moon would need the launch of an orbiting/docking vehicle to moon orbit and a manned dry ascent & lander with spare parts. And since we would have the Ares, or equivalent, it could then be used to launch the telescope array equipment.
Also we could modify the dry ascent lander, add a heat shield to it so it can enter the earth's atmosphere on it's own. This way we would not need the orbiting/docking vehicle for moon missions but it may be nice to really test it before using it over mars.
Offline
Like button can go here
The previous post is a slightly modified Mars Direct so it's cost should be about the same-$55 billion. If we finish the ISS in 2010 then we don't need the space shuttle so we put all of NASA's money and efforts into this.
NASA's current budget is $18 billion a year so that means we pay for this in about 3 years, so we are on the moon by 2013 and we have tested all the hardware for a Mars Direct/NASA DRM type of mission.
In 2014 we take care of any identified problems with the equipment and launch a few more Ares toward the moon full of telescopes for the array on the dark side and some repair parts for the equipment left on the moon. Oh, and a soil scoop for the pressurized rover to go get platinum. Need some kind of machine that separates the platinum from lunar regolith.
The first unmanned in-situ lander is launched in 2015 for mars.
If the in-situ works the manned mission to mars departs in early 2018 when mars is closest and the other unmanned habitat is launched a month or so after.
Offline
Like button can go here
Well I see that finally What I have been saying about going to the moon to test out Mars direct equipment has seen the light by others as to what I have been meaning.
Yes changes would be needed for the moons use there in but the benefit is a full test of the gear that would be used on mars.
Another plus for doing this is less money for the R&D of the new mars rocket versus doing it from a moon sized rocket all over again. As some put it a savings of the CEV to orbit and then another design change for moon use of it.
Offline
Like button can go here
Except you can't pour all of NASA's $18 billion into the Mars program; maybe half of it at most, because NASA does other things.
-- RobS
I would like to keep the 2018 deadline so I would buy out our ISS commitment now, cancel the CEV, fly the shuttle a few more times with one of them being a hubble servicing mission, then begin building for moon/mars direct. Also I would ask ESA and/or Japan if they would like to buy a spot on the missions to the moon and mars. Maybe sell the spots for $500 million each.
Offline
Like button can go here
You can test a lot of DRM equipment on the Moon. Actually, I still think the first step is a recycling life support system in the US Hab module on ISS. That would be the LSS for the Moon/Mars surface hab.
Launch an all inflatable habitat directly to the lunar surface, don't stop in lunar orbit. Use Shuttle-C with an upper stage. I've often argued for a recoverable engine pod, but for a direct throw to interplanetary trajectory the recoverable engine pod doesn't make sense. Land the hab unmanned, but include a capsule that could hold 4 astronauts. It will need landing rockets, not a parachute or aeroshell, but the Mars hab will require landing rockets and legs as well. Ensure the roof is strong enough to support regolith bags for radiation shielding. The Moon version will require the micrometeoroid shield, the Mars version won't. Mars needs a micrometeoroid shielded containment shell for the interplanetary trip, but the aeroshell should do that. Once inflated the Mars hab will need a pressure shell and dust/scuff protection layer; especially from sand storms. It'll also need to control moisture; you don't want the foam of TransHAB's micrometeoroid shield collecting frost and dry ice until it's so heavy it sags or deforms. That means the dust layer on Mars will have to stop sand and fines but let water vapour and CO2 vapour out; that sounds like Goretex. But detail differences like different landing rockets or different outer layers are minor. The rest of the Mars hab can be a lunar base.
Propellant production on the Moon is quite different than Mars. However, I'm told NASA has a dozen different ways to make oxygen from lunar regolith. Fine, produce oxygen on the Moon but bring fuel from Earth. Half of ISPP is better than none. It will get NASA to trust ISPP. One rocket engine fuelled by LOX/LCH4 (liquid methane) is the RD-160; it has an oxidizer to fuel ratio of 3.69, which means for every 1kg of LCH4 it needs 3.69kg of LOX. Since LOX is so much heavier than LCH4, lunar production will save a lot of launch mass from Earth. LOX/LCH4 is the fuel mixture for ISPP on Mars, so rocket and fuel tank technology directly transfers.
Rovers and spacesuits can be developed/demonstrated on the Moon. Mars has higher gravity so weight and dexterity requirements are far more stringent. Although using a Mars suit on the Moon would be overkill, the Moon can be used to develop this higher quality equipment.
I've argued for a reusable ITV for Mars. That requires aerocapture and aerobraking both at Mars and Earth. A reusable Lunar Transfer Vehicle (LTV) would also use aerocapture to enter Earth orbit. This would develop a reusable heat shield and aerocapture technology. The space taxi to ferry astronauts to/from LEO would be common to both the Moon and Mars. The LTV would only stay on the Moon as along as Apollo, so it doesn't need a recycling life support system, only bottled O2 and LiOH. Landing the LTV directly beside the hab on the Moon would demonstrate precision landing. Yes, I'm arguing for an LTV that goes directly from LEO to the lunar surface without stopping in lunar orbit. With the LTV fuelled by lunar LOX and a short duration LSS sitting beside the lunar hab with recycling LSS, that would function very much like a Mars base.
A reusable LTV that can be refuelled in LEO and go back to the lunar hab means NASA can mount multiple missions to the Moon, and check the long-term reliability of the habitat. It also means the second or subsequent missions to the Moon would only require an automated fuel tanker launched on a single Delta IV Heavy, as well as a one launch of the space taxi to carry astronauts to the LTV. Keep lunar mission cost down should free funds to go to Mars.
The LTV will initially bring from Earth all LOX as well as LCH4 for the round trip. That means the LOX tank will be big enough for the round trip. If its LOX tank is completely filled with lunar LOX before leaving the Moon, it will arrive in LEO with enough LOX to return to the Moon. That means the fuel tanker will only need to lift LCH4 from Earth. That's why I think a single Delta IV Heavy should do it. I'll have to crunch some numbers.
::Edit:: Do I think lunar LOX is necessary to go to Mars? Absolutely not! But lunar ISPP will get NASA managers comfortable with mission designs that use ISPP.
Offline
Like button can go here
Pages: 1