New Mars Forums

ReeceAres

Banned

Registered: 2005-05-18

Posts: 5

Re: Why this discussion....

...over mission modes. We figured out the best way to get to the moon in the 70's. Why launch everything independently??? A large booster lifts the CEV (whatever it turns out to be: Preferably with an equivilant to the SPS(a non-proportional powered rocket engine to size): which IMO gives us greater return options and a Lunar Lander, one with a heatshield, so it can work on Mars too. Biconic designs are great? but have people even flown a biconic??? we want something to get us down to the surface of the moon and mars, hopefully making them one and the same, and certainly get us back up to orbit. A Rocket is the only reliable way, wether two stage or one stage...

They showed us how to do it: Moon: CEV and LEM
Mars: CEV, Injection booster, MEM, Trans-mars cruise Hab.??

Its simple, lets not make it any harder by the 'would likes' but take the 'needs' if you want 6 guys or however many to explore and get back safe.

idiom

Member

From: New Zealand

Registered: 2004-04-21

Posts: 312

Re: Why this discussion....

Super Heavy Rockets are extremely unfashionable right now. So unpopular that an 80MT class rocket is refered to as Really-Heavy.

The Apollo/Saturn System did not leave a lot of room to be scaled up. If you want to send six people in one mission you needed to send two Apollo craft. That will leave a whole bunch of Lem legs on the surface of the moon real fast.

---

Come on to the Future

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,433

Re: Why this discussion....

Reasons for not doing a redu of saturn V and Lem
First stage booster kerosene / lox disposed of in the ocean
Second stage much the same fate not sure what that stage was powered with but will google later if needed.
third stage jetisoned towards the sun
CM stage much the same upon return from moon
lem stage one left on the moons surface
lem stage two jetisoned to the sun i think or it crashed into the moon I am not sure which

The point I am making is that everything was discarded like trash along the way at huge cost per rocket.

Lets say we can get a stripped down CEV to orbit for crew transfer, then lets only lift one or two LEO to moon cyclers which only would waste stage one and two of a saturn size lifter, then all that gets wasted if you design a single stage lander that gets refueled by lunar processing of regolith is just the stages needed to lift the cyclers and refuleing transports to refuel them for each trip and the light duty CEV

I hope I am not confusing

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: Why this discussion....

The reason why is basically three fold:

1: We need more payload to perform VSE then a single standard Saturn-V class rocket can provide for each Lunar sortie, and it would be nice to have something smaller for supplies or non-Lunar medium-heavy lift.

2: No giant-mega-rocket is readily available beyond engineers' sketches that could meet the desired capacity without large nuclear rocket engines, and would have to be developed basically from scratch at very large expense (>$10Bn perhaps).

3: Using one big giant rocket can actually be more expensive then 2-4 smaller ones, especially if the smaller ones are built in bulk rather then specially made like Saturn, and are preexsisting like Delta-IV or SDV (sorrta).

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

BWhite

Member

From: Chicago, Illinois

Registered: 2004-06-16

Posts: 2,635

Re: Why this discussion....

...over mission modes. We figured out the best way to get to the moon in the 70's.

Lunar orbit rendevouz works best for flags and footprints but not if we intend to stay.

Access to lunar poles is more readily achieved by L1 rendevous architectures. Direct flight appears to be more efficient once LOX production is up and running.

Mission architecture depends on WHY you are going and what you wish to accomplish.

= = =

t/Space proposes 3 month "Lo road" cargo deliveries and 3 day Hohmann crew transits. Kinda hard to argue with that.  :;):

---

Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]

clark

Member

Registered: 2001-09-20

Posts: 6,374

Re: Why this discussion....

Bill, howmuch is t/space paying you? You're shameless. 

BWhite

Member

From: Chicago, Illinois

Registered: 2004-06-16

Posts: 2,635

Re: Why this discussion....

Bill, howmuch is t/space paying you? You're shameless. 

Nah. They are just saying the stuff I have been trying to say and I figure they have more credibility then little 'ole me.

---

Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]