Manned mission to Luna in 2018

pete · 2005-10-06 14:28:31

By the way, GNCRevenger, why do you rule out Kliper going translunar? The Russian say they can go to the moon. I'm not an expert in reentry aerodynamics but I'm confident Kliper is sufficiently different from anything like the shuttle that they can solve the reentry physics.

Peter

BWhite · 2005-10-06 14:41:19

L1 Gateway Station

- - FGB-2 module 500 million
- - Transhab module 500 million
- - Docking module 300 million
- - Canadarm 150 million
- - Sundries/whatnot 100 million
- - 9 Proton launches 500 million

~ 2 billion to deploy

Brand new re-useable lunar lander

LOX/methane; made in Russia; shuttles between L1 and lunar surface

5-6 billion to design, build & deploy via Proton to L1

Transit to/from L1

Soyuz plus Proton DM upper stage 100 million &
Proton based fuel tankers for methane / LOX tanks

300 - 500 million all up.

= = =

Grand total less than 10 billion be they dollars or euros

constantinos1 · 2005-10-07 04:51:59

Now i fully understand that this idea unfortunately is impossible or at least difficult

BWhite · 2005-10-07 09:39:50

Now i fully understand that this idea unfortunately is impossible or at least difficult

Why?

pete · 2005-10-07 10:27:48

Now i fully understand that this idea unfortunately is impossible or at least difficult
Why?

I doubt you can pull that off. There are far too many unknowns. Is the mothballed FGB 2 really ready to be deployed, probably not. Transhab certainly isn't. NASA has abandoned the project and Bigelow is still a long way from finishing it.

What about launch costs for Proton? 55 billion is just the net launch cost. Russian cost calculations are problematic to say the least. What about Baiconur? Can you launch something as heavy as the FGB 2 from Baiconur to L1? I doubt it although I haven't done the maths. Energetically and inclination-wise, Baiconur is a lousy launch site.

The Russians have almost no experience with anything beyond LEO, apart from a few unsuccessful Mars probes and some highly successful Venera and Lunochod probes.

What about the Soyuz / Proton D arrangement? Can they not only reach the moon on a low energy direct return trajectory but actually enter into a useful lunar Orbit to deploy the lander? I'm not sure.

I still have lots of other questions concerning refueling in lunar orbit etc.. etc..

And what's the business model supposed to be? How do you want to make money? ... have space tourists pay 10 billion per launch?

Peter

BWhite · 2005-10-07 10:35:24

And what's the business model supposed to be? How do you want to make money? ... have space tourists pay 10 billion per launch?

Ten billion (back of envelope) deploys an EML-1 station and a re-useable lander to shuttle between EML-1 and the Moon.

Soyuz plus Proton Block DM gets 3 crew to EML-1 (variant of Space Adventures fly-by architecture) where they change trains to the re-useable lander. Sortie to Moon. Return to EML-1. Fly home on Soyuz.

Repeat as desired.

= = =

Incremental costs per mission are

Soyuz + Proton

As many Proton as needed to get methane / LOX to EML1 to fuel the lander. If / when lunar LOX comes on-line use that.

Flight Control services

Let Elon Musk or whoever bid to deliver methane to EML-1 using Belbruno trajectories.

= = =

Business model? Fly the first Brazilian to the moon. The first Indian. The first Japanese. The first Korean. The first Australian. etc. . .

BWhite · 2005-10-07 10:41:35

More answers:

FGB-1 was launched via Proton and is now part of ISS.

Re-fueling? I'd suggest standardized tanks of LOX and methane for the re-useable lander. Use a plug-n-play format. No zero gee fuel transfers.

Soyuz + Block DM can do a lunar fly-by from EML-1 or fly direct to Earth. Depends on the math. The upper stage will needs a few weeks (a month?) deep space shelf life.

= = =

Once there were vague plans to build a Proton pad in equatorial Brazil.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-07 11:00:22

What about the French Guiana launch capability as another possibility.

Spaceport in Kourou

or info from Russian space Web where they are looking at launching Klipper there as well.

pete · 2005-10-07 11:12:37

More answers:
FGB-1 was launched via Proton and is now part of ISS.

I remember this very well, but L1 needs more energy than LEO, right? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Soyuz + Block D should be able to get to L1, ok.

Business model? Fly the first Brazilian to the moon. The first Indian. The first Japanese. The first Korean. The first Australian. etc. . .

Do you think Brazil will pay for a multi billion joy ride? A trip to the ISS is something quite different.

Re-fueling? I'd suggest standardized tanks of LOX and methane for the re-useable lander. Use a plug-n-play format. No zero gee fuel transfers.

I don't even think there is anything like a standardized LOX methane engine. This would have to be developed first.

Don't get me wrong. I admire the Russians for their ability to develop reliable and cheap hardware. But up to now they haven't even got a single space tourist for the circumlunar trip with Space Adventures. It is far too early to talk about commericial lunar landings. The Russians will phase out Soyuz in 2014 anyhow. Such a trip would therefore have to be done using Kliper from French Guyana. You're right Spacenut.

BWhite · 2005-10-07 11:47:29

But up to now they haven't even got a single space tourist for the circumlunar trip with Space Adventures.

They are selling to the wrong market. Few will care about a billionaire joyrider.

But, how much would the Brazilian television networks pay (collectively) to broadcast live coverage of the first Brazilian to set foot on the Moon?

India?
Japan?
Korea?
U.K.?
Germany?
Canada?

Once Brazil does it, challenge Argentina to raise the television money to send one of their citizens. Incremental cost is a Soyuz + Block D plus some LOX / methane delivered to EML-1. $500 million covers the incremental costs easily. Japanese TV could recoup $500 million quite handily by selling advertising during the coverage of the 1st Japanese citizen to set foot on the Moon. More people would watch that than the Olympics, IMHO.

Then what?

Well, why are we going to the Moon in the first place?

BWhite · 2005-10-07 11:57:53

Sorry, I forgot your Gateway construction questions.

Budget 1 Proton to lift the FGB-2 & budget 2 more to push to EML-1. That's why I specify 9 Proton.

If I need 3 Block D, no big deal, right? One Block D might be enough for a docking module to connect to the FGB-2 and TransHab.

Radiation protection? The Transhab can be made with boron doped polyethylene (& Kevlar) with a central core storm shelter and methane tanks can be stockpiled around the facility.

Standardized tanks are new. No question. But it is either that or cryogenic fuel pumping. I prefer to design a standardized tank.

That re-useable landing module is the biggest new piece of hardware. I envision an oversized LEM with landing legs that do not come off. Methane / LOX is better than the Apollo hypergolics and methane stores way better than LH2. Same engines (RL-10 class) perform the descent and ascent functions.

Has the patent expired on the original basic RL-10 yet?

More fuel will be needed to return to EML-1 bringing the whole vessel but once lunar LOX comes on-line the long term savings will be enormous.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-07 12:02:34

But what is funny about all of this is that they trying to be able to go to the ISS.

Brazilian Astronaut, Marcus Pontes To Travel To ISS In March 2006

Brazilian Space Agency (BSA) were holding talks in Moscow. Astronaut Marcus Pontes will fly to Moscow to familiarize himself with Soyuz life support and operation systems. In 2000, he was certified as an astronaut at NASA's space center in Houston, Texas.
The final agreement on the flight will be signed October 18 when the Brazilian president visits Russia, the spokeswoma

Well, all they need in tourist class is 20 million.

pete · 2005-10-07 12:25:15

Brazilian Astronaut, Marcus Pontes To Travel To ISS In March 2006

Yes, and the Indonesian government has recently signed a deal for the delivery of Russian made Suchoi jet fighters. This includes a trip for that country's first astronaut to the ISS.

Three Blocks D should do the trick, alright. But, wow, that's an awful lot of automatic docking. Pretty risky stuff! None of this has ever been tested. Your plan sounds extremely complicated.

By the way, why do you insist on Methane LOX. NASA will use it for their CEV, because they have plans for insitu propellent production on Mars. The Russians have a lot of experience with Kerosine which has almost the same isp as cryogenic methane and it's much easier to store. And don't forget, your LEM will have to be replaced regularly, especially if you plan to use LOX tanks.

Just some thoughts

BWhite · 2005-10-07 12:55:15

Brazilian Astronaut, Marcus Pontes To Travel To ISS In March 2006
Yes, and the Indonesian government has recently signed a deal for the delivery of Russian made Suchoi jet fighters. This includes a trip for that country's first astronaut to the ISS.
Three Blocks D should do the trick, alright. But, wow, that's an awful lot of automatic docking. Pretty risky stuff! None of this has ever been tested. Your plan sounds extremely complicated.
By the way, why do you insist on Methane LOX. NASA will use it for their CEV, because they have plans for insitu propellent production on Mars. The Russians have a lot of experience with Kerosine which has almost the same isp as cryogenic methane and it's much easier to store. And don't forget, your LEM will have to be replaced regularly, especially if you plan to use LOX tanks.
Just some thoughts

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.

Gateway is all that needs multiple Block D assembly. Thereafter its one Soyuz / Shenzou (or Kliper or t/Space CVX or CEV) and a propulsion stage to get to L1.

Kerosene is an excellent point. Thanks.

As for the lander, the idea is to swap out the LOX tanks with new ones filled on the lunar surface. Robotic LOX plants are dropped using the same chassis and engines as the new landing module.

RL-10s are good for a great many firings, my google reading suggests. Besides sending new engines to EML-1 isn't a huge deal if the landing module is designed to allow engine removal and replacement using the Canadarm and Dextre at EML-1.

(Heh! Then ask Bigelow for an inflatable space garage.)

= = =

Disclosure time. This is the backbone of an almost finished novel.

I hope to provide scenarios or a platform to discuss lunar development issues in a concrete if fictional setting.

After the initial tourism thing dies down, hunting lunar platinum (Dennis Wingo's theory) is the next item on the explorers' agenda.

constantinos1 · 2005-10-07 13:55:54

I have make a story how this corporation or company would advance

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First it should build observatories telescopes
these will be occupied with private employed scientists for this corporation
the observatories will be open for public some days of the week with a ticket
then a research lab for all research for the moon
Then a probe launced for multiple types of observations of the moon and mineral deposits locations
All research will be open for access to anyone
After that the corporation follow the plan to conquer the Moon

----------------------------
Probably some rich man would like to go to the colony.
Also wealthy companies could be persuade to becaume sponsors

pete · 2005-10-07 16:05:25

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.

BWhite · 2005-10-08 21:47:57

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.

BWhite · 2005-10-08 22:02:55

As for platinum revenue, nope its not enough to sustain a cis-lunar economy. Not even close.

In 2004, the entire world produced about $6 billion worth of platinum, half of that imported by China which has ZERO native platinum reserves.

Now, if China wanted to leverage lunar platinum to assist with the prestige of a lunar base, they begin with a $3 billion platinum import defict which can be used to partially offset a space program.

Anyway, my plan is for TV rights to pay for the EML-1 station and development of a re-useable EML-1 to Luna landing module. Then follow on mission are paid for with TV rights for the 1st Japanese, 1st Indonesian, 1st Mexican etc. . plus alumni donations for the 1st grad of Middle State Poly-Tech to walk on the Moon.

At Proton / Soyuz prices ($100 million per Soyuz + Proton) plus shipping some methane/kerosene and LOX, even places like Singapore might be able to sell TV rights for $200-$300 million for coverage of a native son or daughter walking on the Moon. Tourism offers more revenue.

Next, mint lunar platinum coins. The very first coins ever made with metals mined off of the Earth. 500 years from now, those will be extraordinarily valuable. Sell them today at a premium to artificially inflate the price of the first lunar platinum returned to the Earth.

Okay, that will run out before too long.

Harley Davidson makes more money on merchandize than they do selling motorcycles. So, as you are mining platinum (maybe at a loss) market the heck out of your company and brand consumer goods.

Buy our shoes, shirts and show your support for opening the lunar frontier. Can't be done? Study Nike. They spend $2 billion per year on endorsement contracts. If my company has begun mining lunar platinum, I can sell shirts, shoes, pants, whatever.

Genuine lunar nickel bathroom fixtures? The nickel is "free" since I cannot completely refine out the platinum on the Moon and the nickel needs to come back to Earth anyway.

Now by doing this in a fictional context, perhaps I can create a basis for discussion and provoke some "out of the box" thinking.

Commodore · 2005-10-09 20:07:04

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.

I definately agree with the decision to go with Shuttle derived for the heavy lift class of launchers. The SRB Stick is good to for what its intended. But I don't think theres enough flexibility between the two. Even the 5 segment SRB is just enough.

We aught to have the choice of either the Stick or a Delta 4/Atlas 5 if we want to send it up with extra cargo or fuel with the CEV.

On the high end I do like the Stack, but the actual size of the cargo portion is limited. The piggy back Shuttle-C/Z platforms make up for that, and would be better suited for long cargo with more bulk than weight. All the vital parts are the same, the only challenge is modifing the existing pads to be capable of launching both.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-10 12:59:14

Lots more in this article:
A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture

This one will get you the srb with cev or the DA stick
Standing a total 290 from nozzle to escape tower peak with cut an paste proposals for manned or cargo on top

The ET tank inline SDV for cargo

Both of these have a flight test timeline for introduction of which the fully equiped manned version for LEO is to be piloted some time in 2011.

pete · 2005-10-10 13:37:36

Yes, absolutely stunning!! I particularly liked the longterm implications for a Moon base and Mars.

Great!!

RobS · 2005-10-10 17:59:04

The most thorough and detailed account of the plans yet; very exciting! Print them out, including the pictures, for long-tern reference.

-- RobS

Commodore · 2005-10-10 18:24:59

Its interesting that they are using the same accent engine for the service module.

I wonder what it would take to just add some legs and some rovers to the CEV/SM and just put that on the surface.

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-10 18:59:15

Quite a bit, the CEV would then have to weigh around 60-70MT+ and would no longer be practical to launch without expending a behemoth HLLV. Plus, if you want to send heavy payloads to the Moon, you are out of luck. Lastly, the decent stage will (thank goodness) be Hydrogen fueled.

Commodore · 2005-10-10 23:18:13

I don't think it needs to be anywhere’s near that big. The CEV/SM is 22tons. The entire Apollo LEM was about 17 tons. I have yet to see weight numbers on the LSAM, but I would guess in the 35-40ton range.

It might require a little out of the box thinking, but I think its doable. Which is not to say the CEV/SM can do it all on its own. It would need some sort of supporting module and landing structure.

For example, the maximum diameter of any lander is a little over 8m (the ET is 8.4m). The CEV/SM is 5.5ms in diameter. If we were to design the LSAM around the CEV/SM, we could provide crews with a far more robust lander with expandability options for the future.

If we were to build a module in the shape of a hollowed cylinder with walls roughly 2m thick, we could fill the "dounut" with all sorts of useful stuff. By the time you get all the bulkheads in there, that’s 1.5m to put on surface suits and have the airlock separate from the CEV, which would still be the primary HAB, and that’s just one side of it. There'd be room all around for whatever you want. And the entire structure is bound to be at least two stories tall, not including landing gear. The lower floor is bound to be devoted to 4 decent engines. The CEV/SM would "dock" with the LSAM (in LEO) from the bottom on similar clamps as any other docking port, but would then be "fed" up the center as the "hole" in the dounut. It would finally be clamped by the SM. The TLI stage then lights, and takes the whole thing all the way to lunar orbit, for course correction service. The CEV/SM/LSAM detaches, lands on LSAM power. The LSAM then deploys a sort of inflatable pathway from the CEV hatch to the LSAM. The Crew goes on its merry way. When their time is up, the SM fires, the clamps are released at it fires off on a direct return.

Now I think that can be kept under 40tons total. After all, the bulkheads on the LEM were about as thick as a couple layers of tin foil. Its a good thing Apollo crews did not stub their toes. But we should build it solid, at least on the inside. We should try to make the LSAM functional after we leave. If we want to be really crafty, we can design the LSAM to split, and fold to the sides like the old Russian launch pads to further avoid damage on SM accent. Furthermore, if you close it back up, seal the top and bottom, you have a fairly large volume that can be used for some sort of hab.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-10-06 14:28:31

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#52 2005-10-06 14:41:19

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#53 2005-10-07 04:51:59

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#54 2005-10-07 09:39:50

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#55 2005-10-07 10:27:48

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#56 2005-10-07 10:35:24

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#57 2005-10-07 10:41:35

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#58 2005-10-07 11:00:22

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#59 2005-10-07 11:12:37

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#60 2005-10-07 11:47:29

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#61 2005-10-07 11:57:53

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#62 2005-10-07 12:02:34

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#63 2005-10-07 12:25:15

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#64 2005-10-07 12:55:15

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#65 2005-10-07 13:55:54

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#66 2005-10-07 16:05:25

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#67 2005-10-08 21:47:57

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#68 2005-10-08 22:02:55

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#69 2005-10-09 20:07:04

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#70 2005-10-10 12:59:14

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#71 2005-10-10 13:37:36

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#72 2005-10-10 17:59:04

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#73 2005-10-10 18:24:59

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#74 2005-10-10 18:59:15

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

#75 2005-10-10 23:18:13

Re: Manned mission to Luna in 2018

Board footer