The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-01 20:32:12

NASA has set the lander cost range between $400 million and $750 million, Chitwood said, and the lander tentatively is planned for launch as early as 2010. The project will be managed by Marshall, but the space center will rely on Goddard Space Flight Center, in Greenbelt, Md., to co-develop the lander.
To land on the moon, because there is no atmosphere, you can't just fly down and land," Horack said. "It will take a specially designed engine for that. Marshall's strength is propulsion, and we will rely on that for this project."

So why are we re-inventing the wheel all over again for a lunar lander?

My first thought is to go back to what has worked maily the LM and see where we are with what is known before starting fresh all over again.

Commodore · 2005-10-02 09:01:57

The bloated cargo requirement is going to come back to bite us.

The same principle of seperate manned and cargo launches to LEO should apply to landing on the moon. There is no way we can make effective use of 12 tons of gear in 7 days. Limit the cargo to a pair of large 2 man rovers that contain all their experiments and can operate on their own indefinately on solar power, though slower, and cap them at about 2.5tons each.

If we can keep costs low for the first series of missions that are purely scientific in nature we get up there sooner, avoid any foot race with the Chinese, built a steadily increasing body of data, and still have money to continually develope more advanced systems.

John Creighton · 2005-10-02 09:21:49

The bloated cargo requirement is going to come back to bite us.
The same principle of seperate manned and cargo launches to LEO should apply to landing on the moon. There is no way we can make effective use of 12 tons of gear in 7 days. Limit the cargo to a pair of large 2 man rovers that contain all their experiments and can operate on their own indefinately on solar power, though slower, and cap them at about 2.5tons each.
If we can keep costs low for the first series of missions that are purely scientific in nature we get up there sooner, avoid any foot race with the Chinese, built a steadily increasing body of data, and still have money to continually develope more advanced systems.

NASA will quickly move past 7 day missions.

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-02 12:47:19

The bloated cargo requirement is going to come back to bite us.
The same principle of seperate manned and cargo launches to LEO should apply to landing on the moon. There is no way we can make effective use of 12 tons of gear in 7 days. Limit the cargo to a pair of large 2 man rovers that contain all their experiments and can operate on their own indefinately on solar power, though slower, and cap them at about 2.5tons each.
If we can keep costs low for the first series of missions that are purely scientific in nature we get up there sooner, avoid any foot race with the Chinese, built a steadily increasing body of data, and still have money to continually develope more advanced systems.

No! You are wrong, I strongly disagree!

You very well can make use of 12 tonnes of cargo! You woefully underestimate how much use equipment weighs. These "experiments" to be left on the Moon will very hopefully be space telescopes, which will require as many tonnes as we can haul, especially since they will be RTG powerd so they can operate in Lunar "night." Hubble weighs double that figure and doesn't have to contend with Lunar gravity or a two-week night.

A heavy multi-meter coring drill will also be a must if we are going to do any REAL prospecting, and not just poking at rocks with hand tools. NASA estimated such a drill might weigh as much as ten tonnes in the NASA DRM manifest, and that doesn't include a power supply.

Or say you want to bring along a soil oven? Digging equipment to scrap the dust off of potential ice-bearing crater floors? A few tonnes right there probobly.

And once you have these samples, then what? Maybe those 12MT might include extra acent vehicle fuel to lift them off the Moon, and to give the CEV an extra push back to Earth.

And can the lander carry 12MT anywhere on the surface, or just the equator? If so, then it will carry less payload to the Lunar poles.

Or if you wanted to stay longer then a week? Extra fuel for fuel cells.

And when we are building a base, chances are the first assembly crews won't be staying for the whole six months, so they can get more done by carrying construction equipment or lighter base componets with them.

And when we do have a Lunar base, with a six month crew rotation or so, those crews will need supplies, right? Well hey, there you go then, all the stuff you could ask for and then some right along with the lander. No seperate vehicle required.

Oh, and you might need some extra payload to carry six astronauts if you want to increase base compliment some time.

For heavy cargo, like an ISRU plant or a HAB module or something, then yes seperate crew and cargo makes sense. But for lighter cargo, like telescopes or heavy drills or Lunar bulldozers, then not having to send a seperate vehicle makes much more sense.

The original LEM was good for racing Communists to the Moon, but its not good for much else. No solar power, hypergolic fuel instead of methane, but worst of all flimsy and under-powerd, unable to haul more then a few tonnes without the acent module, and almost none with it.

Crews will actually be DOING things on the Moon this time around, and minimizing the payload they bring with them will either nessesitate a seperate expensive and risky cargo lander or will turn VSE's Moon program into Apollo redux: there are places we need to go to all over the Moon if we are serious about getting anything out of it, and so you absolutely have to have nontrivial payload someplace besides the main base.

Since we are already going to build a heavy lander to carry large items to the Moon, then it just plain makes sense to use this same lander to carry the crews AND the light cargo they will need. Period.

TwinBeam · 2005-10-02 23:56:19

We all know the problems with getting radioactive materials launched for space reactors. I suspect that problem will continue indefinitely. Eventually we'll have to solve it by finding, mining and refining radioactive materials in space.

In the meantime, the moon really doesn't lack for energy - just conversion of solar energy and storage for 2 week periods.

Fly wheel storage might be practical. You'd need a long beam with big tubs to mount at the ends and fill with lunar soil. Spin it up with power from solar panels during the day, generate power at night. Even using local mass that way, this probably requires the most total mass from Earth.

Another approach might be to pump heat deep into the ground during the day, and tap that at night for power using a stirling engine. That would take deep drilling but we'll probably be doing that anyhow. It'd also take a lot of plumbing, which might be difficult to install in a hole.

A cruder approach - but easier to construct - would be to bulldoze lunar soil into a big pile over tubing, and pump heat into that during the day from tubes exposed to the sun. This might be kept simple enough to set up via remote-control robots.

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-03 05:57:49

No, no flywheel aproach will be reliable enough, and I am not very trusting in a Sterling engine either.

All that Lunar dust isn't going to stay hot for any length of time, certainly not two solid weeks! The soil doesn't simply have to remain warm, it has to remain pretty hot for a sterling engine to work, and I doubt that the soil could maintain a high enough temperature without an unreasonably powerful solar heater.

Look, RTGs are just obviously the way to go... they are compact, reliable, and safe. If they environmentalists want to rush the pad and chain themselves to ol' #39, thats what the CCAFS has armed Marine guards for.

TwinBeam · 2005-10-04 01:24:30

Actually, the dust only needs to stay "warm" - because stirling engines work off the heat differential, and the surface will get VERY cold at night.

The key question is probably how much plumbing is required to store enough heat for two weeks operation of whatever equipment you wish to power.

In fact, a stirling engine might be the ideal energy system for a polar installation, where eternally sunlit mountain peaks are close to ultra-cold shadowed areas.

Just because a nuke is often a good solution doesn't mean it is the ONLY solution that is ever appropriate.

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-04 05:59:10

No, because all the alternatives to nuclear power are so bad, that the nuke is the only source that makes sense. There really aren't any other good, practical alternatives, the very notion that non-nuclear alternatives are worth the trouble is an environmentalist lie.

You can't think about the Moon in terms of Earth analouges, since the environment is completly different. Vacuum doesn't have a "temperature" persay, so space is not really "cold" in the sense you are commonly familiar with.

The trouble is that the Lunar dirt has lousy thermal conductivity or emissive properties, so even though things can get very very cold in the Lunar night, the dirt doesn't lose its heat very well. It doesn't heat up in the sunlight all that well either.

There is also the simple question of efficiency, the issue that the temperature of the dirt will be moderated by its poor thermal conductivity and because there is no air or water to use as coolant then your radiators must be very large.

Considering you would also need digging equipment to bury pipes, large solar arrays to heat lots of dirt (most of which will be wasted), large radiators due to the low coolant temperature, and so on... its clear that nuclear really is the only option.

Consider also that all energy storage methods have limited efficiency, and every bit of energy needed to make up for it goes to waste. So, not only do your solar pannels need to be a little over double the size to make up for the Lunar night, but they have to be bigger still to make up for storage inefficiency.

For goodness sakes, just bring a nuke! A nice compact, reliable, round-the-clock RTG will run for years absolutely trouble-free guaranteed. Tried, tested, and indestructable to boot.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-04 06:22:24

Another reactor style that might prove to the public to be less of a hazard could be the pebble design or is that not possible for use on the moon....

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-04 09:28:04

I'm talking a power plant to operate a "dark side" observatory, which wouldn't need huge amounts of power. In such a case, big RTGs (like Cassini's) are all thats needed, a true fission reactor would be very overkill.

Furthermore, since the lander will only have 12MT of cargo tops, then they can't afford to lug along a huge solar/sterling setup.

For base power, unless we build the base on one of the polar moutains with continuous sunlight, a small-to-mid sized fission reactor would be needed. The SP-100 proposed by the USAF would probobly be the best bet.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-11 11:21:16

I think we have the Darpa teams reading from our site now...

Beacon Power Awarded AFRL SBIR Contract For Advanced Flywheel Energy Storage System

Flywheel energy storage systems have the potential to be used in a variety of space-based applications, including providing power to low-earth-orbit satellites during the 30 minutes these satellites orbit in darkness and their solar panels cannot provide power.
Compared to electro-chemical (battery) alternatives, a flywheel-based system is expected to be more reliable, have a much longer life, be able to be charged and discharged constantly, and deliver higher performance even under extreme temperatures - all significant advantages for space applications.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-13 14:19:42

Previously in this thread I posted a reference to "Why Is Hubble Looking at Apollo Landing Sites?"
Well there will be a NASA's Hubble Reveals Moon's Secrets (with additional background material)
a news conference at 1 p.m. EDT, Wednesday, Oct. 19, to discuss new Hubble Space Telescope images of the moon's surface in ultraviolet light. http://www.nasa.gov/ntv

Using Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys, preliminary assessments suggest a newly discovered abundance of titanium and iron oxides. They may be sources of oxygen and a potential resource for human exploration.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-16 09:56:02

With a good plans there are usually lots of poor ones along the way and it would appear that Nasa sure has lots of them to contend with in the shuttle and ISS. But can the CEV, CLV and the SDV HLLV be going down a simular path.

The LRO is schedueled for a 2008 launch and will give Nasa the image data of the lunar landscape to about a meter demension. This would allow for better manned flight landing selections to be made in the far future.

NASA Considering Two Options For 2010 Lunar Lander

Of course some of the I want work in my facility has already played out with the primary unit responsible for the LRO shifting to another.

Robotic Lunar Exploration Program is what the LRO is part of. Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., has primary responsibility for executing the 2010 lander mission, informally dubbed "RLEP 2". With a second lander, RLEP 3, which would launch either in 2012 or 2013. These will come at a cost of about $400 million and $750 million.

SpaceNut · 2005-12-09 12:09:59

We have not even gotten the LRO off the pad and already Nasa is planning for the second Robotic Lunar Exploration Mission (RLEP 2.) January 2011 -- Launch.

Grypd · 2005-12-09 15:30:55

China sees land sales on the moon as illegal

China's High court has ruled that the selling of land by the lunar embassy is only a dream and as such is committing a fraud. This is a bitter blow to the embassy which claims it can do so by utilisation of the 1967 outer space treaty. In short those who have purchased these claims will find the Chinese will not recognise them. And since this ruling has extra national interest it is likely other countries will follow suit calling them quirks and not recognising any legality or strength of position.

Palomar · 2005-12-09 15:37:21

China sees land sales on the moon as illegal
China's High court has ruled that the selling of land by the lunar embassy is only a dream and as such is committing a fraud. This is a bitter blow to the embassy which claims it can do so by utilisation of the 1967 outer space treaty. In short those who have purchased these claims will find the Chinese will not recognise them. And since this ruling has extra national interest it is likely other countries will follow suit calling them quirks and not recognising any legality or strength of position.

*I see it as absurd. Some Germans were threatening President Bush a few years ago, regarding future U.S. activities on the Moon, telling him/the U.S. gov't to "stay off their property."

Yeah? Well go physically claim it. Then it's yours.

--Cindy

Martin_Tristar · 2005-12-10 21:55:25

Well, go all the way,

Under the 1967 Space treaty is forbids nations to have military installations on any body including the moon in space, well land a droids with either a short range railgun , lasers or limited supply self=propelled amunition for space and protect your property from trespassers and illegals.

Then we can fix these issues once and for all about personal property rights in space and the rights of land ownership and more and how far it could extend and more. We need these issues fixed or people with money could make those decisions to have offensive capabilities.

We are doing the wrong thing no having property rights, provisional governments that could administer these issues for each space body in our solar system. It comes down with the right framework being setup and then ratified by all member states under a new treaty.

SpaceNut · 2006-01-03 15:29:36

Back a page I mentioned that Marshall hopes lunar lander makes return trips Scientist says probe isn't seen as 'one-shot effort'

About 10 people at Marshall Space Flight Center and another 40 at NASA sites around the country are developing what NASA engineers believe will be a complex, unmanned lunar lander that will serve as a test run for a manned lunar lander.

But what size should it be?

"One of the interesting concepts we have been considering is whether this should be a smaller version of the proposed lunar lander that will put humans on the moon," he said. "Consideration has to be given that we are taking up resources to place this on the moon, and it's not just one shot. A crew could use it at some later date."

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-03 16:21:31

They are talking about one of those "open air" rocket chair style landers.

EuroLauncher · 2006-01-18 11:45:03

The last DARPA challenge failed miserably
I think that experience with the MERs has clearly shown that the computer software to do what you are talking about just isn't there Grypd.

the Moon mission
http://www.fusiononline.com/nasa_esas.htm
The ESAS summarizes NASA's response to President Bush's directive to return to the Moon and look toward Mars exploration.

publiusr · 2006-01-27 17:03:34

I wonder if some of these unmanned lunar missions were just something to throw to the EELV hucksters so they wouldn't moan over HLLV too loudly.

Grypd · 2006-01-28 05:12:05

I wonder if some of these unmanned lunar missions were just something to throw to the EELV hucksters so they wouldn't moan over HLLV too loudly.

Hardly our lack of knowledge even decent mapping data over our nearest neighbour is almost criminal. When we see maps of the Moon the center of the Moon is well mapped but the poles are + or - 100 km. This is chronic considering that it is the poles and the hydrogen sources that interest us in the Moon right now and if we also include those polar areas that are permanently in light then we need those robotic missions.

We also need to do mineralogical and resource surveys as well as the improved mapping capability. How else can we expect to get back to the Moon and do something credible. There is a lot of research we can do on the Moon from finding how our Earth was formed to mineral research to studying the formation of life. We should like in the arctic find rocks ejected by meteor strikes from both Mars and the Earth that will allow us to compare life as it begins.

publiusr · 2006-02-03 13:38:46

Money on those probes would be better suited for Vehicle development.

Commodore · 2006-02-03 17:23:31

There is a limit to what we should be trying to do robotically for the moment. But finding lunar water really is critical. Dark side communications is also required. Pratice for comsumable resupply would also be useful.

GCNRevenger · 2006-02-03 22:37:37

A thought...

If the Lunar ice is concentrated in craters that are perpetually dark, then how do you go down in them if you are limited to solar power?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2005-10-01 20:32:12

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#127 2005-10-02 09:01:57

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#128 2005-10-02 09:21:49

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#129 2005-10-02 12:47:19

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#130 2005-10-02 23:56:19

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#131 2005-10-03 05:57:49

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#132 2005-10-04 01:24:30

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#133 2005-10-04 05:59:10

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#134 2005-10-04 06:22:24

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#135 2005-10-04 09:28:04

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#136 2005-10-11 11:21:16

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#137 2005-10-13 14:19:42

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#138 2005-11-16 09:56:02

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#139 2005-12-09 12:09:59

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#140 2005-12-09 15:30:55

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#141 2005-12-09 15:37:21

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#142 2005-12-10 21:55:25

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#143 2006-01-03 15:29:36

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#144 2006-01-03 16:21:31

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#145 2006-01-18 11:45:03

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#146 2006-01-27 17:03:34

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#147 2006-01-28 05:12:05

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#148 2006-02-03 13:38:46

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#149 2006-02-03 17:23:31

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#150 2006-02-03 22:37:37

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

Board footer

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.