NASA's Moon Mission

Commodore · 2005-11-07 13:52:23

If there is ample sources of water on the poles, we are going to want to spead it around to enable base building elsewere on the surface to open up mineral resources. A cheap suborbital RLV full of harvested hydrogen can bring water to equatorial areas, and return with oxygen.

NASA seem unwilling to commit much to long term lunar planning. Most likely this is do to the uncertainty surrounding lunar water. They need to go full steam ahead regaurdless, because the same technology will open up other sources of water.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-07 14:22:23

Even if water is not found we know that if we bring any form of hydrogen, methane and other fuels, we can get the hydrogen free to make to oxygen that we need to breath.
Another thought is why not do solid fuels from the insitu resources or at least burn them for power or just for the process of freeing up the oxygen.

Commodore · 2005-11-07 15:52:29

Reusable solid boosters are a definite possibility. The SRB formula is pretty simple based on aluminum and oxygen. You don't have air to worry about. Its relatively simple ballistics

But I would still want some control on landing, something you can’t get from solid boosters. There’s also the overhead. Is solid booster production and all it requires more expensive than splitting water or methane? Than shipping it up there? How far can we get on solids alone?

Of course this is a temporary solution until we can build roads or rails, which might not be as far a way as you’d think. A small fleet of orbiters are going to map the place in a very few years. We will be able to plot out rover paths years before anything ever lands. A single rover with what I believe was microwave emitter can bake roads as it goes. Then we can truck boosters wherever we want. Rails will come later when we can extract and smelt metals.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-07 17:27:24

I've got strong doubts about Aluminum/Oxygen rocket engines

It isn't really practical to push a powderd solid into a reaction chaimber like a liquid, so any conventional engine you come up with has to pre-mix the aluminum with the LOX, which is very dangerous.

A hybrid solid rocket burning LOX in an aluminum pipe won't work, because the surface area of the aluminum would be too low to burn well. Regular HTPB-based rockets today don't have this problem, since the oxidizer (typically ammonium perchlorate) is actually mixed with the solid fuel (HTPB) rather then just sitting on top.

A true solid rocket engine wouldn't be reuseable persay, only refurbishable, and would suffer from the big problem of not being easy to throttle.

John Creighton · 2005-11-07 17:40:40

I've got strong doubts about Aluminum/Oxygen rocket engines
It isn't really practical to push a powderd solid into a reaction chaimber like a liquid, so any conventional engine you come up with has to pre-mix the aluminum with the LOX, which is very dangerous.
A hybrid solid rocket burning LOX in an aluminum pipe won't work, because the surface area of the aluminum would be too low to burn well. Regular HTPB-based rockets today don't have this problem, since the oxidizer (typically ammonium perchlorate) is actually mixed with the solid fuel (HTPB) rather then just sitting on top.
A true solid rocket engine wouldn't be reuseable persay, only refurbishable, and would suffer from the big problem of not being easy to throttle.

I also wonder how much thrust you could get out of an aluminum oxygen rocket engine and how much infrastructure it would take on the moon so support such an engine. As for the throttling problem how about a partial mix of fuel. Kind of a mix between a conventional solid rocket engine and a hybrid solid rocket engine.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-07 19:36:45

Pre-mixing finely powderd aluminum and liquid oxygen is a, pardon the pun, a recipe for disaster.

You don't go pre-mixing liquid hydrogen and oxygen for one really simple reason, that if something goes the least bit wrong, its going to go wrong in a big way.

Putting a slurry of powderd aluminum and LOX in close proximity to a running rocket engine is a fundimentally dangerous proposition which would be difficult to overcome.

John Creighton · 2005-11-07 19:57:58

Pre-mixing finely powderd aluminum and liquid oxygen is a, pardon the pun, a recipe for disaster.
You don't go pre-mixing liquid hydrogen and oxygen for one really simple reason, that if something goes the least bit wrong, its going to go wrong in a big way.
Putting a slurry of powderd aluminum and LOX in close proximity to a running rocket engine is a fundimentally dangerous proposition which would be difficult to overcome.

How high a temperature would it need to ignite?

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-07 21:01:05

The heat from the rocket engine chaimber head would be more than hot enough. You also would be unable to use a conventional turbopump with aluminum powder or aluminum oxide byproducts clogging the preburner/turbines, which will mandate lower performance pressure fed fuel systems.

Grypd · 2005-11-08 13:26:59

I remember that a proposal for a lunar hopper transportation system that would have used a system of prepackaged Aluminium/oxygen premixed rockets that would have been burnt to allow this vehicle to hop across the Moon. It would have fired one then as it was coming down it would have fired another to give it distance.

Would it be possible to make a factory that manufactures such things and then instead of making a rocket that pumps the mixture through the motor we instead create a more conventional solid rocket. Obviously solid rockets cannot be throttled and the mixtures tend to burn less uniformly but if we use a cluster of smaller rockets this problem can in some ways be cancelled. This obviously increases the weight of the system.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-08 13:45:33

One could only throttle up by igniting them in a cluster formation but the issue comes into play as to the available burn time for each meaning those that are ignited first would burn out sooner than those that are just fired. This would mean that one would need a means to load the fuel at the top of the rocket and push it to the bottom as it is spent with a means to reload a column with more fuel as it is needed. The issue of throttling back is much tougher to solve since you would need a means to vent the tube or a means to remove burning fuel, such as jetisoning it. Thos tubes on the outside of a cluster might be able to do just that but those on the inner would not be able to do so.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-21 11:36:00

Another study is out but this time it is from the Altern-X candidates in SPaceDev.

Private Sector, Low-Cost Lunar Plan Unveiled

Are they for real?

A newly released study has focused on how best to return people to the Moon, reporting that future lunar missions can be done for under $10 billion - far less than a NASA price tag.
The multi-phased three-year study was done by a private space firm, SpaceDev of Poway, California, and concluded that safe, lower cost missions can be completed by the private sector using existing technology or innovative new technology expected to be available in time to support human exploration of the Moon in the near-future.

SpaceDev has blueprinted a conceptual mission architecture and design for a human servicing mission to the lunar south pole - targeted for the period between 2010 and 2015.
The length of stay on the Moon would be seven or more days - depending on cost, practicality and other issues.

Part of there concept involves using a "rocket chair," designed to lower people and equipment onto the lunar surface.

John Creighton · 2005-11-21 12:02:30

Another study is out but this time it is from the Altern-X candidates in SPaceDev.
Private Sector, Low-Cost Lunar Plan Unveiled
Are they for real?
A newly released study has focused on how best to return people to the Moon, reporting that future lunar missions can be done for under $10 billion - far less than a NASA price tag.
The multi-phased three-year study was done by a private space firm, SpaceDev of Poway, California, and concluded that safe, lower cost missions can be completed by the private sector using existing technology or innovative new technology expected to be available in time to support human exploration of the Moon in the near-future.
SpaceDev has blueprinted a conceptual mission architecture and design for a human servicing mission to the lunar south pole - targeted for the period between 2010 and 2015.
The length of stay on the Moon would be seven or more days - depending on cost, practicality and other issues.
Part of there concept involves using a "rocket chair," designed to lower people and equipment onto the lunar surface.

That article was kind of devoid of details.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-21 13:46:30

Devoid maybe but one needs to question the huge sum that Nasa does want for its moon mission or 2.

The SpaceDev website has just a little more.
[url=http://www.spacedev.com/newsite/templates/subpage_article.php?pid=543]SpaceDev Finds Lunar Missions Can Be Completed for Less Than $10 Billion

SpaceDev Completes Lunar Human Servicing Mission Study[/url]

The study divided the missions into segments, for example Earth launch to low Earth orbit (LEO) and to Geo Transfer Orbit (GTO), LEO and GTO to Lunar orbit, Lunar orbit to landing, takeoff to Lunar orbit, Lunar orbit to LEO, and return to Earth from LEO. The study also concluded that a combination of technology already under development or under consideration by SpaceDev and other companies could be combined to create a growing and lasting presence at the Moon again at costs significantly lower than those proposed by other organizations. In addition to existing launch vehicles, components such as the orbital version of SpaceDev’s proposed six passenger Dream Chaser™ vehicle, based on NASA’s HL-20 Personnel Launch System, and hybrid rocket motor modules can provide rapid, cost-effective building blocks to construct a variety of missions.

Even though the rocket chair lander is meant for an open style lander, if one pictures this as the descent stage of the lander. One could turn this into a landing fuel depot.

John Creighton · 2005-11-21 16:28:38

Devoid maybe but one needs to question the huge sum that Nasa does want for its moon mission or 2.
The SpaceDev website has just a little more.
[url=http://www.spacedev.com/newsite/templates/subpage_article.php?pid=543]SpaceDev Finds Lunar Missions Can Be Completed for Less Than $10 Billion
SpaceDev Completes Lunar Human Servicing Mission Study[/url]
The study divided the missions into segments, for example Earth launch to low Earth orbit (LEO) and to Geo Transfer Orbit (GTO), LEO and GTO to Lunar orbit, Lunar orbit to landing, takeoff to Lunar orbit, Lunar orbit to LEO, and return to Earth from LEO. The study also concluded that a combination of technology already under development or under consideration by SpaceDev and other companies could be combined to create a growing and lasting presence at the Moon again at costs significantly lower than those proposed by other organizations. In addition to existing launch vehicles, components such as the orbital version of SpaceDev’s proposed six passenger Dream Chaser™ vehicle, based on NASA’s HL-20 Personnel Launch System, and hybrid rocket motor modules can provide rapid, cost-effective building blocks to construct a variety of missions.
Even though the rocket chair lander is meant for an open style lander, if one pictures this as the descent stage of the lander. One could turn this into a landing fuel depot.

Should we believe they can do it for 10 billion without any proof. Presenting a well put together plan helps to back up there claim. Remember though that the NASA plan relies on existing technology so it should have a much higher degree of cost certainty then a plain that relies on yet on developed technology and unproven companies. Also a large part of the cost of the NASA plan seems to be completing the ISS which has nothing to do with going to the moon. So the price tag for the NASA moon mission is over inflated for some inexplicable reason.

publiusr · 2005-11-23 15:46:59

I like SpaceDev's Dream Chaser--but not their insane moon plan.

SpaceNut · 2005-12-07 07:34:26

This is sort of confusing and concerns me a little about how the Field Centers are beginning to stake their claim on CEV work. Granted these are things that are need but is Nasa trying to do the project internally cutting out all contractors, other than for there part in supplying the materials needed to build both ship types? :?

Now since the shuttle will be retired some states are looking at ways to keep jobs within the space industry from leaving, just trying to get there piece of the pie.

[url=http://www.flatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051207/NEWS02/512070377/1007/news02[/url]Florida to press for space work

State hopes to lure contractor assembly plant[/url]

It's a given that NASA's replacement for the shuttle fleet will launch from Florida. What's not certain is where the spaceships will be assembled for launch and retooled between missions

Some of the states in the running for the CEV jobs are California, Texas and Alabama as well as others. Currently there are 15,000 at Kennedy Space Center of which after shuttles retirment could be down to 7,000 jobs.

SpaceNut · 2005-12-07 08:32:08

A space fuel depot has been discussed and while it is not necessary to the start or its completion of tasks within the VSE it could lead the way to reusability of space crafts as well to hopefully lower fuel costs. We know that we can no us a shuttle ET since its design is not robust enough and that it would require many other alterations to make it even work as such.

[url=http://www.flatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051207/NEWS02/512070385/1007/news02]Griffin wants orbiting fuel depot

NASA chief asks private businesses for assistance[/url]

The reason? Money. Gas may seem pricey here on Earth. But imagine this: NASA's got to pay about $10,000 a gallon to take its fuel along for the ride when it launches spaceships bound for the moon, Mars or other destinations beyond Earth's orbit.
However, if some private company developed a spacecraft capable of doing the job, NASA would prefer to buy that service from the private sector and invest its scarce funds on pushing the CEV ahead for its real missions -- trips to the moon and Mars.
Much like the fuel depot, the agency is planning as if those services will not be there, but crossing its fingers they will be.

That can not be right ??? can it?

Right now, the Crew Exploration Vehicle is being designed to make stops at the space station. After the shuttle orbiters are retired in 2010, the new vehicle could become the chief means for getting NASA astronauts to the outpost.

Having such a gas station for the ISS would be benificial as for keeping it in a higher orbit rather than relying on a progress not be there or unable to fire its engines as has happened.

publiusr · 2005-12-07 14:14:43

I just don't trust the private spaceflight folks:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AmericaSpace/message/381

MikkelR · 2005-12-13 15:55:11

ESAS video, showing the moon return. Something in that video touches me... deep inside, cant wait till they get back there.

http://www.fusiononline.com/nasa_esas.htm

BWhite · 2005-12-14 21:37:49

Technical question.

At space.com message boards I was told that the delta V from lunar surface to EML-1 is less than the delta V to a stable LLO orbit.

Plausible?

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-14 22:28:41

*Thinks*

Possible. At EML, ground speed relative to Luna isn't a factor.

BWhite · 2005-12-14 22:54:56

*Thinks*
Possible. At EML, ground speed relative to Luna isn't a factor.

It is sort of a cool idea.

The objective would be to lift off the lunar surface and burn exactly long enough for your momentumto carry you to EML-1 with velocity slowing and hitting zero (the slowing coming from lunar gravity) at the same time you reach EML-1.

Come up short and you fall back to Luna. At EML-1 Earth's gravity prevents that.

Station keeping thrusters would be needed to fine tune your final position.

= = =

It would seem to be a long slow ride, decelerating continually from the moment you shut off the engines until you arrive at EML-1 with no residual velocity.

BWhite · 2005-12-16 17:32:37

Interesting paper on the topic of delta v.

The author asserts 2.62 km/s to LL1 (EML-1) from LS (lunar surface) - - why can't people use the same abbreviations?

and 1.93 km/s to low lunar orbit at 100km altitude and 2.74 km/s to LLO at 10,000 km altitude. EML-1 / LL1 indeed is closer in delta V than a 10,000 km orbit. Farther than a 100 km orbit.

= = =

A terrific line is found in the paper:

The Focused Study does a good job of making a difficult subject incomprehensible to the non-specialist

Heh!

In this or another paper he says something to the effect that this subject (lunar trajectories) is well understood by those who understand it and a complete mystery to everyone else. (edit - see the top of page 9)

SpaceNut · 2005-12-27 08:58:36

Give someone a sufficient why and they can endure just about any how

Why We're Going Back to the Moon

The moon is important for three reasons: science, inspiration and resources. All three are directly served by the new lunar return architecture. This program has the potential to make significant contributions to our national economy and welfare.

Well science while it is noble and does lead to being just more than science it does how ever not produce a profit. Inspiration, wow, just where do they think the bills will get paid from that effort. Now resource the jury is still out on that issue as to whether it can or will be profitable. So where does that leave us?

SpaceNut · 2005-12-27 10:04:52

Here is rthe Russian take on the Moon, Mars mining 'a must' - Sevastiyanov

The flamboyant - yet influential - president is under no illusions about the 2012-2014 timeline it would take for his company to support Russia’s first manned mission to the Moon, including the mining of isotope helium-3 by 2020.
'We could make a landing as early as 2012-2014 using the Soyuz-type technology,' said Sevastiyanov, in a wide-ranging interview with Vedomosti magazine.
'With a budget within $2 billion, we could land on the Moon in three missions.
'The first would be just a lunar fly-around mission, the second would involve a circumlunar orbit injection with automatic landing of the lunar module, and the third would be the manned landing on the Moon.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2005-11-07 13:52:23

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#127 2005-11-07 14:22:23

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#128 2005-11-07 15:52:29

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#129 2005-11-07 17:27:24

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#130 2005-11-07 17:40:40

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#131 2005-11-07 19:36:45

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#132 2005-11-07 19:57:58

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#133 2005-11-07 21:01:05

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#134 2005-11-08 13:26:59

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#135 2005-11-08 13:45:33

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#136 2005-11-21 11:36:00

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#137 2005-11-21 12:02:30

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#138 2005-11-21 13:46:30

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#139 2005-11-21 16:28:38

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#140 2005-11-23 15:46:59

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#141 2005-12-07 07:34:26

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#142 2005-12-07 08:32:08

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#143 2005-12-07 14:14:43

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#144 2005-12-13 15:55:11

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#145 2005-12-14 21:37:49

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#146 2005-12-14 22:28:41

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#147 2005-12-14 22:54:56

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#148 2005-12-16 17:32:37

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#149 2005-12-27 08:58:36

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#150 2005-12-27 10:04:52

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

Board footer