You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
so, how much would cost?
1. dust off some apollo rockets
2. build another moon lander
3. run some experiments
4. check that box on the checklist and go to mars
play with me! [url]http://www.augmenton.net[/url]
Offline
Yes, already hashed out. No, it won't work. Too bad, the Moon is a waste of time and money.
There were 3 Saturn V rockets left over after Apollo. The 1st and 2nd stage of the Saturn V for Apollo 18 were used to launch Skylab. The 3rd stage of the one for Apollo 20 was converted into backup Skylab, currently in the Smithsonian. Yes, that one isn't a museum model, it's the real flight hardware for the backup. That left the 1st and 2nd stage of Apollo 19 and 20, and the 3rd stage of Apollo 18 and 19. Unfortunately they were left outdoors rusting, and the interstages (connecting pieces between stages) were used as storage sheds. No one can find what happened to those interstages. One complete set of stages is at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. The other 2nd and 3rd stage are at the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral, Florida. There's also a fully functional test stage for the 1st stage at the cape. The 1st stage for Apollo 20 is still at the factory, Michoud in Louisiana. The Saturn V in Huntsville, Alabama, is all test stages; and the 1st stage there has only 1 real engine, the other 4 are dummies.
They also cut apart necessary infrastructure. They had 3 Mobile Launchers (ML) for Saturn V. However, they were converted into Mobile Launch Platforms (MLP) for the Shuttle. The tower on two of them were converted to the Static Service Structure at pad A and B. The tower on the ML used for Apollo 11 is cut in pieces and lying in a field rusting on Merritt Island. The MLP has new holes for rocket exhaust and the hold-down clamps are configured for the Shuttle.
Offline
Loss of Saturn V leaves either building a new rocket or using a foreign one. Politics dictate they build a new one. They could build a Shuttle Derived Vehicle (SDV) using the existing ET and SRBs and side-mount engine pod; that's called Shuttle-C. Or they could re-design the ET with engines beneath, cargo on top, and SRBs. They could use either SSME or RS-68 engines. They could send it all in one go like Apollo, or assemble in Earth orbit and send crew with a smaller vehicle. Assembly would permit a larger lunar vehicle than Apollo. That's the current plan, called "Apollo on steroids". The Command and Service Module will be sent on a medium lift launch vehicle: Delta-IV Heavy, Atlas-V, or "The Stick". The last one has a single SRB with LOX/LH2 upper stage. The large CSM currently planned is too big for Atlas-V and Thiokol has great salesmen pushing "The Stick". Besides, "The Stick" is cheaper than Delta-IV Heavy.
There is one alternative I would prefer: redesign the CSM to use a spheroid descent module, service module, and mission module instead of conical command module and service module. The spheroid 3-part design has lower mass. This is the plan for Apollo D-2 and Soyuz. Proposals for CEV have many designs. Notice Northrup's initial proposal, and Lockheed's final proposal use the design. The modern Soyuz-TM carries 3 cosmonauts, crew mass 225kg and payload mass 1355kg. Launch mass is 7.25 tonnes, so a 4 crew vehicle with service module for ISS should mass 9.67 tonnes. Use of graphite/epoxy propellant tanks and other composites should reduce the weight further. That would permit an Atlas V 401 to carry it to ISS. That's the cheapest EELV at $77 million per launch in 1998 dollars. Delta-IV Heavy lifts more weight but it's $170 million in 1999 dollars. A spacecraft with larger service module propellant tanks to get back from the Moon would require a larger launch vehicle, but it should still fit on a medium EELV.
Unfortunately NASA set a requirement for the CSM to be about 20 tonnes. Way too heavy for an EELV, only "The Stick" could lift that. Consequently Northrop-Grumman's final proposal is 21 tonnes, Lockheed's and Boeing's are 20 tonnes.
Offline
Pages: 1