"3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-24 20:44:04

Buying tickets/payload tonnes, buying rockets, same thing: the problem is that its money leaving America, Congress would much rather spend that money here where it will bennefit our economy, despite it costing far more. And costs asside, it is a matter of national prestiege to have access to orbit, particularly when national rivals like China have it too. Congress is the one that signs NASA's checks, and the price of national pride, technological prowess, and economic bennefit are higher then the cost of using CEV/CLV versus Soyuz/Shenzou/etc. This isn't rocket science.

Bolting on more engines won't solve your problem, the number of engines only changes how quickly you escape the pull of Earth's gravity to enter or leave orbit. Ever second you are not in orbit, you have to burn rocket fuel to keep from falling back down again, and so the faster you get up to or out of orbit the less of this gravity-countering fuel you have to burn. This is how thrust influences payload, and the more the thrust the less you have to counteract gravity. However, this fuel is a small portion of the total amount of fuel needed to enter or leave orbit as long as your rocket can get off the pad in a reasonable amount of time, so even a rocket with infinite thrust still wouldn't be much smaller then rockets are now.

Since you can't explain how your rocket can lift those tonnes needed, then you must resort to scaling down your payloads. NASA is going to return to the Moon, but this time we have to accomplish alot more than Apollo ever did. Apollo really accomplished very little, other then the marvel that it actually worked with 1960's technology. NASA needs more payload on the Moon then Apollo ever did, quite a bit more, especially since we want to build a base. Since the CEV capsule can't be scaled down much, the only option is to cut into the Lunar payload.

This is unacceptable, because the baseline LSAM carries ~5MT of equipment with an acent module or a bit over 20MT without one. Chopping several tonnes off of either figure to accomodate a weaker booster would deeply impact what you could do, now crews exploring Lunar sites couldn't hardly bring anything with them, and chopping a few tonnes off a base module yeilds a large and disproportionate decrease in its volume due to the cube/square law. Since mass is controlled by surface area, reducing the surface area decreases the volume exponentially.

"I don't see one company or government agency of the world that buys the products they need 20+ years away"

NASA does. They have rough plans up until 2035 to get to Mars, and its safe to say we will use the same method to get there for some years, which roughly coincides with my 2046-2050 figure.

And I didn't say seven missions per year, only seven launches per year. NASA's DRM-III Mars plan calls for six launches to mount each mission, which I have rounded up to eight to provide extra payload to build bases with per mission. A mission would depart every other year, which means four launches anually on the average. If we are building/tending a Moon base, that will require around three launches anually, for a combined total of seven.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-25 07:08:46

Buying tickets/payload tonnes...

NASA/USA don't need to buy NOTHING

the NASA/USA international commitment is to "FINISH" the ISS and NOT to "VISIT" it!

the old and dangerous Space Shuttle must still fly 19 times because it is the ONLY vehicle available to launch and assemble the ISS' modules and finish it

when the Shuttle will be retired, there are NO OTHER "international commitments" that need the Shuttle or the CEV

from 2010-up the international partners DON'T NEED and DON'T WANT to use the CEV since they CAN'T SPEND 10+ TIMES the price of a Soyuz/Progress/Kliper/Shenzhou/ATV/HIIA for its crew rotation and ISS' re-supply !!!

from 2014-up the orbital-CEV will be used ONLY to send the american astronauts to the ISS, but NASA and USA are NOT "obliged" to send their astronauts to the ISS, it's ONLY THEIR OWN CHOICE to launch them or not (and how many)

since there are NOT international commitments to VISIT the ISS after 2010, NASA/USA are completely free to...

a) send 10 astronauts per year with many CEVs

b) send 2 astronauts per year with one CEV

c) send a few astronauts per year with the Soyuz

d) DON'T SEND any astronaut to the ISS and save the money of (both) orbital-CEV and CLV

if NASA finish the ISS with the Shuttle will not be obliged to VISIT it, then, the CLV (to launch the CEV to the ISS) is COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY

...you can't explain how your rocket can lift those tonnes needed...

I've already explained it in my articles and posts

since you don't agree with me, I can't discuss of it endless

that, also, because it's unnecessary to know (now) the real payload of "my" rocket

I suggest to use a different ARCHITECTURE (the single-launch version) and NOT (only) a different rocket!

then, if my design needs some changes (but I don't think that) NASA can modify the base SLV to accomplish the FULL (non resized) missions with a SINGLE launch/rocket

99% of the advantages of my proposal come from the SINGLE LAUNCH and NOT from "my" rocket!

...the baseline LSAM carries ~5MT of equipment with an acent module...

if you don't include water, food, spacesuits, etc., the max LSAM's exploration-hardware will be of only 2.5 mT

then, with ONE cargo-LSAM will be possible to send on the moon the FULL "exploration & science hardware" for the next EIGHT manned missions !!!!

that choice has THREE main advantages:

1. less payload of ALL manned launches

2. the astronauts can use (from the FIRST mission!) the FULL lunar-hardware of EIGHT "standard" missions!!! With the "standard" ESAS' missions/architecture the same lunar-hardware will be available ONLY after EIGHT missions (then, around 2023...)

3. the (very very very expensive!) lunar-hardware (sent to a single moon-base) will be REUSED many times!!!

...NASA does...

no

they can "plan to buy" ,not "buy now"

many changes was made to the Shuttle and ISS plans and hardware in last 20 years

then, many changes may happen in the next years about the new plans/hardware/missions

.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-25 07:44:38

when the Shuttle will be retired, there are NO OTHER "international commitments" that need the Shuttle or the CEV

Actually there will still be the need to bring materials for repair and experiments back from the ISS of which can not fit into the soyuz or other ships such as gyros, solar panels ect..

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-25 07:58:19

when the Shuttle will be retired, there are NO OTHER "international commitments" that need the Shuttle or the CEV
Actually there will still be the need to bring materials for repair and experiments back from the ISS of which can not fit into the soyuz or other ships such as gyros, solar panels ect..

not true

the Shuttle is the only vehicle able to send big/large cargo, but in 2010 it will be retired

the crew-CEV can send only "minimal cargo" (ESAS) to the ISS, then, it's useless to send experiments and gyros...

the unpressurized cargo-CEV was deleted from the ESAS plan in january

the pressurized cargo-CEV can lift about 3 mT of payload (was 3.5 before the CEV resizing) that is VERY CLOSE to the max payload of a Progress (2.4 mT)

the only difference between a cargo-CEV and a Soyuz is the launch cost... one cargo-CEV launch may cost 20+ times one Progress... then, YOU CAN BE SURE that ESA, Japan, etc. NEVER want NASA to "respect that commitment" (if it really exists...) to launch some cargo-CEVs at a price their space-budgets can't sustain !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"send back" some ISS' hardware with a CEV will be so expensive that, use only expendable hardware, will result in saving THOUSANDS TIMES the price!!!

but, if in a few (rare) times it will be (absolutely!) necessary, it's simpler and cheaper to modify a Soyuz to send back a payload without a crew (it's easy, since the Soyuz re-entry, form early models, already is 99% automatic)

.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-25 11:53:24

not true
the Shuttle is the only vehicle able to send big/large cargo, but in 2010 it will be retired

Maybe retired and then again just in mothballs until one is needed.

This is what was the intended lifespan for shuttle.
NASA needs better shuttle plan, auditor says; GAO: Still no groundwork for modernizing aging fleet

or from here Space Shuttle: Further Improvements Needed in NASA's Modernization Efforts. GAO-04-203,

"Efforts to upgrade the shuttle have been stymied by the agency's inability to develop a long-term strategic investment plan to fly the shuttle safely and a systematic approach for defining the spacecraft's requirements because its life expectancy and mission have continued to change from an original design of a 10-year life to the year 2020 and possibly beyond."

or this one

NASA's estimate of the total cost to upgrade the shuttle $300 million-$500 million a year, or a total of $5 billion-$8 billion through 2020 is reasonably based but could be significantly higher, as it does not include potential projects such as a crew escape system. It will be difficult for NASA to make an accurate estimate until it firmly establishes the basic requirements (such as life expectancy) for the shuttle and the process for selecting shuttle upgrades. A number of potential changes could significantly increase the cost of shuttle upgrades, including responses to the recommendations of the CAIB.

The final reason for shuttle experiment returns was because it was alot more gentle to them with a runway landing.

the crew-CEV can send only "minimal cargo" (ESAS) to the ISS, then, it's useless to send experiments and gyros...
the unpressurized cargo-CEV was deleted from the ESAS plan in january

Probably delayed or is pictured in the COT relm of hopefulness that the private industry will be able to step up to the plate and be capable of making the deliveries.

Payload was intended to be greater than 15MT see see image here of CEV but I found the January reference dropping the cargo portion from the cev.

Which makes me wonder about the block table esas.report.1.17.jpg

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-25 16:53:44

Wrong

NASA is still obligated by international treaty to furnish at least a good portion of the science payload (currently zero), emergency return for the crew (presently purchased from Russia), and return for science experiments/equipment to Earth. Congress has also clearly indicated that America must retain domestic access to the station eventually, and buying Soyuz capsules is only acceptable since no alternative is available. Otherwise, Congress would not have been so irked by the gap between Shuttle and CEV/CLV and would not have been so reluctant to let NASA buy Soyuz capsules.

The purchase of foreign capsules for the ISS is a temporary choice, Congress will not tollerate it if a domestic option - CLV/CEV - is available. They simply will not. Furthermore, the "foreign option" isn't an option at all, because it does not provide a good way to return science experiments to Earth. One of the whole reasons of building ISS in the first place was to study material and biological behavior in space, and the analysis cannot be carried out in space only. Therefore, there must be a capacity to return reasonably large masses and volumes of equipment to Earth. This will be a regular thing, it will not be an occasional rare sample container or something.

This cannot be accomplished with Soyuz nor Shenzou, since these capsules follow Korolev's three-module design that works only because the mass of the return module is minimized. Thats the whole point of having three modules in the first place infact. Since neither Europes nor Japans cargo ships can reenter, that leaves only CEV as a viable, reliable option.

Also, unlike any other capsule, CEV should be sturdy enough to be reuseable, which combined with simple CLV and near-zero development cost ought to keep hardware costs per-mission relatively low compared with other domestic options. AltSpace "commercial spaceflight" options would be nice, but right now they are unreliable.
__________________________________
More:

Why would resizing CEV reduce its payload mass? The CEV was resized because it was too big, probably not because it was too heavy, as the more powerful SRB lets you get away with a smaller upper stage.

In fact, reducing the CEV's size will actually increase its payload mass slightly I bet, though decrease its payload volume a little.

The 3.5MT payload figure you see is for the CEV-SM with a full fuel tanks for returning from the Moon. This is done so the CEV would be able to reboost the ISS, but if you only partially filled the tanks I bet it would increase the payload mass by several tonnes. In any event, raw mass is not as important for science equipment as volume, which CEV will have far more than Progress-M. Many science instruments are not all that heavy, but are bulky, especially with the packaging to ensure they survive launch intact.

I estimate the CEV capsule will have ~20 cubic meters of internal volume: see the blue diamond line on the graph

While the Progress carries only FOUR. Astronautix link

So CEV will carry five times the payload volume and about double the mass. Thats kind of a big difference, which enables CEV to not simply carry more experiments, but bigger ones too.

And what the heck are you talking about, with the ESA/Japan not wanting NASA to launch CEV to carry science experiments? They aren't paying for it!

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-25 17:10:13

...you can't explain how your rocket can lift those tonnes needed...
I've already explained it in my articles and posts
since you don't agree with me, I can't discuss of it endless
that, also, because it's unnecessary to know (now) the real payload of "my" rocket
I suggest to use a different ARCHITECTURE (the single-launch version) and NOT (only) a different rocket!
then, if my design needs some changes (but I don't think that) NASA can modify the base SLV to accomplish the FULL (non resized) missions with a SINGLE launch/rocket
99% of the advantages of my proposal come from the SINGLE LAUNCH and NOT from "my" rocket!
...the baseline LSAM carries ~5MT of equipment with an acent module...
if you don't include water, food, spacesuits, etc., the max LSAM's exploration-hardware will be of only 2.5 mT
then, with ONE cargo-LSAM will be possible to send on the moon the FULL "exploration & science hardware" for the next EIGHT manned missions !!!!
that choice has THREE main advantages:
1. less payload of ALL manned launches
2. the astronauts can use (from the FIRST mission!) the FULL lunar-hardware of EIGHT "standard" missions!!! With the "standard" ESAS' missions/architecture the same lunar-hardware will be available ONLY after EIGHT missions (then, around 2023...)
3. the (very very very expensive!) lunar-hardware (sent to a single moon-base) will be REUSED many times!!!
...NASA does...
no
they can "plan to buy" ,not "buy now"
many changes was made to the Shuttle and ISS plans and hardware in last 20 years
then, many changes may happen in the next years about the new plans/hardware/missions

All you do is whine, flap your arms, and keep on saying silly things, gaetano...

Its not that I simply disagree with you about your rocket, I've shown how your rocket won't work, and you can't show why I am wrong. And how is it "unessesarry" to know the payload of your rocket, thats the measure of rockets in the first place, isn't it? And that determines if NASA can do a "full sized mission" with a single launch. If its not practical to make any variation of SLV powerful enough, then your arcitecture won't work reguardless of its supposed bennefits.

Speaking of bennefits, you keep on trumpeting how awful it is that NASA could lose a Lunar mission to a CLV launch delay, but you never addressed how this extremely low probability (~1%) is either wrong or unacceptable. Nor have you even acknolaged that CaLV will be less expensive since all its engines and avionics will have already been developed for CLV and Delta-IV.

About the Lunar payload: if LSAM only does carry 2.5MT of payload asside from the crew (possibly due to switching from Methane to Hypergolics for acent), then if we have to cut into this mass to make your rocket work, then the astronauts won't have ANY payload, its even worse!

"then, with ONE cargo-LSAM will be possible to send on the moon the FULL "exploration & science hardware" for the next EIGHT manned missions!!!!

But it will all be at one landing site, which won't do a bit of good if we want to go to other sites all over the Moon, duh! And eight launches worth of stuff is about four years worth of missions, and I really doubt we could build and pack four years of science gear in one mission without forgetting something or wanting/needing something changed. If it will survive the long four-year hot/cold/vacuum/solar-flare soak on the Moon at all, even the cosmic rays will nessesitate some modestly weighing shielding.

And yes, NASA probably will change its plans, but we will need about the same mass on the Moon and Mars reguardless how we get it there, and the best way to do that is with an HLLV. Since we know how much rocket fuel it takes to put a mass on Moon/Mars, and we know roughly how much our rockets carry, then we can roughly estimate how many rockets we will need to accomplish a particular goal. It is rocket science, but its easy rocket science.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-25 20:26:55

I am tired as well of the 2 versus 3 strap on 4 segment srb to boost payload capability so here is the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation and all the data I can find on the SRB:

The new flight-support motor, designated FSM-12, burned approximately 123 seconds during the test, or the same amount of time each rocket motor on the reusable boosters must burn during an actual shuttle launch. Each shuttle launch requires the two booster motors to lift the 4.5-million-pound vehicle off the ground.
During shuttle flights, the booster motors provide 80 percent of the thrust for the first two minutes after liftoff. Each motor, which generates an average of 2.6 million pounds of thrust, is just over 126 feet long, 12 feet in diameter and is the primary component of the shuttle's twin solid rocket boosters. Each booster has a thrust (sea level) of 14,409,740 Newtons (3,239,600 pounds) at launch
The solid-fuel rockets help to take the shuttle to an altitude of 28 miles at a speed of 3,094 miles per hour, before separating and parachuting into the ocean to be retrieved, then refurbished and prepared for another flight.
Physical Description:
Each RSRM consists of four rocket motor segments, thrust vector control (TVC), and an aft exit cone assembly. Each motor is just over 126 feet long and 12 feet in diameter. The entire booster (including nose cap, frustum, and forward and aft skirts) is approximately 149 feet long. Of the motor's total weight of 1,252,000 pounds, propellant accounts for 1,107,000 pounds. Approximately 110,000 quality-control inspections, in addition to static tests, are conducted on each RSRM flight set to verify flawless operation.

Now solve for how high the apogee will be for just the SRB and nothing else when you fire off and fly 1, 2 and final 3 to see what will happen.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-26 07:02:03

Maybe retired and then again just in mothballs until one is needed.

my opinion about the Shuttle is that, next time a (little) piece of foam will falls from the ET, the entire Shuttles' fleet will be ultimately grounded

Payload was intended to be greater than 15MT see

the total "dumb" payload is over 15 tons, but that figure includes the CEV/SM structure, the SM fuel, etc.

the max (usable) payload of the Block 1B ISS Pressurized Cargo CEV was 3.5 mT with the 5.5mt. CEV and around 3 mT with the new 5mt. CEV

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-26 07:43:25

...NASA is still obligated by international treaty to furnish at least a good portion of the science payload...

the ISS needs: crew rotation, re-supply, experiments and (if possible) new hardware/modules

despite I think it's unnecessary to send them with the very expensive cargo/crew-CEV, in my articles I suggest to use the SLV/FAST-SLV/SuperSLV big payloads to launch mixed crew/re-supply/new-hardware missions

evaluating the costs of 3-5 separate launches vs. ONE launch, the latter option is clearly better, cheaper and more efficient

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-26 08:03:02

...would resizing CEV reduce its payload mass...

resizing the moon/ISS' hardware to a 3-astroanuts may give a giant weight reduction

however, NASA can simply upgrade the (SINGLE) rocket to match the full 4-astronauts missions

the (single launch) ARCHITECTURE is the most important part of my proposal NOT the rocket/design/size NASA will use to do it

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-26 08:08:38

the max (usable) payload of the Block 1B ISS Pressurized Cargo CEV was 3.5 mT with the 5.5mt. CEV and around 3 mT with the new 5mt. CEV

You can't even keep your units straight! CEV was reduced from 5.5 meters to 5.0 meters. Are you sure you are from a country that uses the SI system? And the payload for the newer, smaller 5.0m CEV would be greater then the bigger 5.5m one for a CLV of equal capacity. Again, the CEV's cargo capacity is dependant on the capacity of the CLV, is increased with a smaller/lighter CEV, and can be further increased by only partially loading the SM fuel tanks.

The payload mass could be increased by double or tripple if you only partially fill the Lunar-return/ISS-reboost fuel tanks, but still the volume of the CEV is many times greater then Progress and is roughly comperable to ATV or MPLM, except that it can return experiments/suits/etc to Earth and is reuseable.

It will not be cheap, but its still better then any other option

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-26 08:47:05

...But it will all be at one landing site... eight launches worth of stuff is about four years worth of missions...

I don't think the VSE funds will be sufficient to launch many crew+cargoLSAMs to many different landing sites

the better (and rational) way is to send the hardware to one-two landing sites and extend the exploration via surface with the lunar-buggy (now) and with pressurized vehicles (in future)

about the 8+ missions' hardware... 90% of it will be "heavy" hardware: lunar-SUV, explorations tools, extra life support, etc.

only 10% of experiments may vary from mission to mission (and can be sent with each mission)

...If it will survive the long four-year hot/cold/vacuum/solar-flare soak on the Moon at all, even the cosmic rays will nessesitate some modestly weighing shielding...

if the lunar-hardware (made of METAL, plastic, etc.) will be damaged so much in ONLY four years on the moon, the long-term (and very fragile!) HUMAN exploration the moon will have NO FUTURE !!!

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-26 09:08:16

And the payload for the newer, smaller 5.0m CEV would be greater then the bigger 5.5m one for a CLV of equal capacity...

if NASA plans to use the LAS or the SM to reach the right CEV orbit... that means the new CLV (with one J-2x) will NOT launch MORE payload but LESS

however, the discussion/battle about the cargo-CEV is completely useless since it will be ready in 2014-up, will have only 3.5 tons (or more, if you want!) of payload and each launch will use the same hardware of a crew-CEV launch (then, a very very very expensive hardware!) while the ATV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Transfer_Vehicle will be ready to launch within 2-3 years, can lift up to NINE tons of payload and each ATV (with TWICE the payload of a cargo-CEV!!!) will costs only $200M to launch with an Ariane5

when the (very-expensive and half-payload) cargo-CEV will be ready to do its first test launch, the (cheaper) ATV will already be "in service" from 5+ years !!!!!!!!!!!

about the ISS' hardware/experiments/trash return to earth with the CEV....... that option will be SOOOOOOOO EXPENSIVE that NASA and ESA must become COMPLETELY CRAZY to use it !!!!!!!!!

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-26 12:18:51

"I don't think the VSE funds will be sufficient to launch many crew+cargoLSAMs to many different landing sites"

Why is it any more expensive to use ESAS hardware to go to other sites on the Moon instead of one central site? You are becomming nearly incoherant gaetano

It would be absolutely insane to go through all this trouble to return to the Moon to only go to just one spot. The Moon has lots of features on it of interest, possible ice at the north and south poles, mountains that are lit year-round, meteor craters with minerals in the bottom dot the surface... These things are not within a rover's ride of eachother. If we are going to explore the Moon, multiple sites will have to be selected, and thats all there is to it. Its not an opinion, its a fact.

"if the lunar-hardware (made of METAL, plastic, etc.) will be damaged so much in ONLY four years on the moon"

Your ignorance continues to usher forth... electronics are sensitive to radiation, particularly the kind from solar flares and cosmic rays. Electronics, optics, and mechanical parts are also suspectable to hot/cold cycles, which they will experience twice a month to the tune of a 400F temperature swing. Could you protect it perhaps by burying it? Sure, but then, how do you get large items out of it?

RedStreak · 2006-05-26 12:41:13

I don't think the VSE funds will be sufficient to launch many crew+cargoLSAMs to many different landing sites
the better (and rational) way is to send the hardware to one-two landing sites and extend the exploration via surface with the lunar-buggy (now) and with pressurized vehicles (in future)

I think this actually may be a good point, and idea.

One thing any government agency can be sure of is having barely half the funds it would like to have to work with. Chosing two sites on the moon to start from and then expand out will help focus NASA's limited intelligence and capability.

Pick one site for resources (most likely in the South Pole region near both the alleged ice and the point of Eternal Light), but then pick the second site for scientific potential such as an ancient lunar volcanic vent. Concentrating equiptment will allow a fully developed base to be created as opposed to a dozen abandoned lander stages with scattered cargo blocks.

First NASA will build the CEV, then the CLV, CaLV, and LSAM; once these first two agendas are built and operating the third agenda ought to be selecting a pair of sites for long-term habitation (whether a future colony or a simple Antarctic-analog facility).

Maybe it will limit science on the moon at first, but damn it just GETIING to the moon will be a camel-through-the-needle-of-an-eye effort as is. May as well focus our work - probes can always be scattered across a planetary body to get a better samples - humans are another matter.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-26 13:01:43

"if NASA plans to use the LAS or the SM to reach the right CEV orbit... that means the new CLV (with one J-2x) will NOT launch MORE payload but LESS"

What? You are making no sense at all. NASA has always planned to use the CEV-SM to perform the circulization burn, this is not a change and this is no secret.

NASA, when they switched to the five-segment booster, had a much more powerful first stage, thus the CLV didn't need an upper stage with as much fuel or thrust. So the upper stage was reduced from 5.5m wide to 5.0m, and so was the CEV to match. Its just a matter of aerodynamics, the CLV with the new engine combination will have about the same payload as the old one, so the total mass for the CEV and its contents is about the same. Only now, the CEV capsule itself is smaller then was originally planned under the executive study that SpaceNut and I have linked to, so therefore it will weigh a little less. Now that the CEV weighs less, but the CLV still has about the same payload probably, the CEV therefore has more cargo mass capacity. If the CLV can't carry as much payload with the new engines then the old ones, then the smaller CEV combined with less dry mass and fuel needed for the service module about makes up the difference (aproximatly 2MT I estimate) that the payload would still be aproximatly the same as the bigger old version of the capsule.

And why will the CLV be so expensive? The big five-segment booster can't cost more then ~$50M a copy, J-2 isn't a whole lot bigger or more complex then the $3-5M RL-10, and the upper stage is much smaller then the big $60M Shuttle tank its based on. I expect the booster, J-2X, and tank will total around $100M. Lets say that each CEV launch costs $75M (pessimistic), $25M to refurbish the capsule and $50M for the new service module. $175M total, maybe round up to $200M with a little margin. Less then the cost of a Delta-IV Heavy by itself, and probably about the same as an uprated Delta-IV Medium or Atlas-V. Still roughly comperable to the European ATV riding on Ariane-V, except CEV can bring cargo back down.

And you do know that the ESA is not going to build very many ATVs, right? The order is only for six of them last I knew. Those things have a very long lead time apparently.

"about the ISS' hardware/experiments/trash return to earth with the CEV....... that option will be SOOOOOOOO EXPENSIVE that NASA and ESA must become COMPLETELY CRAZY to use it !!!!!!!!! "

I think you are going to pop a fuse and go all bat-guano crazy like Rick...

The ISS is a science facility that studies the behavior of things in zero-gravity, right? For instance, one of the most important of these things are ultrahigh quality crystals of various materials. I happen to know a little bit about the study of such crystals, and you would need several pieces of equipment to study them that aren't on the ISS (X-Ray crystallography, neutron scattering, nuclear magneto resonance, etc). So, we have to bring them back down to Earth for study. Since their purity is so critical, its not very practical to take them out of the reactor and pack them seperatly, so its probably easier just to take the reactor out and bring it back instead. This is just one little thing the ISS is supposed to be used for, and it absolutely needs some real return capacity.

The ISS, as it is advertised, is totally useless as a scientific station if we can't bring back tonne/cubic meter scale quantities of payload to Earth.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-26 14:21:09

...Why is it any more expensive to use ESAS hardware to go to other sites on the Moon instead of one...

the same reason an helicopter costs more than a car

every time you want to explore a new site coming from the earth you must spend $6+ billion for a SPECIFIC mission to a SPECIFIC landing site

if you send on the moon some pressurized rovers you can explore hundrends sites (and craters, mountains, via surface and at a lower cost (the cost of the rovers, energy, food, etc.)

...electronics are sensitive to radiation... particularly the kind from solar flares and cosmic rays...

TRUE !!!

with so high radiation and sun flares, the lunar-hardware "MAY DIE" within a few years, while, the "human-hardware" WILL DIE in a few hours...

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-26 14:31:52

I think this actually may be a good point, and idea.
One thing any government agency can be sure of is having barely half the funds it would like to have to work with. Chosing two sites on the moon to start from and then expand out will help focus NASA's limited intelligence and capability.
Pick one site for resources (most likely in the South Pole region near both the alleged ice and the point of Eternal Light), but then pick the second site for scientific potential such as an ancient lunar volcanic vent. Concentrating equiptment will allow a fully developed base to be created as opposed to a dozen abandoned lander stages with scattered cargo blocks.
First NASA will build the CEV, then the CLV, CaLV, and LSAM; once these first two agendas are built and operating the third agenda ought to be selecting a pair of sites for long-term habitation (whether a future colony or a simple Antarctic-analog facility).
Maybe it will limit science on the moon at first, but damn it just GETIING to the moon will be a camel-through-the-needle-of-an-eye effort as is. May as well focus our work - probes can always be scattered across a planetary body to get a better samples - humans are another matter.

Nonsense!

You can't "expand out from a central point" because rovers will never have enough safe range or safe terrain to drive very long distances for a very long time. Not until we can bring really big rovers, which is some time down the road.

And why will NASA only have "half the funds," that makes no sense, if their funding hasn't been cut that deeply yet, after the total failure of Shuttle and ISS, why would it be cut now?

There are too many interesting sites scatterd over the Moon to simply deny us access because we don't like landing elsewhere, it would be a lie to say we've explored it, it would be a scientific and propecting tragedy.

And we ought to only build ONE base, because keeping one continuously staffed and supplied will already take three CaLVs and two CLV/CEVs per year minimum. Six and four is too many.

Unmanned probes, for all their abilities, are an absolute embarrasment compared to what a man in a suit can do. If we've become placiated with the "magnificent" Mars rovers driving a whole few kilometers and scraping the faces off a few rocks, then boy are we in bad shape. No! We need heavy drills, real geologists with human eyes, and so on at the site of interest.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-26 14:36:16

the same reason an helicopter costs more than a car

I think thats the dumbest thing you've ever written, and thats saying something.

every time you want to explore a new site coming from the earth you must spend $6+ billion for a SPECIFIC mission to a SPECIFIC landing site

Thats a stupid number, competly without foundation and beyond reason, you came up just now with that to stoke up your fantesies.

if you send on the moon some pressurized rovers you can explore hundrends sites (and craters, mountains, via surface and at a lower cost

No you can't! The Moon is a HUGE place, its on the same scale of the entire planet Earth if your subtract its oceans. We need access to the entire surface, which means landing at multiple sites.

with so high radiation and sun flares, the lunar-hardware "MAY DIE" within a few years, while, the "human-hardware" WILL DIE in a few hours...

Ummmmm is there supposed to be a point in here someplace?

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-26 14:38:30

http://www.spacegrant.hawaii.edu/class_ … Facts.html

37.8 million square kilometers, and 3,500km around the equator. Neither of you can possibly be dumb enough to believe we could explore this from just one or two sites!

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-26 14:51:58

http://www.spacegrant.hawaii.edu/class_ … Facts.html
37.8 million square kilometers, and 3,500km around the equator. Neither of you can possibly be dumb enough to believe we could explore this from just one or two sites!

with TIME... like we have done on earth...

with only 12 "one-week" moon missions (and only 4 astronauts) in the next 20 years, it's impossible (and very very expensive) to explore so much coming "from the sky", while, via surface, the exploration may double or more

of course, the 12 moon missions will happpen ONLY if the VSE funds will be sufficient and if its TV audience will not falls under 3% of share after the second mission.......
.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-26 15:42:51

Idiot, we can't "just drive" hundreds or even a thousand kilometers across the Moon! Time has nothing to do with the rovers' range, and covering large swathes of terrain between sites won't be worth much at all.

And NASA is building the ESAS plan for about two manned missions anually, perhaps three, which makes 20-30 missions over just ten years.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-26 16:07:39

Time has nothing to do with the rovers' range.

"time" means... years... dozens years... generations... we can't know/explore all and now!

we need TIME

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-26 16:18:03

Time has nothing to do with the rovers' range.
"time" means... years... dozens years... generations... we can't know/explore all and now!
we need TIME

Wow, this is finally what you are down to? Finally down to the point of throwing away the Moon for generations? Of denying it from us? Fool... no, we should explore the Moon, and explore it NOW. Especially if we need its rare mineral reasources, which are so scarce here on Earth.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2006-05-24 20:44:04

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#27 2006-05-25 07:08:46

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#28 2006-05-25 07:44:38

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#29 2006-05-25 07:58:19

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#30 2006-05-25 11:53:24

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#31 2006-05-25 16:53:44

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#32 2006-05-25 17:10:13

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#33 2006-05-25 20:26:55

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#34 2006-05-26 07:02:03

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#35 2006-05-26 07:43:25

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#36 2006-05-26 08:03:02

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#37 2006-05-26 08:08:38

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#38 2006-05-26 08:47:05

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#39 2006-05-26 09:08:16

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#40 2006-05-26 12:18:51

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#41 2006-05-26 12:41:13

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#42 2006-05-26 13:01:43

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#43 2006-05-26 14:21:09

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#44 2006-05-26 14:31:52

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#45 2006-05-26 14:36:16

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#46 2006-05-26 14:38:30

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#47 2006-05-26 14:51:58

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#48 2006-05-26 15:42:51

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#49 2006-05-26 16:07:39

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#50 2006-05-26 16:18:03

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

Board footer