Reusable LSAM

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-08 05:38:51

Oh I don't think so, at least not until 2020 or so. There is no reason to have a reuseable lander until we have a fuel depot on the Lunar surface, which will take a few years of landings to build. This is especially true since right now NASA places signifigant importance in keeping development costs under control, and making a super-LSAM, a new 60MT rocket, and a tanker - to say nothing of the Lunar space station - would be ruinous. Landings wouldn't start until 2025 or later at least, and NASA still wouldn't save hardly any money. Infact, I think its pretty clear they wouldn't save any because long-term developments are almost always very expensive for what you get.

And where did that $20Bn figure come from? You don't know, you just picked that number out of the air, you don't even know what fuel you are going to use for your lander which makes a huge difference in its price.

And this fuel depot you link to isn't even in Lunar orbit, its in Earth orbit, which doesn't do your reuseable landers much good. Plus, with the CaLV, there isn't any really big need for a fuel station in Earth orbit any time soon. It is even possible to go to Mars with chemical engines only with one CaLV load worth of fuel, if NASA can keep the vehicle mass under control and figure out some better radiation shielding.

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-08 05:54:57

...super-LSAM...

the reusable-LSAM is NOT a "super-LSAM" but only a LSAM with a "fuel-connector"

...that $20Bn figure...

18 LSAMs, 10+ CaLV saved in the first 20 landings/missions

...this fuel depot you link to isn't even in Lunar orbit...

from the article:

"spacecraft would make pit stops at fuelling stations orbiting the Earth or Moon to fill their tanks with liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen generated in space"

nothing change if the fuel is used for moon missions

.

SpaceNut · 2006-06-08 06:55:24

Quote:
...that $20Bn figure...

18 LSAMs, 10+ CaLV saved in the first 20 landings/missions

But what you forgot is the cost to deliver fuel on your new 60 mt rocket that will eat up any theoretical cost savings...

By th way this is what the CEV (made of capsule and SM) and the LSAM will look like.

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-08 07:21:38

Quote:
...that $20Bn figure...

18 LSAMs, 10+ CaLV saved in the first 20 landings/missions
But what you forgot is the cost to deliver fuel on your new 60 mt rocket that will eat up any theoretical cost savings...
By th way this is what the CEV (made of capsule and SM) and the LSAM will look like.

20 moon missions with 100% expendable hardware and no LSS need:

20 CaLV/EDS + 20 LSAM + 20 CEV/SM + 20 CLV

20 moon missions with reusable-LSAM, LSS and 4 missions per crew need:

one CaLV for the single-module LSS (that will be re-supplied and used for 10+ years, NOT only for 20 missions)

one CaLV for a moon Crew Habitat (that will be re-supplied and used for 10+ years, NOT only for 20 missions)

two LSAMs (instead of TWENTY...)

two CaLV to send two LSAMs and two LSAM refuels

eight CaLV for the LSAM refuel (at two refuel per CaLV, but I think will be three per CaLV, then, only five CaLV for 18 missions + the fuel already in the two LSAMs) and LSS re-supply

NO CLVs... (no need to develop or build it!)

five superCLV (with twice the payload of a CLV at about 50% more price of a CLV) to launch five CEV/large-SM (for 4 moon missions each) and its mini-EDS

the money saved in the first 20 missions will come from:

10 CaLVs, 18 LSAMs, 15 CEV/SMs and 15 CLV (in number, but only 10 in costs) LESS

.

SpaceNut · 2006-06-08 08:51:57

20 moon missions with 100% expendable hardware and no LSS need:
20 CaLV/EDS + 20 LSAM + 20 CEV/SM + 20 CLV

You do know that the 20 CaLV/EDS launcher have as apart of its rocket the 20 LSAM as its payload. Which when the 20 CLV launch it will have the CEV/SM plus the crew to make these 20 moon mission happen. These costs are almost already figured out per rocket and would be a fixed contract for delivery by which ever company gets to build them. This is the process for exploration of multiple sites.

20 moon missions with reusable-LSAM, LSS and 4 missions per crew need:
one CaLV for the single-module LSS (that will be re-supplied and used for 10+ years, NOT only for 20 missions)
one CaLV for a moon Crew Habitat (that will be re-supplied and used for 10+ years, NOT only for 20 missions)
two LSAMs (instead of TWENTY...)
two CaLV to send two LSAMs and two LSAM refuels
eight CaLV for the LSAM refuel (at two refuel per CaLV, but I think will be three per CaLV, then, only five CaLV for 18 missions + the fuel already in the two LSAMs) and LSS re-supply

This is the proces for colonization of a single base point and is not exploration which will require multiple landing sites of which the hab would need to be refuelable and that can not be done without a mobile system for the fuel to either be brought to the moon site as a cargo lander or by an insitu process, which also must be movable to the new exploration site.

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-08 09:38:22

...either be brought to the moon site as a cargo lander or by an insitu process, which also must be movable to the new exploration site.

how many sq. miles do you think to explore with 20 different landings?

not so much... you can have only the ILLUSION to explore "more moon" if there are many miles between the landing sites!!!

I think that, the first 20 missions, must explore in a "reasonable range of miles" around a moon base.

But, if you want to land in many different places, you can do it also with the reusable-LSAM from the LSS or (simply) from a refuel tank in lunar orbit (and save one Crew Habitat and one CaLV launch).

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-08 21:26:05

This is getting tiresome, how many times must we endure the colored-text-treatment with flawed, incomplete and biased comparisons that are trumpeted over and over again ad nauseum?

First you complain about how NASA has to develop two rockets... but now you want to develop two rockets. Not only that, but it will have to be a brand new rocket from scratch, since no rocket that size has ever been built before, and it will have to be man rated too. It will easily cost tripple what CLV will to develop and I would guess double what it costs to build.

And you continue to ignore the fact that you will need tankers to import the fuel for your landers, you continue to ignore the fact your LSAM will need much more rigerous development then the expendable version, and you continue to ignore the problems of resupply for extremely long periods for a Lunar station.

And you ignore the fact that many of the missions that NASA wants to send to the Moon won't be astronauts with pick hammers and drills, but rather cargo for build bases or telescopes, which your system can't do. And you patently ignore the obvious extremely large bennefit of ISRU coupled with suborbital "hoppers" and how it is not that hard.

And you completly ignore how hard it will be to build a space station like this, since NASA has never done it before, and it will have to survive both thermal cycling and solar/cosmic radiation. Plus you ignore the nessesity of a big, heavy solar flare shelter which will drive the mass budget beyond what one CaLV could deploy.

You don't even try and argue it, you just plain dismiss it. Thats not discussing, thats just advertising, which is not what this message board is for.

The Moon's surface is 152,000,000 square kilometers. There is no possible way to explore any useful fraction of it by driving at the requisit low speeds for short distances to mitigate the risk of solar flare death, stranding, or other issue.

Its just too big to drive around at random, and so the sheer number of kilometers is irrelivent. No, a more rational approach will be nessesarry, sites will be identified from space, and then visited. With suborbital exploration, you can do this across much larger areas faster, by landing right at the site of interest. Besides the speed of minutes of flight versus weeks of driving is the simple fact that you can reach more sites since a hopper can fly further then a rover can drive.

And no, basing visits to sites will not be just as good from a Lunar station, because of the huge amount of fuel involved to deorbit/reorbit versus a suborbital hop using Lunar LOX. You would need, I would estimate, six CaLVs and six tankers worth of fuel to match the same number of site visits as one CaLV, cargo LSAM worth of Hydrogen, and one hopper from the surface. And thats with a generous ~8MT of fuel for each "hop" and a pessimistic 15MT of Hydrogen in the tank.

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-08 22:01:02

Yes... something like this: NASA sticks with the ESAS plan for the first 5-6 years of Moon landings using all-expendable hardware.

Phase I
>First 2-3 years would be surface exploration to sites of interest and to pick a site for a Lunar base
>Second 2-3 years would be construction of the base, starting with buried crew modules, a nuclear plant, and an ISRU plant/tank farm
Phase II
>When the initial base is done, crews will be sent twice anually to man it using ESAS vehicles, excepting that they may ride a modified single-stage LSAM burning Hydrogen and will carry supplies instead of acent fuel.
>This LSAM will be made reliable enough to be reuseable, and will double as a suborbital "hopper" and for returning crews to Lunar orbit. A backup will be fueled and at the base at all times.
>This LSAM will be powerd using a mixture of Earth Hydrogen and Lunar oxygen for all "hops" and acents until it returns the crew to orbit every 6mo
>Hydrogen will be imported anually by CaLV
Phase III
>The LSAM will be modified a second time, this time with total reuseability, removeable crew module, and on-surface serviceability
>Crews and most cargos will be sent via a pair of CLVs (one for CEV, one with a Centaur or EDS derived TLI/LOC stage) or by a COTS system if available
>Rendezvous with the reuseable LSAM in orbit and decend to the Moon using Lunar LOX both ways to maximize this advantage
>Construction of Lunar pilot mining operation, dark side observatory, and perhaps remote surface fuel depots/flare shelters for multi-hop exploration trips could begin if funds permit.
>Otherwise, exploration would taper off to a lower level in expectation for Mars and focus more on Mars tech testing and small-scale astronomy than geology.

Lets say ten years from first landing total, which would put NASA right at the median between the 2025 and 2030 "optimistic and pessimistic" figures for Mars missions. At this point CaLV construction will be devoted to the Mars program, and the Lunar operation will be shifted more to like the ISS will be during the 2010-2018 time frame, using CLV to keep it manned and cargoed if nessesarry with COTS if possible.

cIclops · 2006-06-09 02:25:39

Yes... something like this: NASA sticks with the ESAS plan for the first 5-6 years of Moon landings using all-expendable hardware.
Phase I
>First 2-3 years would be surface exploration to sites of interest and to pick a site for a Lunar base
>Second 2-3 years would be construction of the base, starting with buried crew modules, a nuclear plant, and an ISRU plant/tank farm
Phase II
>When the initial base is done, crews will be sent twice anually to man it using ESAS vehicles, excepting that they may ride a modified single-stage LSAM burning Hydrogen and will carry supplies instead of acent fuel.
>This LSAM will be made reliable enough to be reuseable, and will double as a suborbital "hopper" and for returning crews to Lunar orbit. A backup will be fueled and at the base at all times.
>This LSAM will be powerd using a mixture of Earth Hydrogen and Lunar oxygen for all "hops" and acents until it returns the crew to orbit every 6mo
>Hydrogen will be imported anually by CaLV
Phase III
>The LSAM will be modified a third time, this time with total reuseability, removeable crew module, and on-surface serviceability
>Crews and most cargos will be sent via a pair of CLVs (one for CEV, one with a Centaur or EDS derived TLI/LOC stage) or by a COTS system if available
>Rendezvous with the reuseable LSAM in orbit and decend to the Moon using Lunar LOX both ways to maximize this advantage
>Construction of Lunar pilot mining operation, dark side observatory, and perhaps remote surface fuel depots/flare shelters for multi-hop exploration trips could begin if funds permit.
>Otherwise, exploration would taper off to a lower level in expectation for Mars and focus more on Mars tech testing and small-scale astronomy than geology.
Lets say ten years from first landing total, which would put NASA right at the median between the 2025 and 2030 "optimistic and pessimistic" figures for Mars missions. At this point CaLV construction will be devoted to the Mars program, and the Lunar operation will be shifted more to like the ISS will be during the 2010-2018 time frame, using CLV to keep it manned and cargoed if nessesarry with COTS if possible.

Yes this set of scenarios seems feasible both technically and financially.

However ... it is important to remember the primary purpose of RTTM namely: the creation of a transportation system that will extend human presence to Mars and beyond and only secondly to continue lunar exploration.

Given that basis, what is actually done on the Moon should be highly focused on the primary objective and this would be to validate technologies for long duration surface operations in a low gravity environment as well as demonstrating successful physiological and psychological adaption. A key technology will be ISRU. Making this work, ideally with water ice, is critical to sustained Mars exploration. Therefore RTTM should not become an end in itself and definitely not consume too many of the limited budget resources. Science too must play a secondary role unless it produces results that transform exploration technology.

One last point: CaLV flights would be much cheaper than using expensive man rated CLVs to deliver cargo to the Outpost..

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-09 07:18:37

I disagree that the Moon can't also be an end unto itself, there are useful things to do on the Moon, and eventually the Moon will be the most viable source for platinum-group elements when the Earth runs out. Already, Platinum is not far from being so expensive that importing it from the Moon would be break-even if a rich deposit were found and mining/smelting methods were refined.

Space telescopes are also reaching their practical limits I believe, that for them to become any bigger then they can't be reliably built as a one-piece self-deploying package (eg JWST). To build something bigger, it will have to be assembled with humans. Also, as they become bigger, their price will obviously increase and so to mitigate this their useful lifespan will have to become longer to compensate. For such telescopes to be easily serviced, they have to be serviced by hand on a regular basis. Both of these things plus the performance of the telescope will be enhanced by building it on the Moon, probably on the dark side, a "hopper" flight away from the main base.

Thus far the space telescope budget has remained relativly separate from the rest of the NASA money, so this would not all come out of the manned budget, and infact now some of the telescope money would infact go into the manned budget and be just as good as a funding increase for NASA. Plus, finally, it would make the telescope crowd share a common interest with manned flight after Hubble is gone, instead of defacto opposed to it.

My idea about using CLV was that, barring a big breakthrough with COTS launch vehicles and cargo services, NASA will be spending 3-4 CLVs anually to go to the ISS and CaLV production will probably be scaled to 3-4 annual flights rather than 5-6. Thus, we will have too many CLVs but not enough CaLVs when we are done with the ISS and are ready to start talking Mars, so we could use them to support a mature Moon base and dedicate the CaLVs to Mars.

If production could be switched, then CaLV will probably come out ahead pounds-for-dollars, but only being able to send huge payloads will be of less use for a mature base that needs spare parts, personalized supplies, and smaller experimental packages on a more regular basis then one big cargo flight anually. Plus, this would provide an entry point for COTS if they haven't gotten their act together for ISS service, where you could just swap CLV for Falcon-IX without changing anything else.

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-09 07:54:21

...now you want to develop two rockets...

no

only one SLV rocket to send mixed crew/fuel/vehicles/resupply or cargo/fuel-only payloads

...tankers to import the fuel for your landers...

it's impossible to put in your granite-shielded mind that buy the (very expensive) oil to make the car gasoline CAN'T cost like import the cars with their tanks full of gasoline, then scrap the cars every time the fuel ends...

..."hoppers"...

the problem is that you will not be the astronauts that must "hop"

"hops" are fast but very risky...

100+ travels with a pressurized vehicle means only a few tires broken due to moon-rocks

100+ (very very very risky) "hops" means (with an optimistic 2% failure, like the Shuttle) eight astronauts dead

also, every rover travel needs a few hour to prepare while an "hop" need the choice of the land site, detailed images of the place to land, an extremely accurate flight plan, etc. etc. etc.

it's like train vs. airplane for brief travels... the airplane is faster but the total time for passengers may be twice than train if we add the check-in, delays, wait for baggage, etc.

and you forget that so many "hops" need a "reusable-hopper"

...survive both thermal cycling and solar/cosmic radiation. Plus you ignore the nessesity of a big, heavy solar flare shelter...

these are the risks of spaceflights... and ALL space-hardware must survive the severe space environment

if we can't do that, we must stop now to fly in space!

...just advertising...

I don't sell rockets or LSAMs... (then, I don't need to strongly support any 100% expendable product...)

...sites will be identified from space, and then visited...

the SAME places can be reached (safer) via surface

~8MT of fuel for each "hop"

you are talking like we already have the ISRU fuel... (that is decades away to be found and extracted!)

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-09 08:12:27

...Yes... something like this:...

NO... something like this:

2020:

one SLV to launch the single-module LSS around the moon

three SLVs to launch two Crew Habitats and 20+ tons of exploration-hardware

2021:

two SLV to launch two reusable-LSAM with two extra refuels

two SLV to launch four LSAM's extra refuels

two SLV to launch two CEV/super-SM, LSS resupply and two emergency-refuels

now we have: two crews, two CEVs, two reusable-LSAMs, fuel for ten LSAM missions

the two crews in lunar orbit will accomplish EIGHT landings/missions around the first moon-base THE FIRST YEAR !!!!!!!!!

with the "standard" ESAS plan the moon mission #8 may happen only in 2024 !!!!!!

2022-2025:

the second LSS module and more reusable-LSAMs

four refuel launches per year

two crews/resuplly launches per year

eight moon landings/missions per year

two+ new moon-bases with Crew Habitats

2026-2030:

more moon-bases and more moon exploration via surface and a few "hops"

search for ISRU fuel and try to produce it in quantity

2030-up:

full moon surface exploration may start

----------------

with the reusable-LSAMs and the LSS, every crew will accomplish FOUR landings/missions instead of only ONE !!!!

and the total missions per year will be from TWO TIMES to FOUR TIMES than ESAS plan!!!

the people that want MORE MOON EXPLORATION may like it

ONLY the people that want BUILD/SELL the expendable-LSAM can dislike it!!!

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-09 11:54:56

the "superCLV" must lift around 60 mT
"superCLV" is only a name... it means "a 60 mT payload rockets"... no need to build it like the CLV, then, we have "INFINITE" configurations of rockets/engines/fuel to design it
no, only a better CLV (or a similar rocket)
superCLV (with twice the payload of a CLV at about 50% more price of a CLV) to launch five CEV/large-SM

my Super SLV is the ONLY rocket while the CaLV is one of TWO rockets
one rocket, made with standard engines, years of time and $20+ Billion saved!!!
but the MOST INCREDIBLE MONEY SAVING may come from the TIME SAVED (5+ years saved with ONE rocket to build!)

Can't even keep his story straight in the same thread...

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-09 12:02:48

Can't even keep his story straight in the same thread

there is no contradiction

with the expendable-LSAM the faster and cheaper way is the single SLV

with the reusable-LSAM there are many possible choices... one or two rockets, one big or two mid or many already available EELV

however, the single big rocket is the best choice for both

the first step to save time and money is the reusable-LSAM

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-09 12:26:03

>Still shifting stories between threads
>Still ignores the need for expendable tankers
>Still ignores the difficulty of man-rating an HLLV
>Still ignores the limited rover range due to terrain and radiation harzard
>Still ignores the safety hazards of a Lunar space station (radiation, orbital synchronization
>Still ignores the great cost of a Lunar space station versus ESAS
>Still ignores the need for Lunar station reboost
Plus:
>Thinks one or two modules somehow constitutes a "Lunar base" which won't have much use since the crew won't be based from it
>Can't count rockets
>Has no option to reduce NASA involvement if funding is constrained
>has no point of entry for COTS
>Has no conception that 2030 is a little too late to "start" anything

with the expendable-LSAM the faster and cheaper way is the single SLV
with the reusable-LSAM there are many possible choices... one or two rockets, one big or two mid or many already available EELV

But did you say earlier that your SLV arcitecture was "best" and "perfect?" And how it is so awful to have two rockets but now you say it is an option? So which is it, the expendable SLV way or the reuseable one? That is a contradiction, you are trying to have it both ways.

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-09 12:43:17

And there is little need to "explore for ISRU," the Moon is literally coverd with oxygen. Its all grey and brown because of the oxygen in the dust.

And why will ISRU be so hard? Zubrin's ISRU plant for Mars weighs a bit under 10MT, closer to 5MT most likely, and it can produce 42MT of oxygen anually. A heavy-duty plant in the 20MT range should be able to produce the required 100MT of LOX without much trouble and be deliverd to the Moon in a single CaLV launch.

And you still can't count rockets...

>Two CaLV launches, one for LSAM, one for Hydrogen
>One reuseable LSAM for LOC, decent/acent, and a dozen hops
>One standard cargo LSAM for Hydrogen and misc. supply delivery
>One CLV/CEV for crew transfer
>Development of ISRU plant
=one dozen site visits
>Six SLV launches
>Two expendable Methane/Oxygen tankers
>Two LSAMs
>Two CEVs w/ extended fuel tanks
>Development of Lunar space station
>Development of fuel tanker
>Avoids need for CLV, but adds man-rating for SLV
=eight site visits
+Signifigant risk of radiation death from solar flares
+Inability to reach Lunar poles or permit anytime return
+Some supply mass supplanted by station reboost fuel
+Reuseable LSAMs of comperable minimum required reliability
+SLV uses more expensive engines then CaLV for inferior performance
+8 astronauts need more supplies than 4

"One of these things is not like the other"

(*edited to add a few things*)

Rxke · 2006-06-09 13:10:31

[list]>Still shifting stories between threads.

Yes, this is becoming confusing. Please people stay on-topic. *head explodes*

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-09 16:42:20

>Still shifting stories between threads
>Still ignores the need for expendable tankers
>Still ignores the difficulty of man-rating an HLLV
>Still ignores the limited rover range due to terrain and radiation harzard
>Still ignores the safety hazards of a Lunar space station (radiation, orbital synchronization
>Still ignores the great cost of a Lunar space station versus ESAS
>Still ignores the need for Lunar station reboost

CSPO ("Complication of Simple Problems Office") is open again...

the problems you quote (and dozens similar) are "the job" of all space agencies... like the (1000 times more complex) problems solved in '50, '60, etc. to launch the first men in orbit, the first men on the moon, the first Shuttle, etc.

...one or two modules somehow constitutes a "Lunar base"...

the astronauts will live half time in orbit and half time on (and around) the moon-base, also, the main purpose of (both) LSS and MCH is to give a safer (normal or emergency) life support larger than LSAM's "week"

...was "best" and "perfect?"...

the SLV is the better, faster and cheaper choice if NASA wants to use the ESAS plan as is, with expendable-LSAM and one mission per crew

with the reusable-LSAMs and many missions per crew, the SLV architecture needs some changes, since not all the moon-hardware will be (or needs to be) sent in a single launch

...little need to "explore for ISRU,"...

I'm not against ISRU, but the moon missions can't base their success on it!

ISRU must be used ONLY when it will be REALLY available and more ton/cost efficient than earth's fuel

...Zubrin's ISRU plant for Mars weighs a bit under 10MT, closer to 5MT most likely, and it can produce 42MT of oxygen anually...

Zubrin's idea is excellent but full of "shortcuts" (and a little sci-fi...)

+Signifigant risk of radiation death from solar flares
+Inability to reach Lunar poles or permit anytime return
+Some supply mass supplanted by station reboost fuel
+Reuseable LSAMs of comperable minimum required reliability
+SLV uses more expensive engines then CaLV for inferior performance
+8 astronauts need more supplies than 4

CSPO works hard!!!

the sun flares' risk don't come from the LSS... it always exists (and will exists) with EVERY vehicles/architectures/missions in space

the astronauts don't needs to be 8 in the same time, the reboost can use the CEV or the LSAM egines/fuel, the lunar poles can be explored with the full LSAM refuel or (simply) accomplished in future, etc. etc. etc.

do you have other complications of simple problems???

.

Rxke · 2006-06-09 16:50:25

Zubrin's idea is excellent but full of "shortcuts" (and a little sci-fi...)
.

Zubrin's ISRU stuff is pretty straightforward, using 19th century chemistry, that's hardly science fiction.

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-09 17:03:47

Zubrin's idea is excellent but full of "shortcuts" (and a little sci-fi...)
.
Zubrin's ISRU stuff is pretty straightforward, using 19th century chemistry, that's hardly science fiction.

"sci-fi" is not the concept or the chemistry but the idea to accomplish a mars mission with a few money, a few vehicles, zero redundancy, mars ISRU that MUST perfectly works at its first time and EVERY times (like in Star Trek missions...), the life of the astronauts 100% in the hands of that mars ISRU, etc. etc. etc.

ALL these things (together) can really (an perfectly) work only in a sci-fi movie... (for me) it looks closer to "Mission to Mars" and "Red Planet" movies than a real and safe mars mission

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-09 18:14:32

Simply because its complicated doesn't mean these points that I have enumerated are not valid challenges and issues about your plans and assertions, gaetano. Spaceflight is a complicated business, your plans imparticularly. You simply dismiss these very signifigant drawbacks to your plan and just proceed to repeat your advertisement over and over again, and that has no place here.

And these issues are not somehow easy and "1000 times" simpler to fix then ones in the early days of spaceflight, such as your station being a death trap since its occupants could not flee to a surface solar flare shelter fast enough, nor a rover drive very far from the base for fear of being caught in the open when one hits. Plus the fact that "man rated" means something different now then it did in the Apollo days, when sacrificing safety to beat the Communists was acceptable.

Nor have you at all explained why you need a Lunar base if you have a space station. What would you use it for? You can't drive far from the base, you aren't bothering to use any surface reasources, and you can't get back down fast enough if a solar flare hits... so why bother with the surface at all? You just added this to make your plan "comparable" to ESAS or even my plan.

ISRU for travel to/from the Lunar surface will be far cheaper then imported fuel, thats beyond any doubt. One tonne of Hydrogen becomes seven tonnes of propellant is a deal that you just can't beat through any scheme to import fuel from Earth. ISRU is not that hard, you just put Lunar dirt in an oven, inject Hydrogen, and suck out the water. Crack the water into H2 and O2, and send the O2 to the compressor for liquification.

Oh, and I forgot a few things:
+SLV can't fly to the ISS as required by Congress
+The multirole version of SLV that carries both CEV or LSAM and cargo will require its own development
+Lunar orbit station can't possibly cost less than a pair of CEVs for emergency life support needs
+Lunar orbit station either can't access the poles from equitorial orbit, or else you can't launch back to it at any time if you have life support failure if its in polar orbit

And I am not talking about having eight astronauts exploring concurrently, I mean how you need eight for the number of surface trips to sites per year.

Reboost fuel for the Lunar station doesn't come out of thin air, it has to come from someplace, and if you use CEV/LSAM fuel then that will cut into the number of flights you can make to the surface... maybe now only seven, six perhaps.

Two CaLVs and one CLV/CEV can do more then:
>Six SLVs
>Two CEVs
>Two LSAMs
>Two tankers
>Two crew/cargo tugs
...and doesn't need to develop, build, or tend a space station at all plus is safer, and your plan calls for building a Lunar base anway.

"One of these things is not like the other"

Lunar oxygen makes all the difference, and there can be no question that using it is superior to importing fuel from Earth. And, if you have an ISRU plant and a base on the surface, then you really don't need a space station.

SpaceNut · 2006-06-09 19:40:46

>Still shifting stories between threads
>Still ignores the need for expendable tankers
>Still ignores the difficulty of man-rating an HLLV
>Still ignores the limited rover range due to terrain and radiation harzard
>Still ignores the safety hazards of a Lunar space station (radiation, orbital synchronization
>Still ignores the great cost of a Lunar space station versus ESAS
>Still ignores the need for Lunar station reboost
CSPO ("Complication of Simple Problems Office") is open again...
the problems you quote (and dozens similar) are "the job" of all space agencies... like the (1000 times more complex) problems solved in '50, '60, etc. to launch the first men in orbit, the first men on the moon, the first Shuttle, etc.

You do realize that the office of CSPO ("Complication of Simple Problems Office") costs billions of dollars to run and adds to the cost of your simple and cheap SLV. They call this developement dollars.

+Signifigant risk of radiation death from solar flares
+Inability to reach Lunar poles or permit anytime return
+Some supply mass supplanted by station reboost fuel
+Reuseable LSAMs of comperable minimum required reliability
+SLV uses more expensive engines then CaLV for inferior performance
+8 astronauts need more supplies than 4
CSPO works hard!!!

Yes they will and it will cost alot more than you can realize for this is just more developement dollars..

SpaceNut · 2006-06-09 20:00:35

Now based on much discusion it is clear to me that a single stage ascent/descent reusuable LSAM lander would be ideal it can only come at the cost of fuel delivery whether this is just LH2 or water or at the justification of a large base for insitu developement. While the first still maintains a exploration format with capability to transistion to the second which is more towards a permanent presence or colonization.

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-10 03:48:02

You do realize that the office of CSPO ("Complication of Simple Problems Office") costs billions of dollars to run and adds to the cost of your simple and cheap SLV. They call this developement dollars.
Yes they will and it will cost alot more than you can realize for this is just more developement dollars..

the reusable-LSAM needs a refuel tank sent from earth with the (same) EDS (like the CEV/LSAM) and perform the LOI in the same way, with the same engine/fuel and with the same mass of the CEV/LSAM

the LSAM refuel will be performed with a rendezvous-like connection, like the hatches rendez-vous but between the tank and refuel probe similar to military fighters, that, of course, needs R&D costs like ALL vehicles/parts of the moon-hardware

ALL the CSPO's problems are in the experience & knowlendge range of a space agency... they don't need any StarTrek's technology!

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-10 03:52:15

Now based on much discusion it is clear to me that a single stage ascent/descent reusuable LSAM lander would be ideal it can only come at the cost of fuel delivery whether this is just LH2 or water or at the justification of a large base for insitu developement. While the first still maintains a exploration format with capability to transistion to the second which is more towards a permanent presence or colonization.

send water in lunar orbit or use ISRU fuel is better but more complex

add a refuel probe to the LSAM costs, but build TWO models of LSAM (one expendable and one reusable to use ISRU fuel) costs TWICE than build (now) only the reusable LSAM

.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2006-06-08 05:38:51

Re: Reusable LSAM

#77 2006-06-08 05:54:57

Re: Reusable LSAM

#78 2006-06-08 06:55:24

Re: Reusable LSAM

#79 2006-06-08 07:21:38

Re: Reusable LSAM

#80 2006-06-08 08:51:57

Re: Reusable LSAM

#81 2006-06-08 09:38:22

Re: Reusable LSAM

#82 2006-06-08 21:26:05

Re: Reusable LSAM

#83 2006-06-08 22:01:02

Re: Reusable LSAM

#84 2006-06-09 02:25:39

Re: Reusable LSAM

#85 2006-06-09 07:18:37

Re: Reusable LSAM

#86 2006-06-09 07:54:21

Re: Reusable LSAM

#87 2006-06-09 08:12:27

Re: Reusable LSAM

#88 2006-06-09 11:54:56

Re: Reusable LSAM

#89 2006-06-09 12:02:48

Re: Reusable LSAM

#90 2006-06-09 12:26:03

Re: Reusable LSAM

#91 2006-06-09 12:43:17

Re: Reusable LSAM

#92 2006-06-09 13:10:31

Re: Reusable LSAM

#93 2006-06-09 16:42:20

Re: Reusable LSAM

#94 2006-06-09 16:50:25

Re: Reusable LSAM

#95 2006-06-09 17:03:47

Re: Reusable LSAM

#96 2006-06-09 18:14:32

Re: Reusable LSAM

#97 2006-06-09 19:40:46

Re: Reusable LSAM

#98 2006-06-09 20:00:35

Re: Reusable LSAM

#99 2006-06-10 03:48:02

Re: Reusable LSAM

#100 2006-06-10 03:52:15

Re: Reusable LSAM

Board footer