You are not logged in.
This is getting soooooo tedious. Like listening to a broken record.
Offline
Like button can go here
ALL the CSPO's problems are in the experience & knowlendge range of a space agency
Your insistant dismissiveness is unfounded, knowingly dishonest, and insulting gaetano
For instance, the orbit of your prospective station is not a "minor problem" that could be "overcome by experience," if the whole point of the station is to mount multiple landings while using it as a refuge in event of life support failure, then your plan is faced with a choice: if you put your station in equitorial orbit, the LSAM can't execute a plane change large enough to reach the Lunar poles. It would take more fuel then several "normal" landings combined, not that the LSAM could carry it anyway. And if you did put your station in polar orbit, you could only launch to it for a short window (hours, a day or two ideally) ever two weeks when the orbital path and latitude are synchronized, which eliminates the safety bennefit of backup life support. This notion of
or (simply) accomplished in future
is pathetic, the Lunar poles are the most important exploration targets on the whole globe, and you are simply dismissing them to some long-off future exploration method? Oh come on!
In any case, this is a solution without a problem, because the only reason you would need a station refuge was if the CEV's engine fails to ignite for TEI or if its life support fails, both of which will have been tested before ever leaving for the Moon in the first place, so this is just not going to happen. And what of solar flares? If you are on the station or you are on the surface far away from a surface shelter, then you are going to die. The Lunar station can't have enough shielding in addition to all the other things (docking ports, refueling facilities, reboost engine, supply storage, etc) and there is little chance to get to a surface shelter fast enough. Also, if you are driving around in a rover more then an hour away from a shelter, you are going to die too... a suborbital hopper on the other hand could make a fast hop back to base pretty quickly.
And the station will need reboost fuel; this is not like the ISS which has a high-gravity body to orbit around, the Moon is a low-gravity world itself in orbit around a high-gravity one not that far away, which deforms and destabilizes any Lunar orbit. Here again you are dismissive of a problem, that this station will require regular tonne-quantity reboosts to maintain its orbit. It will also need either a good amonut of maneuvering fuel (for its maneuvering jets, which you need) or you need regular replacement of its gyroscopes (like ISS does); after all, how else will you point the engine? This fuel has got to come from someplace, and if you will be using your lander refueling supply then this will probably cut one of the eight landings from the fuel budget. And putting this on the CEV is no good either, the idea that the CEV has tonne quantities of "extra" fuel is a lie, it has no such thing and the CEV is being made with only a 3% Delta-V reserve. And shipping water to the space station so it can "look! look! you get bennefits from ISRU here too!" is stupid, first of all saves nothing since a tonne of Water is a tonne of Hydrogen/Oxygen and saves you nothing, and second a zero-gravity ISRU plant is much harder to develop. And you will have to add that to the mass limit for the Lunar station too.
And your plan still calls for the inferior SLV, which will only launch about 110-115MT of payload despite costing more for engines then CaLV and will have to undergo extensive extra development to make it safe enough for people.
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
"Same engine as the CEV/LSAM"... so, you finally admit that the tanker/tug vehicle will be about as complicated as the LSAM or CEV! It must not only have the engine, but it must also have power, communications, maneuvering jets, and automated docking systems. Reguardless how much this thing costs to develop, how much will they cost to build? And, how many of these things will you need? I think you will need at least four of them for every seven landings. Two will be dedicated tankers, and two of them will carry the mixed CEV/supply/fuel payload to Lunar orbit. If these cost even half what an LSAM does, now you are spending four LSAMs worth of hardware for just seven landings.
Not only do you not get bennefit from ISRU, but now the bennefit of a reuseable LSAM vanishes with this scheme.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
This is getting soooooo tedious. Like listening to a broken record.
I agree with you
a "reusable-car" is CLEARLY (light years!) cheaper than an "expendable-car" imported from Saudi Arabia with the tank full of gasoline and scrapped when the fuel ends...
but (unfortunately) not "all" can (or want to...) understand this (very simple) truth...
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
...and insulting...
the "idiot" word (that you use in industrial quantities in your posts) IS an insult... not CSPO... (that is only a bureaucratic office...)
...is not a "minor problem" that could be "overcome by experience," if...
in space exploration there are NO "minor problems" but (simply) "problems" that expert space agencies' engineers solve every day
...to reach the Lunar poles...
you know... we can't have ALL from our life... the poles must wait for our visit (they are here from billions years and still remains here for further billions years)
...if you did put your station in polar orbit...
I give you a simple solution (not for the CSPO... of course)... launch now an equatorial LSS module for equatorial landings and (when possible) a second LSS module in polar orbit for polar landings
...is pathetic, the Lunar poles are the most important exploration targets on the whole globe, and you are simply dismissing them to some long-off future exploration method? Oh come on!...
I don't agree with your enthusiasm about lunar poles... however, the problem is solved with a second LSS module
...the only reason you would need a station refuge was if the CEV's engine fails to ignite for TEI or if its life support fails...
no
all parts of a CEV or LSAM may have a failure that need a rescue or (simply) time to repair the problem
...this is just not going to happen...
clearly, it's not a problem for you (since you will be not a CEV astronaut...)
...solar flares...
as I've already written in one of my posts (that ypu don't read) the sun flares don't come from the LSS... it's a problem that exists WITH or WITHOUT the LSS
...there is little chance to get to a surface shelter fast enough. Also, if you are driving around in a rover more then an hour away from a shelter, you are going to die too... a suborbital hopper on the other hand could make a fast hop back to base pretty quickly...
I "feel" that (for CSPO experts) the astronauts will die in any case...
...the Moon is a low-gravity world...
then, reboost will need less fuel
...will require regular tonne-quantity reboosts to maintain its orbit...
the SM and refuel tanks will give fuel IN EXCESS for that job
...maneuvering fuel (for its maneuvering jets, which you need) or you need regular replacement of its gyroscopes (like ISS does)...
no
the LSS will have many CEV and LSAM docked (that can use their "jets" for little adjustments)
...the CEV has tonne quantities of "extra" fuel is a lie...
the SM may have not that fuel now... but it don't exist, then. it may be designed to have it
...you get bennefits from ISRU here too...
when it will happen, not now
...inferior SLV...
no rocket is "inferior" or "superior" now... if NASA will change the missions' architecture may build the "right" rocket to launch the "right" payload
...so, you finally admit that the tanker/tug vehicle will be about as complicated as the LSAM or CEV...
absolutely NOT... the CEV and LSAM are dozens times more complex and expensive (I don't put a list or reasons here since you are able to understand why by yourself)
the LSAM engine is only a little part (in price and mass) of the vehicle
the vehicles' electronics is expensive but little in dimension and weight, then, may be retrieved, sent on earth and reused dozens times (probably only two-three systems will be sufficient!)
...automated docking systems...
the refuel tank don't docks nothings... the LSAM will go to it like a military fighter does with an airplane-tank
...this thing costs to develop, how much will they cost to build?
a fraction than destroy ALL the (very expensive) hardware after each mission
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
Also, if you are driving around in a rover more then an hour away from a shelter, you are going to die too... a suborbital hopper on the other hand could make a fast hop back to base pretty quickly.
I doubt that? You'll have a checklist to do etc. And simply getting inside and out again (airlock) will take a fair amount of time.
gaetanomarano, will you please, please, please for the love of Zeus STOP keeping repeating over and over again the car analogy? It has frigging nothing to do with spaceflight. For one, cars are...
nevermind, Feels too much like wasting time.
*shrugs* Have fun.
Offline
Like button can go here
...please for the love of Zeus STOP keeping repeating over and over again the car analogy...
it doesn't matter nothing with the space technology, of course, but it's the simplest way to explain why a "reusable" vehicle is better and cheper than an "expendable" vehicle
however, I agree with you that is useless to repeat the car example, since, those peoples that DON'T WANT a cheaper vehicle, NEVER change their strong support to the 100% expendable hardware/business
about my posts...
if an user repeat and repeat and repeat the same question/post with the same words I can only post similar replies
also (you see) the lenght of my replies are a DIRECT consequences of the lenght of the posts
brief post = brief reply
long post (some with dozens questions) = (unfortunately) long reply
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
Already it has been argued that cars are the archtype for a vehicle where the fuel is such a small fraction of its cost, while rockets are the exact opposit and are the archtype for why reuseable systems can infact cost more because the total cost of the fuel is so high. But you ignore this like everything else gaetano, I am following Rxke's wisdom hensforth and not lowering myself to arguing on your clearly irrational terms. Cars and rockets are so different, that they can be examples of the two extremes because of the hidden costs of fuel delivery, but that doesn't seem to bother idiots like you in the slightest.
Again you dismiss major problems with your mission arcitecture and just put it off on NASA's "experience" to fix problems in your plan that violate the laws of physics! It takes fuel to change orbital planes, fuel to maintain an orbit, and fuel maneuver. This is not a matter of experience or skill, either you have the fuel, or you don't. Either you have payload or you don't. Either the stations' orbit lines up with the landing site, or it doesn't. You either have enough shielding to survive a solar flare on the station, or you don't.
Visiting the Lunar poles (I would say a minimum of three or four flights) simply has to be part of the plan, abandoning them completely just because your stations' orbit doesn't line up is insane, if there is ice and mountains lit year-round then we need to know it so we can choose a site for a future base. Plus, from a planetary scientist and astrobiologist standpoint, the ice in those craters will have come from comets, and since we aren't likely to land on a comet any time soon, this will be a huge opportunity - don't go to the comet, the comet will come to you.
And yes, what a swell solution, just double the number of stations! What a great idea! Now we just have to keep TWO of them fueled, two of them maintained, and so on. It takes about 2.5 man days per day every day to prop up the ISS, and if so if your Lunar stations aren't manned continuously, how well will they fare? Especially with the radiation... This is not a solution, this is another problem with your plan.
Again, the CEV will have already been tested in Earth orbit before ever departing from the Moon. Its life support will have been used for 1-3 days, and its SM engine will have had to have fired to properly enter orbit. If we can't make a vehicle that can survive for a few weeks in Lunar orbit after actual flight testing, then we have no business going anywhere. The chance of a failure is so small, that its just not worth bothering with a Lunar station as some sort of an emergency refuge.
The solar flare problem does not exsist for a Lunar base, since thats where the crew will be spending much of their time. They can just walk back to the buried modules and hide from the flare in the comfort of their own home, so to speak. On the Lunar station though, you have no where to hide unless you bring tonnes and tonnes of shielding with you, which will not only make it very heavy but will increase its reboost fuel bill dramatically. Also, because going to/from orbit takes longer then a suborbital hop, the chances of getting back to the station in time to hide from the flare are much smaller then a quick suborbital flight.
Astronauts away from the base on a "hopper" mission should be able to quickly prepare it for flight back to base. In response to Rxke, they wouldn't have to cycle the airlock, just depressurize the cabin and open both hatches. If there is someone inside, then he can operate the hopper, and the men outside can sit in the airlock for the flight. The checklist can be automated, and with computer help be done very quickly, and there really isn't that much to do besides pressurize the fuel tanks and spin up the turbopump.
the LSS reboost can be done with the CEV engine or with LSAM engine
A wonderful illustration about your ignorance of spaceflight gaetano, you need more fuel because of the Earth's high gravity compared to the Moon's distrubs your orbit much much more then in Earth orbit with the weak Moon pulling on you.
the SM and refuel tanks will give fuel IN EXCESS for that job
Every tonne of fuel you spend on reboosting BOTH your Lunar stations is another tonne you can't spend on landing. Lunar reboost will eliminate at least one landing opportunity of your eight-landing plan.
the LSS will have many CEV and LSAM docked (that can use their "jets" for little adjustments)
The Lunar station may not have a CEV and LSAM docked to it continuously, and it definatly won't if there are two of them, so it will have to have maneuvering jets to ensure proper allignment for docking.
the SM may have not that fuel now... but it don't exist, then. it may be designed to have it
Cheat-and-retreat again, if you add fuel mass to CEV, you have to take fuel from LSAM landings, which still means you lose landings unless you bring more fuel from Earth. And that means making SLV bigger or sending more rockets, which defeats the purpose of reuseability in the first place.
when it will happen, not now
No, orbital ISRU will never happen, because there is no reason to. One tonne of water makes one tonne of H2/O2, so what is the point?
no rocket is "inferior" or "superior" now
Liar! You've been screaming and waving your arms and jumping up and down about how wonderful SLV is the way you designed it, and now "oh, but we don't know?"
LSAM... (is) dozens times more complex and expensive (then a tanker)
No it won't be, the LSAM is not that complicated and is basically just engines, maneuvering jets, and landing sensors in a space frame. The tanker will need the same things, a power supply for ~2wks, maneuvering jets, engine, and attitude sensors (which it needs to stay steady for docking). It will be just as complicated, and will cost just as much, except it will need development too. And you will be throwing one of these ways for every 2-3 Lunar landings, so you just don't save much money that way with reuseability. It is you who want to destroy expensive hardware by throwing away these tankers and the rockets that launch them.
Your plan is in ruins, its time for you to give up and be quiet if you can't defend it.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
.
please, don't write YellowPages' posts (the moderators ask me to post brief replies)
...the total cost of the fuel is so high...
but less than send (also) a new vehicle (car or spacecraft) every time
...that violate the laws of physics...
send a refuel-tank in lunar orbit needs to solve some problems but don't violate any physics' law
...fuel to maintain an orbit...
the refuel-tank is not the LSS, it remain in orbit two months max, not years
...have enough shielding to survive a solar flare on the station...
there are NO sun flares' shelters in the ESAS plan
...abandoning them...
no, only wait a few years or build a second LSS in polar orbit or send a few "standard" (but risky) missions with expendable-LSAMs
...the ice in those craters...
wait... wait... wait... it'sa scoop!
do you have made a travel to lunar poles and have found the comet's water !!!????!!!!
...have to keep TWO of them fueled...
do you like moon exploration, colonies, etc.?
if the answer is "yes", you must want (and hope) to have MANY lunar stations, MANY lunar-bases, MANY lunar-rovers, etc. etc. etc. (not LESS)
...aren't manned continuously...
it don't needs to be
...life support will have been used for 1-3 days...
but it don't excedd a few weeks
...can't make a vehicle that can survive for a few weeks...
we can, but vehicles made by humans can't be PERFECT
...that its just not worth bothering with a Lunar station as some sort of an emergency refuge...
ask the astronauts (that will risk THEIR life) to know if they prefer to have two weeks or six months of life support...
...not exsist for a Lunar base...
no?
in your moon travel do you have found also a lunar atmosphere and lunar Van Allen belts?
...and hide from the flare in the comfort of their own home...
the LSS module may be made like it
...suborbital hop...
suborbital hops need a reusable-LSAM... do you want to double the models of LSAMs (to develop, build and launch) to double the LSAM's business?
or... do you prefer to build ONE reusable-LSAM and use it for (both) orbital landings and "hops"?
...Astronauts away from the base on a "hopper" mission should be able to quickly prepare it for flight back to base. In response to Rxke, they wouldn't have to cycle the airlock, just depressurize the cabin and open both hatches. If there is someone inside, then he can operate the hopper, and the men outside can sit in the airlock for the flight. The checklist can be automated, and with computer help be done very quickly, and there really isn't that much to do besides pressurize the fuel tanks and spin up the turbopump...
why "your" complex problems are so simple to solve for NASA while "my" simple problem are too complex (or impossible) to solve?
...distrubs your orbit much much more then in Earth orbit...
not every day... the CEV is sufficient for reboost
...tonne you can't spend on landing....
the reboost fuel will be in the new-SM
...station may not have a CEV and LSAM docked to it continuously...
why are so sure of that if the LSS don't exists now?
...more fuel from Earth...
again and again and again and again... send ONLY the fuel costs LESS than send the fuel AND a new vehicle EVERY time
...orbital ISRU will never happen...
I refer to lunar surface ISRU
...how wonderful SLV is the way you designed it...
a single rocket is absolutely the BEST choice for the 100% expendable moon mission (I don't repeat here why, since you can read my opinion in my articles/posts)
if the missions' architecture changes (with the reusable-LSAM, the LSS, the MCH, etc.) many different rockets may accomplish the job
unfortunately, a good evaluation of the best rocket for the "reusable" architecture needs to know some "unknown" parameters
the (unknown) dimensions and weight of the LSAM, LSS module, tanks, etc. change the kind of rockets we need
however, I think that a big (single) rocket may be better than many little (or different) rockets
...basically...
very "basically".......
...its time for you to give up and be quiet...
no, since I think it's a good idea, I'll write more articles about my proposal
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
A "phone book" reply is also one that is broken down into too many Quote/Reply lines too. You keep on trying to dance around the problems gaetano, but you never answer them other then just parroting your advertisment with its inane and rediculous analogies.
>Your lander scheme needs fuel from Earth
+This fuel requires a HLLV rocket and an expendable tanker to deliver enough for only about two flights.
-must burn Methane rather than Hydrogen
-must launch surface hardware to Lunar orbit
+Tanker will not be much cheaper then an expendable LSAM since it must perform many of the same functions
-must have an engine for LOI
-must have power for several months
-must have maneuvering jets to point the LOI engine
-must have precision maneuvering ability to hold position near station
-must have docking arrangements and fuel transfer plumbing
-should have remote control capabilities
=a vehicle not too unlike the LSAM's decent module, just with different fuel tanks, and just as expensive
+No expensive portion of the tanker will be practical to recover.
-no EVA on a regular basis, the Hubble telescope was designed for EVAs but was still very hard to work on
-no robot arm delicate or able to reach would be cheap enough (development, construction, fuel) versus the electronics cost
-no room to put 2-3 electronics kits in the CEV
-electronics will be bulky (includes gyros, heating, cooling, insulation, radiation shielding, power handling)
-aerospace electronics haven't shrunk alot in 20 years
+Additional development of both tanker and LSAM for zero-gravity cryogen refueling.
-Russia has NOT demonstrated cryogenic refueling
-there is no need for this technology otherwise
=This is simply not going to be cheaper then an all-expendable arrangement. One tanker for two landings is a bad deal, and combined with the higher risk and development will be worse then all-expendable.
>The Lunar station has few bennefits and many drawbacks
+Equitorial orbit cannot reach Lunar poles
+Polar orbit prevents launch/landing except for a short window every two weeks
+Multiple Lunar stations expensive to build & maintain otherwise
+Must develop new Methane LSAM instead of only modifying ESAS/SLV Hydrogen LSAM for reuseability
+Requires tonne quantities of fuel annually for reboost, supplanting signifigant amounts of landing fuel
-this is signifigant, it will eliminate one landing per year aproximatly
+Difficult to add sufficent cosmic/solar radiation shielding within mass budget
-particularly with the inferior payload of SLV
+Not simple to develop, NASA has never done anything like it before
-Skylab would never last long enough, not shielded, no engines
+Does not offer much safety bennefit, the only time it would be needed is if CEV failed, which is unlikely
-CEV will have to work before a Lunar mission departs
+Surface crews could not launch all the way to orbit to the station quickly in the event of a solar flare (takes time to synch orbits)
+ESAS will not be away from Earth for long periods to risk a solar flare hit (similar to Apollo)
+Surface-based hopper exploration can hop to a shelter quickly
=Lunar space station is a bad idea, with small bennefits and big problems & costs.
>Lunar goals are not served by a Lunar station
+Polar ice is of great scientific interest and would most likely be from comets, since the Moon is coverd with craters, some of them must have been comets. If not, ice would be leftover from the Moon's formation, and be equally interesting to study
+Extensive use of Lunar stations will supplant funding from Lunar bases, which will make ISRU, Platinum mining, or telescope construction more difficult
+Due to orbital mechanics, using Lunar oxygen to launch missions to other planets is of very dubious bennefit, so an orbital station won't help here
+A Lunar station can't bennefit from ISRU much, since landers would have to burn too much Hydrogen to bring Oxygen to orbit and return
=Lunar station(s) are a giant leap in the wrong direction!
>To reiterate my plan
+Use expendable ESAS to explore major locations of interest and select a base site (2-3 years, 4-9 flights)
+Build a base for a four-man crew with radiation shelter, ISRU plant, and tank farm
+Import ~15MT of Hydrogen with standard cargo LSAM anually to produce 100MT of propellant
+Modify the expendable LSAM for reuseable use, delete acent stage, and send only with decent fuel
+Use LSAM or Hopper-dedicated varient for multiple hops between sites of interest or for setting up telescopes, mining operations, or "multi-hop" fuel depots
+Use LSAM with Lunar Oxygen for return to orbit and rendezvous with CEV
+Long-term with better Hydrogen supplies, a more refined LSAM varient would return to the surface plus ferry cargo to the surface from orbit
=An efficient, affordable, sensible, and scaleable way to explore the Moon
>Again you try the "cheat and retreat" method of arguing
+Putting problems off on others while not permitting the same for NASA
-claiming future technology will save your plan, despite rocket technology not changing much in ~70 years
-claiming that "experience" will fix things like not having enough rocket fuel
+Claiming your plan can do wonderful things, while condemning other plans or problems with your plan because they aren't built, which is a pathetic double-standard.
-why can you claim good things about your plan while others can't nor say bad things about your plan?
-"why are so sure of that if the LSS don't exists now?"
-"the (unknown) dimensions and weight of the LSAM, LSS module, tanks, etc. change the kind of rockets we need"
=You cannot defend your plan, all you can do is repeat what has already been said, so you should be quiet.
I think that about sums it up
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
.
two main points:
all the ESAS supporters "evaluate" the costs of hardware, launches, etc. at ridiculous prices and insist to talk of low and ridiculous prices in all their discussions but the real prices will be very high
sharing the planned VSE funds (now up to $125B, I've read) with the planned moon missions in the next 20 years (less a few orbital missions) the costs per moon missions will be up to $8B each (that includes all: R&D, hardware, etc.)
if I suggest to build a "tank", I receive TONS of complications of problems, things to add, etc. etc. etc.
but, if I say that a CEV or a LSAM will be very expensive, the reply is... NOT TRUE... the pressurized cabin is a box, the engines already are in the NASA garage, the elcetronics is the same of my iPod, etc.
the truth is that ALL space-hardware costs very high price... the tank, the CEV, the rockets... ALL
well... the MAIN advantages of "my" architecture (with or without the LSS) is: SAVE THE VERY EXPENSIVE SPACE HARDWARE to accomplish MORE missions with the SAME funds and in LESS time
with the "expendable" ESAS architecture, 20 moon missions need 20 CEV, 20 SM, 20 LSAM, 20 CaLV, 20 CLV
with "my" (reusable) architecture (with four missions per crew/CEV and 10+ times reusable-LSAMs) 20 moon mission need 5 CEV, 5 SM, 2 LSAM, ZERO CLV and LESS CaLVs
we can discuss about the number of refuels, the CaLV we need, etc. but ONE POINT IS CLEAR... with the "reusable" architecture (also WITHOUT the LSS) we have ALREADY saved:
15 CEVs
15 SMs
18 LSAMs
many CaLVs
20 CLVs
ONLY the (saved!!!) R&D costs of the CLV is $7 Billion (but the real R&D cost may grow to $10+ billion in ten years)
I think that the price of each CEV/SM can't be under $500M and a LSAM may cost over $1B each
however, you can evaluate the (optimistic or propagandistic) price you want!
anyhow, the TOTAL price of the (saved!) hardware will reach a GIANT amount of Billion$$$$$$$ !!!!!!!!!!
look at the Shuttle... it costs up to $600 per mission despite its hardware is 90% reusable with only a $40M tank lost...
well... just imagine the cost of a launch with the $3B Shuttle designed to be EXPENDABLE after EACH launch!!!!
the INCREDIBLE and STELLAR advantages with reusable-LSAM, only one crew/CEV/SM every FIVE missions, etc. CAN'T BE "deleted" or reduced with your "list of problems"
the second point is about the number of refuels per CaLV
with so many CEVs, SMs, CLVs and LSAMs saved, TWO refuels per CaLV already is a giant saving
but the refuels per CaLV will be THREE or more because...
NASA is going to build a rocket with an higher max payload... 150, 170 or more mT
the "usable" payload launched towards the moon may reach 80-90 mT
the standard LSAM will have around 30 mT of fuel (on 45 mT of total weight) but 10+ mT of fuel will be used for the LOI of a total mass tha exceeds 70 mT
then, the fuel (or a refuel) for each lunar landing will be around 20 mT
but I think it will be LESS than 20 mT since the reusable-LSAM will be LIGHTER than an expendable-LSAM
it will have ONE engines' system, HALF tanks, less structures than a two-stages vehicle... MANY TONS LESS
maybe, the reusable-LSAM weigh and the fuel it needs per landing will be 20-30% less than the expendable-LSAM
if that will happen, each CaLV may launch 4+ LSAM-refuels
I can STOP HERE my list of advantages, but...
q: not be much cheaper then an expendable LSAM... a: pure madness!
q: must have an engine for LOI... a: ONE engine instead of the FIVE (one ascent, four descent) of a standard LSAM
q: must have power for several months... 1.5 months, that means a little battery (the tank is not like the CEV/LSAM/LSS with many astronauts and many systems that need energy) VERY IMPORTANT: since the EDS/LSAM must wait in earth orbit up to 95 days... the battery of the refuel-tank will be HALF in dimensions and price than a standard-launch EDS
q: must have maneuvering jets to point the LOI engine... must have precision maneuvering ability to hold position near station... a: they don't need MORE than the billions saved (maybe, they will costs 0.00001% of the money saved)
q: must have docking arrangements and fuel transfer plumbing... a: it don't docks to nothing, the LSAM may reach the tank and refuel like the military fighters does
q: should have remote control capabilities... a: no, it only need to reach its lunar orbit and stay there (however, a remote-controls don't costs like the dozens billions saved!)
q: no EVA on a regular basis... a: I've suggested to retrieve the tank-computer but it can't cost more than a (SINGLE) CaLV engine... then, if FIVE engines CAN be expendable with a CaLV launch, we can lose the tank-computer (without any EVA, arm, etc.)
q: development of both tanker and LSAM for zero-gravity cryogen refueling... a: you can't save ALL billions... a (very little) part of them must be spent for something of useful...
q: Russia has NOT demonstrated cryogenic refueling... a: the NASA technology will be superior to '60 Soviet hardware
q: is simply not going to be cheaper then an all-expendable arrangement... a: already demonstrated FALSE
q: cannot reach Lunar poles... a: if we want to explore great part of the moon, the polar missions will be around 10% of the total moon missions, then, they can be accomplished with an expendable-LSAM (it's very expensive to destroy one LSAM every polar mission... but if it is so important to explore the poles, the price does't matter!)
+Polar orbit prevents launch/landing except for a short window every two weeks
+Multiple Lunar stations expensive to build & maintain otherwise
+Must develop new Methane LSAM instead of only modifying ESAS/SLV Hydrogen LSAM for reuseability
+Requires tonne quantities of fuel annually for reboost, supplanting signifigant amounts of landing fuel
-this is signifigant, it will eliminate one landing per year aproximatly
+Difficult to add sufficent cosmic/solar radiation shielding within mass budget
-particularly with the inferior payload of SLV
+Not simple to develop, NASA has never done anything like it before
-Skylab would never last long enough, not shielded, no engines
+Does not offer much safety bennefit, the only time it would be needed is if CEV failed, which is unlikely
-CEV will have to work before a Lunar mission departs
+Surface crews could not launch all the way to orbit to the station quickly in the event of a solar flare (takes time to synch orbits)
+ESAS will not be away from Earth for long periods to risk a solar flare hit (similar to Apollo)
+Surface-based hopper exploration can hop to a shelter quickly
=Lunar space station is a bad idea, with small bennefits and big problems & costs.
...only CSPO work...
...claiming future technology will save your plan...
it don't need "future technology" only to develop the refuel probe (15 years may be sufficient...)
...so you should be quiet...
your "orders" to me are useless like your insults
---------------------
however, don't be so exciting about "your" (hoppers/ISRU) plan and so angry against "my" (reusable-LSAM/LSS) plan, since NOT "your plan" NOR "my plan" will REALLY happen, but ONLY the NASA plan!!!
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
Its nonsense to claim that ESAS prices are "very high, so my plan is good," this is just bias since you don't know. And why will hardware cost so much? Your figures are outrageous and biased, and so obviously that its insulting!
>$8Bn for every Lunar sortie?
>$500M for each CEV & SM despite capsule reuseability?
>$1Bn for each ESAS LSAM?
>No price tag for SLV?
>Inane and rediculous comparison with Shuttle
...Pathetic
It has already been explained to you several times, that your tanker (which you must have) will not be simple and cheap, and will infact be of comperable complexity to the LSAM's decent stage. Thats not to say it will cost more than LSAM (not including development), but its not going to cost less.
>Both only need one or two engines
>RL-10, the LSAM engine, only weighs ~150kg
>LSAM empty weight is a small part of stack mass
>LSAM engine mass is not a large component of total mass, still need acent tanks (but my plan won't)
>Both need more power than batteries can provide
>Both must have precision attitude control for LOI
>Both need guidence and rendezvous beacons
>Tanker will need cryogen pumping system
Under your plan, six SLVs makes seven missions, while ESAS will need only one more CaLV. You also convienantly ignore economies of scale, where seven simpler LSAMs might not cost alot more than two complicated ones. NASA will need the expendable version anyway to deliver base hardware or for missions where Lunar station nor hoppers can reach.
And it is only seven, because the fuel needs to be storable to reboost the Lunar station year-round and it is unlikely you could mount four week-long missions in only a month or two, which means you have to burn Methane in your LSAM. Because of this, it will increase the fuel mass of the LSAM dramatically and probably be well in excess of the ~25MT of fuel it will normally need for landing/acent.
The SLV nor any other rocket NASA is going to build will carry 150-170MT either, this is not happening. The CaLV is bigger and more powerful then the SLV is, and is probably the largest rocket that is practical and economical for NASA to develop, but it carries only 125MT on a good day. This is an absurd idea, and a non-starter. That puts three missions worth of Methane well beyond the LOI payload of any practical rocket.
The notion that if an exploration target is important enough, the price to reach it is unimportant is stupid, NASA has limited money it has to spend wisely, where if they don't produce results on budget then they are in trouble. One of these results is investigation of the Lunar poles, which they really have to do if they claim to be "exploring" the Moon. Because of this capability and the limited capacity of NASA's rockets, a Hydrogen-burning LSAM decent module is a must.
Let me recap why I think your plan will not save money:
>CLV will be developed anyway for the ISS, COTS/EELV won't do the job
>CEV will need two different SMs, one for ISS one for Moon, eliminating some CEV savings
>Lunar station will cost a $2-3Bn to develop, $2-3Bn to build, and $1Bn to send. This would buy 23 CLV/CEV launches at $300M each (and save money!)
>Every two Lunar missions will need an expendable Methane tanker of comperable cost to LSAM, cutting LSAM savings in half (plus need new technology development ESAS won't)
>Two completly different LSAM developed: one reuseable burning Methane and one expendable burning Hydrogen, which will cost several billion. This will buy 12-16 ESAS LSAMs at $250M each (and with tanker costs will be LESS!)
>Does NOT reduce number of CaLVs needed, over 20 missions only saves 1-2 (counting one for Lunar station). Increased cost of man-rated HLLV eliminates savings vs CaLV.
>Again, economies of scale will keep LSAM and CEV/CLV prices lower for ESAS then your plan
And the ESAS plan doesn't have a high risk of solar flare death like yours either... I think its safe to say your plan has been destroyed gaetano, your plan even loses to the expendable ESAS plan. So long as all the fuel is imported from Earth, reuseability makes no sense.
Edit: Oh, and I forgot to reiterate that landing/lanuching the surface equipment for exploration also takes up fuel, for every tonne of payload takes about 4-5MT of rocket fuel I would estimate, which would cover much of the difference between Hydrogen and Methane fuel too.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
...that ESAS prices are "very high...
you can't demonstrate that "expendables costs less than reausable" writing encyclopedic posts
"costs" are a mix of shared R&D, hardware, engineers' salary, etc. and we can't compare 100% old costs with new (and future) costs
if the (already retouched up) VSE budget (that include all costs) will be $125B with 12 moon missions in 2020-2025 the cost per missions is a simple division
of course, the real price may vary, but, probably, UP, not down
in my post I've suggested to give every possible evaluation of prices, nothing changes
whatever will be the price of moon-hardware for 20 missions... 20 CEV + 20 SM + 20 CLV + 20 LSAM + 20 CaLV/EDS will ALWAYS cost BILLION$$$$ MORE than 5 CEV, 5 SM, 2 LSAM, NO (R&D+hardware) CLV and LESS CaLV/EDS !!!!!!
you can give THE PRICE YOU WANT to the single variables of the equation... THE RESULT NEVER CHANGES !!!
...Pathetic...
yes, pathetic... your effort to demonbstrate that 100 costs less than 30...
...will not be simple and cheap...
not cheap... cheaper... cheaper than destroy 20 LSAMs every 20 missions instead of reuse 2 LSAMs
and, don't forget that, a reusable-LSAM don't need a new CEV/SM/CLV every mission, but one CEV/SM avery FOUR
how much cost a CEV+SM+CLV at 2020 prices?
$500M? $380M? $673M $1.2B?
well... GIVE IT THE PRICE YOU WANT... then... MULTIPLY BY 15 to have the money SAVED in the first 20 missions!!!
>Both only need one or two engines
>RL-10, the LSAM engine, only weighs ~150kg
>LSAM empty weight is a small part of stack mass
>Both need more power than batteries can provide
>Both must have precision attitude control for LOI
>Both need guidence and rendezvous beacons
>Tanker will need cryogen pumping system
despite your CSPO, I think that NASA is able to build a reusable vehicle (and it will weigh less than the expendable)
...economies of scale...
scale economy don't work with high priced (and low units) products... only if you build 10,000 LSAMs in an Honda factory you can have REAL price reductions
however, you can NEVER demonstrate that 10 reusable-LSAM (for 100 missions) will cost MORE than 100 expendable!!!
and (again) don't foget the saving that come from the use (with the reusable-LSAM) of only 25 CEV/SM (and NO CLV) instead of 100 CEV/SM/CLV !!!
75 CEVs + 75 SMs + 100 CLV + 90 LSAMs + 40 CaLV saved every 100 missions!!!!!!!!!!!
WITH THE TONS OF BILLION$$$$$ SAVED WE CAN START THE MARS MISSIONS 10+ YEARS BEFORE PLANNED !!!!!!!!!
...NASA will need the expendable version...
the "expendable" version will be a reusable-LSAM used ONE TIME
...only 125MT on a good day...
this is the evaluation before engines shift to RS-68
...Lunar poles...
a polar mission with the reusable-LSAM (used as an expendable) will (simply) cost like a standard (100% expendable) moon mission, not more
...Lunar station...
the GIANT saving don't come from the LSS, but from the reusable-LSAM and the four missions per crew architecture
...LSAMs at $250M each...
probably the Wal-Mart's toy-LSAM-kit made in China
you decrease four times the real cost of a LSAM and multiply by two the real cost of the fuel to demostrate that there is no saving with a reusable-LSAM
you can do this absurd thing only if...
1. you're an LSAM feticist and want... more... more... more.. of them
2. you work for a company that hope to build the expendable-LSAM
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
I think my seven-point list at the bottom of my post doesn't classify as "encyclopedic"
Costs for production and costs for development are not one single monolithic figure, they are two seperate things, and while the production costs might be higher for the ESAS plan, the development costs are much lower which I believe offset eachother. As long as fuel is brought from Earth by rockets, this will always be the case, ISRU is essential to Lunar reuseability... and your plan doesn't have it. Also, if we can't compare "old and new" costs, then why did you compare ESAS hardware with Shuttle? You not only can't keep your story straight between threads, you can't even keep is straight between posts!
Your figure about "$125Bn for 12 Moon missions" is intentionally deceptive, that money will be for the entire NASA budget for everything including the aeronautics, technology development, biological sciences, ISS, CaLV development, and probably Lunar base component development. You are trying to paint over the gaping holes in your plan with lies!
you can give THE PRICE YOU WANT to the single variables of the equation... THE RESULT NEVER CHANGES
You didn't include any development costs! If the extra development for all your vehicles costs more then what you save by reuseing vehicles, then you don't save any money... In fact, it can cost even more. And if I can't say the price of your vehicles doesn't save money, why can you say that they do?
My figures are based off of estimates for ESAS hardware, since we know how much the engines will cost, roughly how much the tank will cost, and we know how much money NASA has to spend so we can paint a relatively accurate picture about total cost. Your figures are about double what commonly accepted figures are, and with the LSAM being of comperable complexity to the CEV you figure is about quadruple. Where are your numbers from?
you work for a company that hope to build the expendable-LSAM
Ah here we go again, here at the rainbow's end... When you claim the other guy has a secret hidden agenda, thats pretty much like Godwin's Law around here.
this is the evaluation before engines shift to RS-68
No, otherwise why would NASA use the bigger 10m fuel tank for expendable ESAS missions? They sure don't need 150MT. No, NASA officals have been clearly quoted stating that the change in fuel tank was needed to make up for the inferior fuel efficiency of the RS-68.
Since you can't seem to counter any of my arguments, then you have no business advertising any more here. Unfortunatly for you, we don't have a science fiction thread, so I think that means you are out of luck.
Edit: section about RS-68 added, plus: And lets not forget, even if your plan worked as you say that even if it did make "astronomical" savings, that even if everything you said about ESAS is true... that if the astronauts are on the surface and a solar flare occurs and they are on the day side, then they are going to all die. Since astronauts will be on the surface for a week out of every few for most of the year, thats a pretty big risk.
And you were whining and wailing over how awful the slim risk of the CEV failing would be, but you just ignore this one? The clearest example of bias yet.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
...costs for development...
if the difference between a reusable vehicle and an expendable vehicle is a 10% of hardware saved, there is not so much money saved
but the reusable architecture (like my proposal) will save 90% of LSAMs, 75% of CEV/SM, 100% of CLV and over 40% of CaLV
also if we calculate the hardware costs at their MINIMAL (ultraoptimistic!!!) prices, the difference of costs are ABYSSAL !!!
the money saved with so much hardware (only the hardware) will be sufficient to double the moon missions !!!
...ISRU...
I'm absoultely not against the ISRU but it's completely unrational to plan (now) an architecture on a fuel that we don't know... if, when, where, how much and at which cost will be avaiable (especially the "when" and "how much" are very critic figures)
the moon missions MUST be designed (now) ONLY with earth fuel... when the ISRU fuel will be REALLY available we can incude it in a plan
...did you compare ESAS hardware with Shuttle...
no! I've NOT compared ESAS with Shuttle... I've compared Shuttle with Shuttle... a reusable Shuttle and an (unexisting) expendable Shuttle: $600M per launch with the first, $3.6B per launch with the latter
...that money will be for the entire NASA budget for everything including the aeronautics, technology development, biological sciences, ISS, CaLV development, and probably Lunar base component development...
please, buy a pocket calculator!
$125B over the next 20 years are $6.25B per year!
if this is the "entire NASA budget for space, areonautics, ISS, etc." that means NASA will have a CUT ofr $10B per year (every year for the next 20 years!) on its $16.7B annual budget!
since NASA already use great part of its annual budget fo science, research, bureaucracy, probes, etc. etc. etc. it may have sufficient money to develop, build and launch the new vehicles ONLY if the $125B will be an ADDITIONAL budget for VSE, not if it will be the "standard" budget!!!
then, we can evaluate the "cost per mission" with a simple division total-funds/total-missions
...about double what commonly accepted figures are...
the VSE fund are known... the number of missions in the next 20 years is known... do a simple division (that may be optimistic, since the cost will be higher and the missions may be less)
the question is: "why NASA spend $8B for a missions, $3B to add a segment to the SRB, $600M fo a Shuttle launch, etc. etc. etc."
I know (like all know) the (very expensive) final costs of all NASA vehicles and missions, but I don't know WHERE these money goes (or burns...) ...ask NASA for full details about its budget!
...secret hidden agenda...
ok... the right point is the #1
about the CaLV... it's impossible to say (now) if the CaLV will have or not a sufficient payload
we can do all the speculations we want about this point, but the REAL figures can be known only when the CaLV will be avilable
but this argument is completely useless in this thread, because, if NASA use the standard ESAS plan, the CaLV will be sufficient, while, if NASA shifts to a reusable-LSAM, etc., must develop the right rocket to match the new architecture, not simply "recycle" the CaLV
...you can't seem to counter any of my arguments...
your "arguments" against the reusable-LSAM are inflated 10 times its real volume
the giants monay saving of the reusable-LSAM are REAL, the "impossible problems" you quote are only "problems" that space agencies' engineers have solved from 50 years and will solve in future, if and when it will be necessary to do
I don't see any "StarTrek-problem" to send a tank around the moon and refuel the LSAM
...if the astronauts are on the surface and a solar flare...
you insist with "solar flares" from several posts despite there is NO difference with the two architecture
the astronauts are on the moon and there is a solar flare?
well...
with an expendable-LSAM: they must jump on it, reach lunar orbit, dock with the CEV and come back to earth
with a reusable-LSAM: they must jump on it, reach lunar orbit, dock with the CEV and come back to earth
where is the difference?
why they may DIE with the reusable-LSAM while may survive the solar flares with the expendable-LSAM?
if they have sufficient time to come back, they can come back with both vehicles
if they don't have sufficient time to come back to earth, they will die with both vehicles
where is the difference?
no matter where the astronauts are (on the moon or in lunar orbit, in the CEV or LSAM) ...if a solar flares appears, they must come back as soon as possible!
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
whatever will be the price of moon-hardware for 20 missions... 20 CEV + 20 SM + 20 CLV + 20 LSAM + 20 CaLV/EDS will ALWAYS cost BILLION$$$$ MORE than 5 CEV, 5 SM, 2 LSAM, NO (R&D+hardware) CLV and LESS CaLV/EDS !!!!!!
I can not make heads or tails out of what is or is not going into your plan gaetanomarano. You blab about both in the say sentence making it difficult to follow what and how it is launched seperate them out clearly please.
gaetanomarano your plan calls for the SLV, which will only launch about 110-115MT of payload despite costing more for engines then CaLV and will have to undergo extensive extra development to make it safe enough for people.
Even the Saturn V only was able to loft 118MT to a 185 Km circularized orbit.
Nasa had estimated the moon mission costs to be 105 billion over the term for all engineering, developement and hardware of which the increase gaetanomarano I have not seen this, is there a certifiable reference.
All engineering and developement cost are figured into each launch for both mission profiles for a base line flag and foot prints exploration comparison.
Nothing reused and no bickering about engineering, R&D, cost of fuel tankers, hoppers ect...
GCNRevenger's / the Nasa plan will cost for 20 pairs of clv/cev (250 million) plus the calv/lsam/eds (600 million) for a total 17 billion of hardware to the moon.
gaetanomarano plan for SLV probably 600 million a compromise to the fact that you plan to use most of the CaLV/lsan/eds plus the ssme difference of 60 million each or 300 million in addition engine costs add in the cost of the capsule 125 million puts your base design at 1.025 billion per mission for the same 20 missions total 20.5 billion of hardware to the moon.
gaetanomarano based on how tight Nasa money is, your plan is cancelled in favor of the lowest contractor.
Offline
Like button can go here
I seem to recall you whining and wailing about how awful development costs are gaetano, but your plan will call for much larger development costs then the ESAS plan will. In fact, I think it will cost about $11-15 billion dollars more to develop and build infrastructure. ($5-8Bn for Lunar station, ~$3Bn for extra lander development, $1-2Bn for tanker, ~$2Bn for SLV over CaLV) Since these are costs you have to pay for your plan to work that ESAS doesn't, this can eliminate the savings from reused hardware. $15Bn would buy 50 CLV/CEVs, 25 CaLVs, or about 60 LSAMs when reasonable prices ($300M, $600M, $250M) are used. We know these prices are roughly accurate, because thats how much competing options cost for launch vehicles (Delta-IV HLV and Shuttle-Z) and an estimate of the LSAM (which is a little less complicated then CEV). Your figures, which are nessesarry to make your plan even break even, come from thin air.
Edit: don't forget, we will need CLV and a "regular" sized CEV-SM for ISS duty anyway, so you can't claim this as development cost savings.
Also, your count of vehicles is wrong too, by your own plan you only save 1 HLLV rocket out of 7, which is not 40%, and the SLV will cost more with its expensive engines and man rating, probably $100-150M more... hey, that eliminates all the savings completly. Plus your count of vehicles with all the exclamation marks seems to have left something out: TANKERS!
an architecture on a fuel that we don't know... if, when, where, how much and at which cost will be avaiable
When? It will take about three flights to deliver everything, four at the outside, or one years' worth of launches at Shuttle-like rates. Where? The Moon is literally coverd with oxygen, thats why its that color. How much? If Bob Zubrin's little 5MT plant can make 42MT a year, a big 20MT plant can make at least 100MT. And the cost? Turning two CaLVs and one CEV/LSAM into a dozen site visits is probably a little cheaper then a dozen of each.
over the next 20 years
Your story is shifting again, is it 20 misisons or 20 years? You have used BOTH in your posts. Oh I know, it is whatever unit that makes your plan look better!
about the CaLV... it's impossible to say (now) if the CaLV will have or not a sufficient payload
Its impossible to know if SLV will have or not a sufficent payload... The CaLV was originally sized to 125MT in offical NASA breifings, and recent changes have been made to the design (to paraphrase) maintain this number. Shuttle weighs close to 100MT loaded, and could increase to ~110MT just with bigger boosters. Why should we doubt CaLV can hit 125MT with additional main engines, upper stage, and more efficient in-line configuration? It is the SLV that is the question mark, it was not designed by professional engineers, so we know with much less certainty that it can lift enough for your plan at all.
Edit: A 150MT class rocket would be very hard to build and still be relativly affordable. It would probably need quadruple SRBs, six first-stage engines, and would really need the air-start SSME for the upper stage for its fuel efficiency, which would wind up costing more then CaLV + CLV for the same payload easy. And it probably couldn't be built on old Apollo rigging at Michoud nor fit in the VAB.
the giants monay saving of the reusable-LSAM are REAL, the "impossible problems" you quote are only "problems" that space agencies' engineers have solved from 50 years and will solve in future, if and when it will be necessary to do
This is the second time that you have completly ignored my statement about this assertion. You just said this like I never said anything about it at all, and thats not discussion. This is a discussion board, if you are going to pretend that I didn't comment about your statements then you shouldn't write here at all.
Again, these are not things that "experience and cleverness" can fix:
>Your station either won't go over the poles, or it won't stay around the equator
>Your LSAM will burn alot of fuel so one SLV can only carry two trips worth
>You still need to develop, build, and launch tankers
>Your station needs fuel to stay in orbit
These are not things that "space engineers" can just will away, unless you live in gaetano's fantasy land.
you insist with "solar flares" from several posts despite there is NO difference with the two architecture
Thats a lie. Under your arcitecture, astronauts will be spending much more time on the Moon or in vehicles, and hence their risk of death is proportionatly greater. Under ESAS, the crew is exposed for about four weeks of the year, while yours are about eight.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
...what and how it is launched seperate them out clearly please...
that depends of the (single) rocket used, but I think that, if NASA adopts the "reusable-LSAM" architecture, the payload specs of the (single) rocket must come after the definistion of the specs of all parts (LSAM, refuel-tank, etc.)
...the Saturn V only was able to loft 118MT...
up to 147 mT in some missions
...at 1.025 billion per mission for the same 20 missions total 20.5 billion of hardware to the moon...
NASA annual budget is (and will be) around $16.7B
the annual budgets of the next 5 years will INCLUDE the last 19 Shuttle flights at (about) $600M each (if they don't need extra time and money to solve again the foam problem...) and a total cost of $11.4B
the high cost of the last Shuttle flights will produce also an estimated deficit of $4B that NASA will cover (in part) cutting many probes projects and science researches
since the last Shuttle flights will be paid with the annual NASA budget (+ probes/science cuts) and the Shuttle program will ends in 2010, the $125B VSE funds will be ENTIRELY devoted to develop and build the hardware for the moon missions
also if we cut 10-15% of the full VSE funds for a few ISS launches, the VSE budget for the moon hardware/missions will be OVER $100 BILLION... NOT only $20B
I don't know where tha VSE money will go (and how NASA uses that money) but CLEARLY the cost per mission CAN'T BE less than $100B / 12 mission = $8+ Billion each!
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
...how awful development costs are...
"awful" only when used to build useless things (like the CLV) ...not when used for USEFUL researches
...$5-8Bn for Lunar station...
the LSS may have MANY useful advantages and its cost must be shared on 20+ years of use
also, it is not "absolutely necessary" for a reusable-LSAM missions' architecture (only better)
...$3Bn for extra lander development...
the (planned) CEV/SM R&D costs will be $5B and the LSAM (that is similar) may cost the same abount of money
then, "add an hole" for refuel to the LSAM can't cost like DEVELOP ANOTHER CEV OR AN ENTIRE ROCKET !!!
but... also if your absurd evaluation will be true... the reusable-LSAM still remain very cheap since the $3B must be spent ONE time while the reusable-LSAM will be used 50+ times (manufacturing only FIVE of them instead of 50...)
...$15Bn would buy 50 CLV/CEVs, 25 CaLVs, or about 60 LSAMs when reasonable prices...
at your (Wal-Mart...) prices the expendable LSAM sounds EXCELLENT !!!
but, PLEASE, give your manufacturers' addresses to NASA since they are going to spend $125B for (about) 25 CEV/SM/CLV and 12 CaLV/EDS/LSAM only !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...we will need CLV and a "regular" sized CEV-SM for ISS duty anyway...
the new (official) date for the first CEV launch is 2014, but I think will be 2015 or later if we add the (possible) further delays in the CEV/SM/CLV research, development and test
months ago, some rumors say of a possible US withdraw from ISS in 2016, but, also if that is not true, the ISS will be TOO OLD after 2015 and may have only A FEW years of (safe) life
then, using the CEV to launch only a few american astronauts to the ISS (since the CEV is too expensive for ESA budget and Russia will use its Soyuz) the number of ISS launches of the CEV may be five/ten MAX in 2015-2020
you may say that a special, six-seats, CEV must be launched for ISS crew rescue, but it will be available only in 2015 and for 10+ years (I repeat... "TEN+ YEARS"!) from now, the ONLY (de-facto) ISS rescue-vehicle will be the Soyuz!!!
if the (old) Soyuz will be GOOD as a rescue-vehicle(s) in the next TEN YEARS, the new Digital-Soyuz will be BETTER in the last years of life of the ISS (max 5 years from 2015)
develop and build the CLV and an orbital version of the CEV/SM for A FEW orbital launches ONLY is simply CRAZY and SUICIDE for NASA budgets and moon plans!!!
...will take about three flights to deliver everything, four at the outside, or one years' worth of launches at Shuttle-like rates. Where? The Moon is literally coverd with oxygen, thats why its that color. How much? If Bob Zubrin's little 5MT plant can make 42MT a year, a big 20MT plant can make at least 100MT. And the cost? Turning two CaLVs and one CEV/LSAM into a dozen site visits is probably a little cheaper then a dozen of each...
only sci-fi... that's why NASA don't includes ANY "lunar-refuel" for its ESAS vehicles...!
but... if that is TRUE... "one year to build an ISRU plant for 100 mT of oxygen per year"... it is ANOTHER GOOD REASON to build ONLY the reusable-LSAM... since, with SO MUCH lunar ISRU oxygen, we need to send from earth only the hydrogen!!!
my "reusable-LSAM plan" with earth-fuel already is GOOD... but with your ISRU plant it's PERFECT
after all... why spend $5B and 15 years of time to develop and build an expendable-LSAM it, after ONLY ONE YEARS OF USE (thanks to PLENTY of cheap ISRU fuel!!!) we will need ONLY a reusable-LSAM for HUNDREDS lunar landings from space and/or lunar "hops" ????????????
don't forget that develop another LSAM may cost up to $5B and many years of work
also (if it will be necessary in some special mission) a reusable-LSAM ***CAN*** be used like an expendable-LSAM (simply using it only ONE time!) while, an expendable-LSAM ***NEVER*** can be used as a reusable-LSAM
in other words... the reusable-LSAM is a "two ways" choice, while, the expendable-LSAM is an "one way" choice (an change that "way" costs Billion$$$$!)
about yuor claim... "The Moon is literally coverd with oxygen, thats why its that color"...
I don't know how much oxygen will be (or can be extracted) on the lunar surface... but the planet "known to have a color due to oxygen" is Mars, NOT Moon, since the color of the OXIDIZED rocks is red/brown (like the Mars surface) and NOT grey (like the Moon)
...20 misisons or 20 years...
the moon missions planned in the next 20 years (15 of them only to develop and build the hardware) will be about 12 (maybe, one per year in the early years from 2020 and three per year in the last years around 2025)
the number of mission to evaluate the money saved may be 12 or 20 or 50... however, with a resusable-LSAM, ONE crew may accomplish FOUR moon landings/missions and two crew per year will accomplish EIGHT missions... then, THREE crews may accomplish in 1.5 years (ONLY!!!) the SAME number of missions of 12 crews in 6+ years!!!
and, in the same SIX years of the early ESAS moon missions (2020-2025) 12 crews (two per year) will accomplish up to 48 missions... a GIANT saving of time and money and FOUR TIMES the exploration and scientific results!!!!!!!!!!!
...SLV will have or not a sufficent payload...
the SLV idea was for a single-launch architecture and a resized (100% expendable) moon mission
the new architecture needs the right vehicle to launch the hardware and its engines/payloads depend from the new-hardware specs
the reusable-LSAM architecture can be done with different rockets, but a single, big, rocket is the best choice
>Your station either won't go over the poles, or it won't stay around the equator
you write your posts without read my posts... I've already said that some polar missions (if absolutely necessary) may be accomplished using the reusable-LSAM like an expendable vehicle (used only ONE time)
>Your LSAM will burn alot of fuel so one SLV can only carry two trips worth
your evaluation of two refuels already is a good saving with a reusable-LSAM
>You still need to develop, build, and launch tankers
like all other moon hardware (I don't see any of them ready to fly...)
>Your station needs fuel to stay in orbit
I've posted my answer about this point dozens times... please read my posts
...things that "space engineers" can just will away...
solve these problems and build these vehicles is (simply) "THE JOB" of aerospace engineers
...your arcitecture, astronauts will be spending much more time on the Moon or in vehicles...
not true... each mission will be one week like in the ESAS plan... or more weeks only if it will be possible and safe
to save their lifes from a solar flares, the astronauts must come back to earth from lunar surface or lunar orbit as soon as possible!
then, NOTHING changes with the two different architecture, since, the TIME that (both) reusable or expendable LSAMs need to reach the lunar orbit will be THE SAME !
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
Let's just get CaLV built by writing letters to Congress and talk about how to use it later.
Offline
Like button can go here
Let's just get CaLV built by writing letters to Congress and talk about how to use it later.
I think it will be built, but you must have 15 years of patience to see it fly.
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
To reiterate my plan
+Use expendable ESAS to explore major locations of interest and select a base site (2-3 years, 4-9 flights)
+Build a base for a four-man crew with radiation shelter, ISRU plant, and tank farm
+Import ~15MT of Hydrogen with standard cargo LSAM anually to produce 100MT of propellant
+Modify the expendable LSAM for reuseable use, delete acent stage, and send only with decent fuel
+Use LSAM or Hopper-dedicated varient for multiple hops between sites of interest or for setting up telescopes, mining operations, or "multi-hop" fuel depots
+Use LSAM with Lunar Oxygen for return to orbit and rendezvous with CEV
+Long-term with better Hydrogen supplies, a more refined LSAM varient would return to the surface plus ferry cargo to the surface from orbit
=An efficient, affordable, sensible, and scaleable way to explore the Moon
That does seem reasonable. Plus--the tankage of expendable landers would hold propellant to be manufactured there, and would serve as a solid base for any inflatable structures that could be placed atop the descent stage once the ascent stage has departed.
Offline
Like button can go here
Say thats a good idea, using the decent stage tankage for the ISRU "tank farm," that would save a CaLV load worth of cargo for an ISRU plant.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
I also want to see the stump of Apollo 11's descent stage as a dais for all three of the first men to the moon--three statues in Bronze, not just of Buzz and Neil.
Offline
Like button can go here
Here's a reiteration of my refined RLSAM idea, using the CEV as a tanker:
I noted several problems related to the concept of a Reuseable LSAM (or RLSAM)vehicle that brought this idea to me:
1) Refueling - even if LOX is developed there's still the need for either H2 or CH4 and we can't bet exclusively on lunar water ice nor utilize it in the short-term.
2) Tanker Vehicles - even if the RLSAM is reuseable, the architecture needed for a tanker (particularly if it is expendable) undermines the merits of a RLSAM and overcomplicates the project.
3) Servicing issues. Roughly a quarter of a million miles makes fixing the Hubble in LEO look like trip to a car wash.
Now why use the CEV? Or how as a refueling vehicle?
First off its already designed to rendevous with the LSAM. Its only lacking point is it is dependent on the LSAM and EDS (Earth Departure Stage) to reach the moon. It can (or ought to be able to) carry cryogenic fuel. Thirdly it itself is a manned vehicle - if servicing is thought to be required a short spacewalk ala Hubble is possible...especially since the LSAM has an airlock for egress even if the CEV doesn't. As for the worries over a fuel-line next to an airlock, well the Progress ALSO carries fuel and yet it too sports an airlock for astronauts to reach their goodies...
Now here's my senerio:
The RLSAM would be single stage - a one-piece vehicle. Larger fuel tanks to carry the total fuel volume for descent and ascent but the fuel required would be little different than for the two-stage LSAM. The need for only one set of engines would offset any mass difference. Keep in mind the RLSAM is for a crewed vehicle - a cargo LSAM would land on the moon but I doubt there's any need for one to take off again.
The CEV/tanker, which I'll call CEV2, would have the same command module, same dimensions although future variants (such as for Mars) could be scaled up. Its service module would be modified however to carry the fuel required for the RLSAM - just the fuel not the oxidider; that portion would be lunar-generated. A CEV2 would be launched via the Ares-V as well (it has been mentioned in numerous reports that the Ares-V WILL be considered as an optional manned vehicle so this is not unreasonable). It'd take the place of the LSAM atop the EDS. The rendevous would occur exclusively in Lunar Orbit instead of LEO.
Here's the launch plan itself:
1) An RLSAM is brought up in a more or less normal VSE flight plan. Instead of being disposed it instead remains in Lunar Orbit with a load of LOX sufficent for a Lunar Descent.
2) A CEV2 is launched carrying sufficent fuel & LOX for itself and also fuel for a complete RLSAM ascent/descent.
3) The CEV2 and RLSAM rendevous in lunar orbit. Once docked if deemed nessicary a space walk is done. A small fueline would perform the fuel transfer to the RLSAM.
4) The RLSAM uncouples and lands, performing the required mission. It refuels its LOX fully while on surface.
5) The RLSAM ascends, using up its remaining fuel to enter Lunar Orbit and rendevous w/ CEV2 but retains sufficent LOX for a future descent.
6) The CEV2 undocks and returns to Earth while the RLSAM awaits its next flight.
It involves modifying both the CEV and LSAM but, especially if you want a Mars mission or a more advanced lunar one, modifications like this would be nessicary, and for the most part all that is physically modified are the fuel tanks.
Offline
Like button can go here
edit: this is from another thread..
A reuseable lander that doesn't have access to Lunar LOX makes no sense.
You are right.. reuseable lander doesn't make any sense without lunar material utilisation.. but with it.. it changes everything. But to really make everything reusable you would need two diferent LARGE spaceships:
- Lunar lander. It would be basicly large tanks, rockets, legs and place (at the top) where you could put container. It would be big enough to go to LLO pick up container (25 - 100 MT) and land back at moon base (at north pole). If it did this pickup it would launch without container (so it has enough propelant to return with cargo), otherwise it would launch with a crew module to enable docking and trasfer to tug.
- Tug. This would be similar to lunar lander, but it would have no legs. It would have large and strong solar panels and would be strongly built with good insulation. This large panels would provide enough energy to reliquify any cryogenic boiloff (to keep losses at the minimum) and also provide enough area to aerobrake (slowly over a month or soo)..
Ok, how would this make a difference. Let's say you put 100 MT container to LEO (or 25 or whatever). You come with full tug, pick up this container, do TEI and brake to LLO. There you meet up with lander, move this container to lander. Container would be delivered to lunar surface, Tug would sit empty in LLO. You would remove container from lander, refill with propelant (or just use another one - you have more than one), launch to LLO, transfer propelant to Tug and return to lunar sufrace. The tug would do TEI and go to earth, where it would slowly aerobrake to LEO (or use propelant to tranfer to LEO fast). There it could dock with either space station, refueling station, another tug or with another container to transport somewhere. It would be almost full (because of aerobraking) and it could transfer some of this propelant to another tug/refueling station and with the rest go to moon for more..
So 100 MT that Ares puts into LEO is 100 MT that gets delivered to moon. Better yet, you don't have to send propelant from earth for any deep space mission. You can put empty space ship to LEO, refill with propelant from one tug, use another to give it TEI (the tug itself will aerobrake back to LEO) and off you go to Mars or NEA or anywhere else.. you could even use more than one tug, so you could multistage.. you could even send tugs to NEA, pick up water, metals, anything you need and return to LEO with aerobrake.. once in LEO it could be inspected, fixed, upgraded,..
Maximizing it makes all the difference between repeating Apollo, and actually getting things done.
This NASA program IS repeating Apollo. It will cost 500$ everytime you will need to change crews on moon. How long do you thing this will last.. Apollo went to 17..
It will take more to develop, but once you build and launch few tugs, few landers, few fuel factories (one on moon, one on LEO, one on phobos, few on asteroids, one on...).. then the cost of crew exchange drops to cost of one CEV (that would transfer to human container abord tug), soyuz or kliper.. that's few tens of milions $.. and for the rest.. what you couldn't make in space you would launch on cheapest LEO launcher.. you actualy don't even need 100 MT launcher.. you could send both lander and tug to LEO without propelant on smaller rockets, send fuel from earth in containers until everything is runing smothly.. those containers would be usefull later in a propelant depos..
1) Refueling - even if LOX is developed there's still the need for either H2 or CH4 and we can't bet exclusively on lunar water ice nor utilize it in the short-term.
In the short-term you would only put lander on the moon with containers (fuel factory, solar panels, basics).. and the lunar ice is a MUST.. so you land first at Peak of Eternal Light.. you have constant light and constant shade.. if shade has no water, then you must get hydrogen (and probably carbon) from somewhere else (which would be unfortunate).. but then again, lots of data points to presence of water..
robotic lander would really answer lots of questions..
2) Tanker Vehicles - even if the RLSAM is reuseable, the architecture needed for a tanker (particularly if it is expendable) undermines the merits of a RLSAM and overcomplicates the project.
tanker vehicle is needed anyway.. tanker is EDS with means of transferal of propelant..
3) Servicing issues. Roughly a quarter of a million miles makes fixing the Hubble in LEO look like trip to a car wash.
you would land lander on moon and you could take time to fix it.. there would be more of them, so if one would be broken others would be used untill it is fixed (or used for spares)..
Now why use the CEV?
CEV could dock with tanker/tug.. if anything goes wrong CEV would return crew to earth without problems..
The RLSAM would be single stage - a one-piece vehicle. Larger fuel tanks to carry the total fuel volume for descent and ascent but the fuel required would be little different than for the two-stage LSAM. The need for only one set of engines would offset any mass difference. Keep in mind the RLSAM is for a crewed vehicle - a cargo LSAM would land on the moon but I doubt there's any need for one to take off again.
cargo LSAM would take off loaded with propelant from moon and would either pick up more cargo or become tanker for tug.. so it would be reused after propelant production would start.. it could also come handy for "hops" around the moon..
Offline
Like button can go here