The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

SpaceNut · 2005-07-05 05:20:37

I do not think that I have been miss directed by thinking of using as much Mars hardware and plans for durational stays as possible to save on the later flights to mars or on there larger developement costs. Why spent the research money and developement cost twice when once will do if differences of both target uses are compared correctly in order to make the best changes as need be.

SpaceNut · 2005-07-05 11:08:15

Here we go, the Exploration Architecture Study is in!!!!

NASA's Moon Plans Shift into High Gear

NASA is set to begin rolling out the results of a landmark space exploration architecture study that calls for building an Apollo-like astronaut capsule and conducting up to six lunar sorties per year using rocket hardware derived from the space shuttle.
Sixty days in the making, the Exploration Systems Architecture Study will go a long way toward defining the approach and the hardware NASA will use to return astronauts to the Moon by 2020, and eventually go on to Mars.

Oh and he is looking to squeeze from the budget aproximate $200 to $300 million a year to have the CEV stick ready and waiting for 2010.

John Creighton · 2005-07-05 13:58:52

Many of the india rocket and lunar probe are in the space fairing nations thread. Which last I knew included an item from USA for this launch as well.
Now onto a repeat story on a force shield or the means to protect the astronauts on the lunar surface. http://www.newscientistspace.com/articl … tion.html] Force fields may shield astronauts from radiation
So far astronauts have avoided radiation damage through a combination of luck and design. The Earth's radiation belts shield the International Space Station and the shuttle. And fortunately no powerful solar flares erupted when the Apollo astronauts made their brief visits to the Moon three decades ago.
Not so lucky with launching though.
The design involves an array of separate spheres with either positive or negative charges, which could be arranged to bend charged particles away from a lunar base.
Several spheres charged to -50 megavolts could surround others charged to +150 megavolts to form a canopy that could protect a lunar base from overhead radiation.
What a bug zapper, ouch!!!

I like the idea. I agree that the there should be a dug in part of the lunar base but I don’t see why the active system can’t be reliable enough in it’s own right. How many power failures have there been in space anyway? How much will solar flairs really effect the power systems. Don’t they have more an effect on microelectronics then they do on wires and vacuum tubes. Surely we can build a system that won’t fail in the event of a solar flair and the internal electronics of the system will have the protection of the shield. I also think an active system could be made safe for a ride to mars.

Commodore · 2005-07-05 21:29:36

Nevertheless, NASA gave a small group of outside experts an update on the Exploration Systems Architecture Study the week of June 27 and, according to a Washington-based source who had been briefed in turn, laid out a lunar exploration architecture that includes as many as six flights a year to the Moon.

Thats quite busy. In just a few short years we can cover enough sites to get a good idea of the resources at hand. But if we go much longer than that people will get bored.

On a side note, I hope they can get the manufactures to man rate the CEV on their EELVs. If an issue arises, or crashes to Earth, on the SRBs the whole shabang grinds to a halt.

According to this source, key elements of the lunar exploration architecture are coming into focus. For example:
* The CEV would be a reusable capsule capable of carrying four passengers to the Moon.

I'm glad its a reusable capsule, but thats about half as many seats as there should be.

* NASA would use a three-person version of the CEV capsule to ferry astronauts to and from the international space station three times a year.

He He He. Their planning on forcing the Russians to launch Soyuzs as well to keep the thing fully manned. Clever. I wonder what their going to put in place of the fourth seat.

* An unmanned version of the CEV would be used as a cargo carrier, conducting three space station resupply missions a year.

So that makes 12 SRB launches per year. Busy Busy Busy.

* Both the CEV launcher and the heavy-lifter would be shuttle-derived and cost about $3 billion a year once in service.

Are we launching a HLV for every lunar mission? Unless each lander is going to serve as a "mini-base" after the CEV takes off the first time, and use a rover or smaller reusable lander for follow up missions, thats a waste of tremendous and program threating proportions.

* The CEV would launch atop a single solid-rocket booster whose design is virtually the same as those that help lift the space shuttle off the launch pad.

Anyone know what tonnage the SRB can handle by itself?

* The heavy-lift vehicle initially would be sized to lift 100 metric tons into orbit for Moon missions but could evolve to loft 120 metric tons for Mars missions.

My only consern is that the inline option will limit the length of things we can launch. We will already have a second stage made of SSMEs, theres no good reason why we can have the option of the Shuttle-C configuration for cargo with more length than weight.

Overall, I think that if were not careful we'll end up with Apollo 18. And that won't get and retain the public attention we need. And if we throw away our transit stage, landers, ect well never have the money or the time to launch larger permenent base modules and ISTU equipment.

John Creighton · 2005-07-05 21:52:34

Well, here is the quote.

Griffin said that all things considered, shuttle-derived hardware looks like the best choice for the heavy-lift cargo missions and for the CEV.
“[T]here would be a bunch of changes that would have to be put into the EELV to human rate it, and I don’t know that that’s the most fiscally sound path for NASA to go down. And frankly, I don’t know that the EELV community would welcome us getting into their production lines in order to make those kinds of modifications,” Griffin said. “So all that would have to be thought through very carefully. Right now the path we think is the most favorable is the shuttle-derived, in part because that gives us the best work force transition issues.”
Griffin said using shuttle-derived launchers would help NASA retain the work force it needs to keep flying the space shuttle safely until the last orbiter in the fleet is retired at the end of the decade.

It looks like there is some coordination with the air force and it doesn’t mean NASA won’t use the EELV at all.

A Joint Recommendation
The U.S. Space Transportation Policy released by the White House in January requires NASA and the Pentagon to reach a joint recommendation on the nation’s next heavy-lift launcher and leaves it to the president to decide. The policy also directs NASA to give preference to a solution based on EELV hardware to help the Air Force defray the costs of supporting the program.
Griffin said June 27 that he had yet to meet with U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld but did meet recently with Air Force Gen. Lance Lord, commander of Air Force Space Command, to discuss NASA’s case for building shuttle-derived launchers. Griffin said Lord agreed that a shuttle-derived vehicle “was the obvious path” for NASA’s exploration needs.
But that does not necessarily mean the Air Force won’t be getting any NASA help in shouldering the EELV burden: Griffin said he told Lord that NASA would be willing to switch to the medium-lift variants of the EELVs to loft its science spacecraft “provided that there is not an undue financial penalty for NASA.”

I’m not sure what is required to man rate the delta and make it ready for the EELV but I think that what they are trying to do is preserve the capabilities they have and not incur to much of a cost for any use of the EELV. If Boeing absorbs some of the costs for the modifications perhaps NASA will have two capable vehicles able to take people to the moon. I’m glad to see the ball is rolling. I am concerned the shuttle hardware is outdated given it’s low level of automation and the extensive amount of labor required to get it ready for flight. What I see is a balancing of risks. Perhaps shuttle derived is not the best option but it gives NASA and the military if they want it short term heavy lift capability and the door is not completely closed on EELV. I can see better EELV developed for the military and used by NASA since it is there.

Commodore · 2005-07-05 22:00:09

I thought the Prometheus class probes were already out of reach of the EELVs.

And that the regular Delta 4s like the one used for Deep impact were EELVs.

John Creighton · 2005-07-05 22:12:30

I thought the Prometheus class probes were already out of reach of the EELVs.
And that the regular Delta 4s like the one used for Deep impact were EELVs.

Well a Prometheus class probe is outside the range of current EELV’s but I understand that the DELTA could be upgraded to 40-50 MT to LEO without too many modifications. I am not sure how many MT a Prometheus class probe needs but I think that should be sufficient. I am also not sure how many upgrades will be done to the Delta if NASA goes shuttle derived. But it is not impossible that we won’t see the EELV upgraded to this lift class it is just NASA isn’t going to bare the majority of the cost. Either Boeing is going to have to find a way to do the modifications really cheap or boeing and the military are going to have to absorb the majority of the cost or the delta won’t be upgraded to this lift class.

SpaceNut · 2005-07-06 09:42:56

House Science panel gives nod to Bush space agenda

Under the bill, House lawmakers endorsed Bush's initiative to return Americans to the moon by 2020 with a space launch as close to 2010 as possible. It also directs NASA to retire the Space Shuttle at the end of 2010.

Say it's not so, another 5 years of delay before we have activity on the moon.

To control costs for major space programs, the committee required NASA to report to Congress annually on initiatives with a price tag greater than $100 million. The measure also included provisions directing the Office of Science and Technology Policy to conduct a study on duplicate research and technology programs across the federal government.

Well that we be a first in cost control.

SpaceNut · 2005-07-12 05:39:56

Abandoned Spaceships For the first time since the 1970s, a NASA spacecraft will get clear pictures of Apollo relics on the Moon.

Link has details of apollo landing and why we need Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter camera images for the future.

SpaceNut · 2005-08-01 13:24:54

Well it would appear that the 60 or 90 day mission report for moon mars archuetic has been leaked.
NASA outlines plans for moon and Mars 36 years after Apollo 11, the agency proposes new spacecraft and a lunar base to prepare for the next giant leap -- to the Red Planet.

It would seem that SDV has won out rather than clean slate.

SpaceNut · 2005-08-18 20:26:57

With any plan there needs to be the step of site selection. Local students participate in Moon mapping project

three local students, who are using Geographic Information Science to construct a detailed map of the polar regions of the moon, where human outposts are expected to be built in 2020 and beyond. The three have started networking with science experts to build the lunar database LunarGIS.com. The Web site, which give the public access to the beta moon maps, should be available in several months.

Article goes into more detailto which maps from which probes are being uso create these new maps.

Grypd · 2005-08-28 16:12:17

BBC article on making a lunar base

This is a BBC article on NASA's plans for a lunar base and what the private sector space advocates say.

SpaceNut · 2005-08-28 20:13:24

Saw this and had the impresion that nasa wanted to go for it right by the discovery exploration mode to full blown construction of a base. Financially of which Nasa can ill afford.

Get a load out of who thinks they can own the moon.

WHO OWNS THE MOON?
Its surface has 9bn acres Lunar Embassy has sold nearly £5m worth of plots, with 3.4m owners worldwide.
The company claims owners include Carrie Fisher, William Shatner, the Pope, George W Bush and 30 Nasa employees

SpaceNut · 2005-08-31 12:09:40

Now back to precuser missions and the use of robotics to forge the way for manned missions.
Space Penguin could hop around moon to explore

A robotic Lunar Penguin explorer could be hopping around on the moon by 2009, maker Raytheon Co. said today as it unveiled the concept lander at an aerospace conference.
The unmanned lunar device, in development for two years, is 3 feet tall and weighs approximately 230 pounds. It "hops" by reigniting small propulsion engines

Seemed interesting so a little search later yielded another link:

'Hopping Penguin' lunar lander may give Raytheon new space role

Appears to be broughing from ongoing technologies...

Grypd · 2005-08-31 17:25:49

Seen it myself and a very intresting concept. Some problems though with the prototype in that it relies on GPS for navigation and of course there is the possibility of rough landings/flights. But still a very interesting concept and I wonder what it would take to make a mineral survey version

publiusr · 2005-09-01 13:12:41

Just another way to undercut LV development with more toys.

In belongs in file 13.

Grypd · 2005-09-01 17:03:17

Just another way to undercut LV development with more toys.
In belongs in file 13.

Sorry publiusr but I cannot agree with you at all the "penguin" as a series of probes and the idea behind them are an excellent idea. When we go back to the Moon one of the most important things that needs to be done is to find specific minerals and there locations. Ilmenite a lunar mineral is important to us as it will provide not only building materials but also air in which to breathe and to expand our habitation.

But if we also are looking for PGMs then we need to be able to get a lot of essentially poorly mapped lunar surface ( + or - 50km) covered and quickly explored. This will give us the best places to look for what the signs of the minerals we want are located. The most impressively travelled probes ever on a planetary surface where the Lunkhod series of the USSRs they travelled about 17km and 21km respectively though they did not have the science potential that the Mars rovers now have. Penguin class of robotic rovers would give the opportunity to map, explore and locate good sites for further exploration quickly.

So is it a toy, NO is it deserving of file 13, NO. What it actually does is improve and enhance the future missions to the Moon.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-02 06:57:11

Light rovers and hoppers might be a little bit handy for advance reconesance, but the question must be asked, how efficent would they be versus a human team with a rover? Given all the robot-worship associated with the Mars rovers, it is difficult for many people to accept that all the work one of them has accomplished in a year could have been accomplished by an astronaut in a golf cart in a week. Maybe even a single day. Humans are so much more efficent then robots: if you have an area narrowed down where you think useful deposits are located as detected from orbit, then if it is not far from the base you would naturally send a crew.

And if you are interested in mining, then you wouldn't be interested in deposits too far from said base, would you?

SpaceNut · 2005-09-02 11:50:03

Another article: Robotic ‘Penguin’ could hop on moon Raytheon wants NASA to use probe in 2009 lunar mission

050830_penguin_vmed_9p.widec.jpg

Quite a bit different looking model...

The unmanned lunar device, in development for two years, is 3 feet (1 meter) tall and weighs approximately 230 pounds (105 kilograms).
It “hops” by reigniting small propulsion engines.
The Penguin, unveiled at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Space 2005 Conference, can make a single jump of about six-tenths of a mile (1 kilometer) and could be adapted to make additional jumps, possibly over greater distances.

Grypd looking at the model, are the legs equiped with a spring to allow it to bounce like a pogo stick?

Grypd · 2005-09-02 15:38:17

They could well be springs to absorb shocks on landing.

Another option is that they are a mechanical means to give a guick leap before the main thrust happens so evading damage from dust blasted up by the rocket. If they are such a mechanical means then they could also be for a limited short range movement basically an ability to hop to interesting features instead of having to carry a drive train and wheels.

And they could be both. But it really is a bad picture and does not give too much away pity. On a side note I did a bit of work on a plan for a robot that would hop using small explosions of hydrocarbons. Called it the flea and I worked it out that it would have a decent speed when fully going. Just couldnt really work out a way for it to stop.

TwinBeam · 2005-09-03 11:54:07

Given all the robot-worship associated with the Mars rovers, it is difficult for many people to accept that all the work one of them has accomplished in a year could have been accomplished by an astronaut in a golf cart in a week. Maybe even a single day. Humans are so much more efficent then robots

Efficiency is not the same thing as "speed". Usually efficiency means something like "accomplishments for a given cost". Humans would only be "much more efficient" than current robotic explorers, IF a human mission were anywhere near as cheap as a robotic mission.

"Robot worshippers" is just a biasing epithet for people who want to get good science done without waiting for the nation to summon the will to pay for a manned Mars mission. And who've seen dozens of successful robotic missions greatly expand our knowledge of the solar system, implemented for a few billion dollars, while various manned programs have blown hundreds of billions of dollars with few real results since Apollo.

Furthermore, robotic missions continuously improve in terms of efficiency. It's virtually certain that by the time we can get a human mission to Mars put together, we can have robotic rovers that can get around as fast as than humans on normal terrain, and on more complex tasks probably no more than 10x slower than humans. The net speed advantage of humans will likely have shrunk to about 5x, vs maybe 50x today. Given that manned missions will still likely cost at least 100x what a robotic mission costs, efficiency is going to become an increasingly weak argument for human exploration of space.

The real arguments for human science missions appear to be: getting more science done sooner, having more flexibility to adapt a mission to local conditions and new knowledge, and the prestige and excitement it gives the rest of us.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-03 22:13:03

No, it is not unfair to chastise people who think that robots are capable of equaling humans on a per-dollar basis for surface planetary exploration, because they simply aren't and are never going to be.

Robotic missions will continue to improve in every way, except one: no matter how high a resolution of camera, or how agile they are, or dexterous the robot arms, they are always bound by the speed limit of light. Artifical intelligence is never going to be "ready" for space exploration in our lifetimes at this rate, so whatever the robots do, it must be done by remote control from Earth.

And that is why you will get diminishing returns with each bigger and better robot, and why astronauts in a suit will always win, because humans don't have to wait for commands from Earth. You aren't ever going to have a "fast" robot except when transiting over pretty smooth terrain, and just about everything else it does will have that 10-20min+ one-way lag on Mars, and far worse in the outter solar system.

If all you want is a little tiny itty bitty bit of science, then robots make sense, but if you want real exploration and not "see the world through a keyhole" type things, you have got to send a man.

Grypd · 2005-09-07 14:50:08

SMART 1 has found a zone of perpetual light

This region measuring a few kilometres across appears to recieve perpetual sunlight making it an incredibly valuable area for an initial base. Especially with areas we believe to be perpetually dark in near proximity and indications of hydrogen deposits.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-08 10:28:05

Perpetual zones are a must for the solar energy power systems but also total darkness may mean ice.
The plans all start with the LRO, Lunar Exploration Analysis Group (LEAG)

Capabilities for the LRO
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC)

SpaceNut · 2005-09-08 19:15:54

More on why LRO is important to pave the return to real space.
How much radiation awaits lunar Colonists? A new NASA mission aims to find out

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2005-07-05 05:20:37

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#77 2005-07-05 11:08:15

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#78 2005-07-05 13:58:52

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#79 2005-07-05 21:29:36

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#80 2005-07-05 21:52:34

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#81 2005-07-05 22:00:09

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#82 2005-07-05 22:12:30

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#83 2005-07-06 09:42:56

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#84 2005-07-12 05:39:56

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#85 2005-08-01 13:24:54

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#86 2005-08-18 20:26:57

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#87 2005-08-28 16:12:17

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#88 2005-08-28 20:13:24

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#89 2005-08-31 12:09:40

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#90 2005-08-31 17:25:49

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#91 2005-09-01 13:12:41

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#92 2005-09-01 17:03:17

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#93 2005-09-02 06:57:11

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#94 2005-09-02 11:50:03

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#95 2005-09-02 15:38:17

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#96 2005-09-03 11:54:07

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#97 2005-09-03 22:13:03

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#98 2005-09-07 14:50:08

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#99 2005-09-08 10:28:05

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#100 2005-09-08 19:15:54

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

Board footer

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.