A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

E

Exoscientist

Mathematician
Registered Senior Member
Argues the SLS as early as 2017 can be used to launch manned lunar lander missions:

SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/10/sls-for-return-to-moon-by-50th.html

The argument for why this is doable is rather simple. The Early Lunar Access(ELA) proposal of the early 90's, which deserves to be better known actually, suggested that by using a lightweight 2-man capsule and all cryogenic in-space stages that a manned lunar lander mission could be mounted with only 52 mT required to LEO, half that previously thought necessary.
The only technical complaint about its feasibility was that it required a crew capsule of only 3 mT empty weight. But the kicker is NASA is planning a Space Exploration Vehicle(SEV) at that same low 3 mT empty weight. So the SLS at a 70 mT payload capability will be able to launch such a mission using the SEV as crew capsule following the ELA architecture with plenty of margin.


Bob Clark
 
It's still an expensive project and the risks are not negligible. We'd have to make a case that the rewards would be worth the cost and the risk. What are the rewards?
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
It's still an expensive project and the risks are not negligible. We'd have to make a case that the rewards would be worth the cost and the risk. What are the rewards?
Click to expand...

Opponents of the SLS have argued we can accomplish the same objectives using smaller expendables and orbiting propellant depots. However, such in space propellant depots would be cheaper if the propellant could be obtained from the Moon since you would not need to haul it out of the Earth's deep gravity well.
In my blog post I acknowledge that such manned lunar lander missions could be accomplished more cheaply by using the Falcon Heavy. But NASA is not likely to fund that since it would undercut its own BEO(beyond low Earth orbit) missions. This would also be something NASA could fund and it would give impetus to continue the funding of the SLS since a manned return to the Moon is something widely desired by supporters of space exploration. We would then have a definite mission for the SLS and in a short time frame, less than a decade. No longer would the SLS be derided as a "rocket to nowhere".


Bob Clark
 
Just saw this:

Exploration Alternatives: From Propellant Depots to Commercial Lunar Base.
November 15th, 2012 by Chris Bergin
NASA managers have since created an option for a return, listed as a Lunar Surface Sortie (LSS) mission via the Exploration Systems Development Division (ESD) Concept Of Operations (Con Ops) document (L2), allowing it to become a Design Reference Mission (DRM) alternative, potentially at the expense of a NEA mission in the early to mid 2020s.
While this option remains on the cards, source information acquired by L2 this week revealed plans for a “game-changing” announcement as early as December that a new commercial space company intends to send commercial astronauts to the moon by 2020.
According to the information, the effort is led by a group of high profile individuals from the aerospace industry and backed by some big money and foreign investors. The company intends to use “existing or soon to be existing launch vehicles, spacecraft, upper stages, and technologies” to start their commercial manned lunar campaign.
The details point to the specific use of US vehicles, with a basic architecture to utilize multiple launches to assemble spacecraft in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). The details make direct reference to the potential use of propellant depots and fuel transfer technology.
Additional notes include a plan to park elements in lunar orbit, staging a small lunar lander that would transport two commercial astronauts to the surface for short stays.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012...ives-propellant-depots-commercial-lunar-base/
Click to expand...


I first thought the commercial plan was going to follow the Early Lunar Access (ELA) proposal because it mentioned landing two commercial passengers on the Moon. ELA was a lightweight architecture that used a small two-man capsule:

Encyclopedia Astronautica.
Early Lunar Access.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm

But it is unlikely in the commercial plan they mean the passengers are to fly alone without one or more professional pilots. And also the article mentions the commercial plan is to use on orbit assembly. But by using the Falcon Heavy or the SLS you could launch the ELA architecture with a single launch.

Still, using two launches of the Delta IV Heavy both at its maximum payload to orbit of 25 mT we could launch the ELA architecture. Even if the Delta IV Heavy is not man rated, we could use separate launchers to take the astronauts to orbit and transfer them to the Moon vehicle after it is assembled.

For the NASA proposal, the article mentions the Lunar Surface Sortie (LSS) proposal. But this was still to use a 4 man capsule, which likely means the large, heavy Orion. It also would involve a separate lunar crew module, also at variance with the lightweight ELA architecture.

This lunar lander of the LSS proposal would then likely be akin to the large, expensive Altair lunar lander. So this proposal would be similar to the Constellation program whose high expense caused it to be cancelled. Better would be if NASA went small following the ELA architecture to use a single, small capsule that would carry the astronauts all the way from LEO to the lunar surface and back again. This would allow a NASA return to the Moon with a proportionally small additional cost above that of the SLS itself, and in less than a decade.

These commercial or NASA missions, if carried through, would allow a return to the Moon by the 50th anniversary of the Apollo missions if not of Apollo 11 itself.


Bob Clark
 
Just saw this article by legendary Apollo manager Chris Kraft mentioned on the NasaSpaceFlight.com forum:

Space Launch System is a threat to JSC, Texas jobs.
By Chris Kraft and Tom Moser | April 20, 2012 | Updated: April 20, 2012 8:20pm
We are wasting billions of dollars per year on SLS. There are cheaper and nearer term approaches for human space exploration that use existing launch vehicles. A multicenter NASA team has completed a study on how we can return humans to the surface of the moon in the next decade with existing launch vehicles and within the existing budget. This NASA plan, which NASA leadership is trying to hide, would save JSC and create thousands of jobs in Texas.
http://www.chron.com/opinion/outloo...tem-is-a-threat-to-JSC-Texas-jobs-3498836.php
Click to expand...

Since Kraft is opposed to the SLS and he says this plan uses existing launch vehicles, it can't use the SLS or the Falcon Heavy. It must then use something similar to the 'Early Lunar Access' plan that uses orbital assembly, perhaps using two launches of the Delta IV Heavy.
Like the suppressed report that suggested orbiting propellant depots could accomplish the goals of the SLS at lower cost, this report will eventually also come out. So whose got the inside scoop?


Bob Clark
 
youreyes said:
it is not going to happen by 2017.
Click to expand...

agree

Every time I see one of this threads I fill with anger at how we squander manned space exploration (and colonization), I bet you if humans ever do colonize the star their ancestral language of what ever they speak then will be mandarin, not English, and its the sever incompetence of American politicians to blame for that, not technological or scientific hurled just pure human near sightedness.
 
This article by Amy Shira Teitel about the Chris Kraft piece discusses and links to a NASA report showing propellant depots can allow BEO missions without the SLS, saving billions:

EX-FLIGHT DIRECTOR URGES NASA TO KILL NEXT ROCKET SYSTEM.
Analysis by Amy Shira Teitel
Wed Apr 25, 2012 01:00 PM ET
http://news.discovery.com/space/mercury-flight-director-urges-nasa-to-kill-sls-120425.html

So it's probably the report referred to by Chris Kraft:

"Propellant Depot Requirements Study Status Report"
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/21.jul2011.vxs.pdf

The report discusses several scenarios for lunar, asteroidal, or Mars missions without using heavy lift vehicles by using propellant depots. It does discuss use of the Falcon Heavy in some scenarios, but others use the Delta IV Heavy. About this last, it's interesting they give the max payload of the Delta IV Heavy as 28 mT. But the highest I ever read it having was 25 mT. Anyone know what modifications to the Delta IV Heavy would allow it to have this high a payload capability?
A disadvantage of the approaches discussed however is the large number of launches required even for the lunar missions, 6 for the Falcon Heavy and 10 for the Delta IV Heavy. This is because the scenarios use the large, heavy Orion capsule, the service module, and a separate, large lunar lander, likely akin to the Altair lunar lander.
On the other hand if instead the Early Lunar Access (ELA) architecture were used it could be done with a single launch of the Falcon Heavy or two with the Delta IV Heavy:

Encyclopedia Astronautica.
Early Lunar Access.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm


Bob Clark
 
Exoscientist said:
Proposes using the unmanned test flights of the Falcon Heavy to test low cost BEO missions to the lunar surface, near Earth asteroids, and the Lagrange points:

SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon, page 3: Falcon Heavy for BEO test flights.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/spacex-dragon-spacecraft-for-low-cost.html

Bob Clark
Click to expand...

bro Bobby chill, Dragon got it going to LEO for ISS and you already setting them for the moon insertion orbit, get real it takes much more advances and time for that thing to be retrofitted right w/ ACS and etc. Neither GTO or translunar trajectories been tested with Falcon Heavy, that niche has been filled by current heavy rocket launchers; Atlas V (LRO for NASA), Delta II (Grail for NASA), H-IIA (Kaguya for Jaxa), Long March 3C (Change for CNSA) PSLV-XL (Chandrayan for ISRO).

and whoever opposes SLS is going against space expansion plans.
 
ElectricFetus said:
agree

Every time I see one of this threads I fill with anger at how we squander manned space exploration (and colonization), I bet you if humans ever do colonize the star their ancestral language of what ever they speak then will be mandarin, not English, and its the sever incompetence of American politicians to blame for that, not technological or scientific hurled just pure human near sightedness.
Click to expand...
i agree 100%
we hurled enough tonnage at the moon with apollo to support a small moonbase.
granted that some of the equipment wouldn't survive the landings but some would.
the astronauts could live comfortably inside the S-4B stage while other launches provided other raw material.
 
leopold said:
i agree 100%
we hurled enough tonnage at the moon with apollo to support a small moonbase.
granted that some of the equipment wouldn't survive the landings but some would.
the astronauts could live comfortably inside the S-4B stage while other launches provided other raw material.
Click to expand...

You are proposing autonomy with a human mission to the moon, that has not been tested at such distances and includes too high of a risk of failure when it comes with human lives at stake. The various autonomous missions intertwined with human operations in space recently have all been with ISS, mainly; Dragon (SpaceX), ATV (ESA), HTV (Jaxa), Progress (RKA). And all of those mission are Earth ground controlled from MOC in case of mishaps.
 
it was "tested" well enough for apollo 11.
it's all hindsight anyway.
it's easy to analyze the situation from a distance of 50 years.
in my opinion apollo 8 posed more of a risk than all of the other flights together.
the fact remains that we could have landed an excess of 350 tons on the moon and that is excluding the spent stages.
 
leopold said:
it was "tested" well enough for apollo 11.
it's all hindsight anyway.
it's easy to analyze the situation from a distance of 50 years.
in my opinion apollo 8 posed more of a risk than all of the other flights together.
the fact remains that we could have landed an excess of 350 tons on the moon and that is excluding the spent stages.
Click to expand...

the money invested into Apollo program was a net $19,408,134,000 <- 150 billion dollars in today's money
Who is willing nowdays to cash out 150 billion dollars, exactly? Get real, technology for the moon needs efficiency and redundancy, so all that was good than back 50 years ago isn't worth a cent now.
 
youreyes said:
the money invested into Apollo program was a net $19,408,134,000 <- 150 billion dollars in today's money
Who is willing nowdays to cash out 150 billion dollars, exactly?
Click to expand...
apollo basically wrote the book on launch vehicles, along with the redstone and agena.
much of that money went into research, design and development.
some of this money could have been saved if the vehicle was unmanned.
plus we could have soft landed at least 70 tons of material, food, gas, air.
interesting subject really.
 
"Golden Spike" revealed their architecture for a commercial return to the Moon this week:

How Golden Spike's Moon Landing Plan Works (Infographic )
http://www.space.com/18805-golden-spike-private-moon-landing-graphic.html

They estimated development costs in the $7 to $8 billion dollar range, less than 1/10 the cost of the Apollo or Constellation programs. However, even these numbers may be over inflated. The origin of the presented cost numbers were from NASA guys using NASA costing models. However, SpaceX has shown by following a commercial approach development costs can be cut by 1/5th to 1/10th that of NASA’s.

So what I think Golden Spike should do is bring SpaceX on board. With the development costs reduced to this extent, then we would have the really exciting possibility of the flight costs being brought down perhaps to the $200 million range, especially if using the Falcon Heavy launcher. This clearly would have a major impact on the prospect of profitability.

The only problem might be is that Elon appears to have no interest in the Moon, being focused on Mars as the ultimate goal. However the profitability motive may sway him. There is also the fact that these missions could serve to prove the capabilities of the Dragon even for BEO missions. It could also serve to prove the value of the Falcon Heavy for launching large payload at low cost, something Elon definitely wants for getting Air Force contracts.

As I discussed previously the importance of what SpaceX has accomplished is that it will make clear that manned space flight can be accomplished at a fraction of what was thought necessary, thus making manned space flight routine world-wide. Combining this with small, low cost approaches to BEO flight, suggests such missions can also happen on a regular basis.

We are returning to the Moon, this time to stay.

Bob Clark
 
This Thread reminds me of a delightful commercial. Following is a paraphrase, not an exact quote.
For thousands of years there were those who believed that the moon was made of cheese. Billions were spent on putting men on the moon & it was discovered that there was no cheese there.

There have been no further attempts to put men on the moon.
Click to expand...
 
I've always considered it interesting that it was so easy in the sixties and seventies to put men on moon, but it's so hard ans complex now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top