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

[Robert Clark]

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.

blog advertising link removed by Moderator

Bob Clark

Edited October 30, 2012 by Phi for All
Ad link removed

[Enthalpy]

Hi Bob!

Nice big way to do it. 5 years are a short delay, but hey, Apollo didn't have much more and it was the first time.

This scenario exposes astronauts to long transit times, a drawback.

I've put a very different scenario, nearly identical to Apollo, at SaposJoint. Far less ambitious.

[Robert Clark]

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.

This would give the SLS a definite mission and in a short time-frame, less than a decade. No longer would it be referred to as a "rocket to nowhere".

 

Bob Clark

[Dekan]

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.

This would give the SLS a definite mission and in a short time-frame, less than a decade. No longer would it be referred to as a "rocket to nowhere".

 

Bob Clark

 

We'd be doing all this, if it weren't for US Politicians.

[Robert Clark]

Hi Bob!

Nice big way to do it. 5 years are a short delay, but hey, Apollo didn't have much more and it was the first time.

This scenario exposes astronauts to long transit times, a drawback.

I've put a very different scenario, nearly identical to Apollo, at SaposJoint. Far less ambitious.

 

Thanks for that. I looked at your proposal. I couldn't find there how much it requires to LEO. The Early Lunar Access(ELA) proposal only required 52 mT, which means it can be launched by the Falcon Heavy or SLS. Note also the cryogenic stages required for the ELA's space traverse and lunar landing already exist, which cuts majorly into development time and cost.

About your launcher, it uses both new boosters and new core stage, quite expensive. But NASA does want to explore the possibility of using new liquid fueled boosters on the SLS and will be providing grant funds on this. Perhaps you could write a grant proposal for your new boosters for this advanced booster program for NASA.

 

 

Bob Clark

Edited November 6, 2012 by Robert Clark

[Enthalpy]

Thanks for that. I looked at your proposal. I couldn't find there how much it requires to LEO. The Early Lunar Access(ELA) proposal only required 52 mT, which means it can be launched by the Falcon Heavy or SLS. Note also the cryogenic stages required for the ELA's space traverse and lunar landing already exist, which cuts majorly into development time and cost.

About your launcher, it uses both new boosters and new core stage, quite expensive. But NASA does want to explore the possibility of using new liquid fueled boosters on the SLS and will be providing grant funds on this. Perhaps you could write a grant proposal for your new boosters for this advanced booster program for NASA.

 

 

Bob Clark

 

In my modernized Apollo scenario, the Leo performance is about 77t from memory. It does need new cryogenic stages but with existing and realatively cheap engines - while the SLS uses new stages with many SSME on some designs.

 

Liquid boosters for SLS: they think of it the wrong way, from the proposals I've seen. They keep the huge expensive central stage with many engines that ignite before launch and just replace the solid boosters with liquid ones at equal performance. The real gain is when you reduce the number of cryogenic engines because liquid boosters bear a bigger share of the performance, resulting in a lighter central cryogenic stage and a weaker acceleration there.

[Robert Clark]

...

Liquid boosters for SLS: they think of it the wrong way, from the proposals I've seen. They keep the huge expensive central stage with many engines that ignite before launch and just replace the solid boosters with liquid ones at equal performance. The real gain is when you reduce the number of cryogenic engines because liquid boosters bear a bigger share of the performance, resulting in a lighter central cryogenic stage and a weaker acceleration there.

 

Still, I haven't heard about that propellant you mentioned for your boosters. If they do provide better performance than the solids then you should propose their use to NASA. Remember another advantage of liquid fueled boosters is that those in the industry feel comfortable with them for manned flight since they can be turned off.

 

 

Bob Clark

[Robert 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.nasaspace...ial-lunar-base/

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.astronaut...ft/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

Quote: 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/outlook...bs-3498836.php

 

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

Edited November 20, 2012 by Robert Clark

[Robert Clark]

"Golden Spike" revealed their architecture for a commercial return to the Moon Dec. 6th:

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 here 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

Edited December 20, 2012 by Robert Clark

[Robert Clark]

NASA administrator Charles Bolden told the NRC committee on human spaceflight that an asteroid mission didn't necessarily have to be a far trip:

Bolden: Don't Have to Travel Far to Asteroid to Meet President's Goal.
Marcia S. Smith
Posted: 19-Dect-2012
http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/bolden-dont-have-to-travel-far-to-asteroid-to-meet-presidents-goal

Perhaps he was referring to the Planetary Resources, Inc. proposal to bring a small asteroid to lunar orbit. But another possibility is a mission to near Earth asteroids that can be accomplished in about a month round trip travel time. See the table of NEO's here:

Near-Earth Object Human Space Flight Accessible Targets Study (NHATS).
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/nhats

Select max delta-v <= 12 km/s, visit time => 8 days, unlimited visual magnitude, the H parameter, and unlimited orbital uncertainty, the OCC parameter. Then there are several asteroids at 26, 34, and 42 day travel times, including stay times at or above 8 days. If you subtract off that stay time to make it only a day or so then the round trip travel time will be in the range of a month or so.

This could serve as an intermediate step for BEO missions between the Apollo missions at max. 12 days and a Mars mission at 6 months one-way travel time.

Bob Clark