NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SLS / Orion / Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation => Missions To The Moon (HSF) => Topic started by: redliox on 11/04/2015 08:01 pm

Title: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: redliox on 11/04/2015 08:01 pm
There's bound to be some inevitable shakeups once a new US president takes office, and likely with it a new NASA administration and directive.  In addition, especially from the international conference recently held in Israel, the other nations of the world almost unanimously agree the Moon is a sensible, prime target with only NASA holding out.  There's a chance the combination may coax NASA onto a Lunar path.

Which option seems the most likely for NASA to adopt post-2016 onward?
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: eric z on 11/04/2015 08:56 pm
 ALL of the above but #one!
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Burninate on 11/04/2015 08:58 pm
I would venture that a high proportion of people reading the _Missions to the Moon_ section think we should mount missions to the Moon.

That doesn't say much.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: NovaSilisko on 11/04/2015 09:07 pm
Depends if we can drop the silly "been there done that" mentality...
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: JasonAW3 on 11/04/2015 09:23 pm
Can't agree with the choices given.

     I think we should go back to the Moon and use it as a testing ground for the equipment that we'll need on Mars.  After properly working out the issues from that same equipment, then go on to Mars.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/04/2015 09:37 pm
I think we should go back to the Moon and use it as a testing ground for the equipment that we'll need on Mars.

The challenge though is that the environment "on the Moon" is significantly different than the environment "on Mars".

Quote
After properly working out the issues from that same equipment, then go on to Mars.

Certainly there would be some commonality, but that would likely also be common with 0-G environments.

I chose "Go to Mars but on a new plan", which to me could be an international one, and certainly one that has private partnerships - and the current NASA plan for Mars has neither.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: whitelancer64 on 11/04/2015 09:39 pm
Can't agree with the choices given.

     I think we should go back to the Moon and use it as a testing ground for the equipment that we'll need on Mars.  After properly working out the issues from that same equipment, then go on to Mars.

The problem with that idea, is that the stuff you need to go to the Moon is nearly all different from the stuff you need to go to Mars.

The environments are very different. Radiation exposure levels and gravity are different. Methods required for landing on the surface are very different. Heating / cooling loads, and how you get rid heat or stay warm are different. Available materials for ISRU are different. and so on.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: savuporo on 11/04/2015 09:42 pm
The problem with that idea, is that the stuff you need to go to the Moon is nearly all different from the stuff you need to go to Mars.
Actually the stuff you need to go to Mars is exactly the same stuff you need to go to the Moon. Competent people, well funded organizations, healthy industrial base. Oh, and leadership. Heaps and buckets of it.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: whitelancer64 on 11/04/2015 09:48 pm
The problem with that idea, is that the stuff you need to go to the Moon is nearly all different from the stuff you need to go to Mars.
Actually the stuff you need to go to Mars is exactly the same stuff you need to go to the Moon. Competent people, well funded organizations, healthy industrial base. Oh, and leadership. Heaps and buckets of it.

I did say "nearly all" lol

The people are the same, or can be the same, as you say. But the technology required to get to and survive at either destination is going to be different.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: nadreck on 11/04/2015 10:19 pm
I don't think the choices cover the range of answers I might give to this.

I don't want to think just NASA, I don't want to think just the moon or just Mars or just asteroids or just orbital stations. However, I do think of lunar resources and exploration, I do think of a rotating space station in LEO as well as a fuel depot/assembly point for BLEO missions, an EM-L2 station/depot/assembly point, human Mars exploration and resource exploitation, and I think of asteroid exploration and exploitation.  I think of all them evolving roughly at the same time and sharing some resources and needing some specific new ones of their own.

This means different groups/alliances with specific goals, including some commercial activity, but not limited to it by any means.

Further out I see the sorts of activities in the asteroids expanding out to the Jovian Trojans and potentially some HSF to some of the larger moons of the gas giants. That probably doesn't start for another 40 - 50 years. By 100 years out people should be in the Kuiper Belt doing something that they see as useful.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: the_other_Doug on 11/05/2015 12:02 am
I agree with those who say the options don't cover what I would like to see, or even what I think is likely to happen.  And so, I didn't vote.

I think that the U.S. should continue developing Orion and SLS to support BLEO missions.  And I think they should come up with a plan, that Congress will fund, for developing the spacecraft (in addition to Orion) that will be needed to mount a Mars expedition.

But that said, I don't think this precludes using Orion and development models of deep space habs and such as the U.S. contribution to international lunar exploration programs.  You could, for example, begin to develop the cis-lunar infrastructure called for by NASA's latest Mars DRM and offer it for use to an international lunar exploration program.  Its use supporting lunar exploration would prove out systems and procedures that will be used when the Mars expedition stack is eventually assembled there.

So, if you had an option saying "Continue with something very like the current NASA Mars DRM, but allow international lunar programs to use the developing infrastructure," I would vote for that one...  :)
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: gbaikie on 11/05/2015 12:33 am
I voted for go to the Moon solo.
But we don't have a plan with Obama, or we had a plan and Obama is ignoring it, so go with the only plan we got would be another thing could have voted for.
 In terms of going to the Moon, the program should completed within 10 years of starting the lunar exploration program and should cost less than 40 billion dollar in total.
Part of lunar program should be getting an operational depot in LEO.
Also need a plan for this lunar program.
What the plan should NOT include is building a lunar base or NASA mining lunar water, rather the program would be focused on finding minable water on the Moon.
And should be largely a robotic program [which uses depot in LEO]. And near the end of the less than 10 year program, crew should send to finalize the exploration for minable water on the Moon, and after sending crew to the Moon,  NASA should start it's Manned Mars program- which will use a lot robotic exploration of Mars. so the lunar robotic part of lunar program will shift to Mars robotic exploration as will the lunar manned exploration.
And what is needed for Mars exploration is bases on Mars. And the focus of Mars exploration, is exploration related to potential human settlements on Mars. So finding water and other resources which are needed for human settlements.
Real estate on Mars will be like real estate on Earth, in that it's all about the location and a location with a abundant supply of water would be an important aspect of a location on Mars. And such things a habitable underground caves also would be important. And there are other things which could be discovered which could related to resources needed for Mars settlements.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Oli on 11/05/2015 12:56 am
I voted "Join in an international Moon quest", however it should really be called "Lead in an international Moon quest", because that's what NASA would do.

The reason for my choice: When NASA goes to Mars, there's almost certainly no money left for LEO/Moon. I think NASA must make sure the commercial sector (tourism mainly, IMO) can take over before giving up on old destinations.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/05/2015 03:12 am
Commercial to the Moon. Main focus for NASA can remain Mars.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/05/2015 05:37 am
Depends if we can drop the silly "been there done that" mentality...

We have been to the Moon's equator but not to the lunar poles. We have found places there that have not seen sunlight in billions of years. We have not done a close up investigation of these very unusual places.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: NovaSilisko on 11/05/2015 05:53 am
Depends if we can drop the silly "been there done that" mentality...

We have been to the Moon's equator but not to the lunar poles. We have found places there that have not seen sunlight in billions of years. We have not done a close up investigation of these very unusual places.

Indeed. There's so much to explore; more than we can even hope to explore in several generations. Yet there seems to be this narrative of exploration ADD that turns up annoyingly often: "oh, we've already been to the moon, we've done that before, let's go do something else in a different, new place..."
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: savuporo on 11/05/2015 05:53 am
Depends if we can drop the silly "been there done that" mentality...

We have been to the Moon's equator but not to the lunar poles. We have found places there that have not seen sunlight in billions of years. We have not done a close up investigation of these very unusual places.
Neither have been inside the lunar lava tubes nor dug up impacted asteroids. Oh, or landed on the far side.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: RocketmanUS on 11/05/2015 06:23 am
Voted : Go to Mars but on a new plan

Let commercial head back to the moon this time.

NASA to send exploration crews to Mars. But with each element that can be launch on commercial launchers ( example Falcan heavy or Vulcan , expected to exist soon ) however could also be launch on a HLV ( prefered to be commercial ).
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Spaniard on 11/05/2015 06:25 am
Moon or Mars, the effort will be so huge that international effort is a must.

The outpost will be a exploration and science base, but it will be a first experience as a extraterrestrial colony. IRSU and massive reuse should be one of the most importants points of the outpost. No more expendable and short term infrastructure like ISS, but a location designed from the start to only grow.
And, although of course the infrastructure gets older and it will need replacement sooner or later, all the material should be reused or recycled to allow the base to only grow at a fixed cost per time for the humankind. That's impossible for a space station like ISS.

This kind of bases is the way to break, in medium term, the barrier of space, because a lot of mass for the human living support will be made with local matter or at least from outside our deep gravity well and atmosphere. Rail launchers, tethers, (mostly non-earth) space elevators, solar and mag sails and ion tugs should be the key of a fleet of spaceships that move resources around our solar system and allow us to build our consumables, fuel and bulk parts of our spaceships directly out there.

It will take a lot of time, but we need to start, and it is a so big effort that join forces of all space faring nations is the right way. Fortunately, a base don't require so hard integration as a "lego" space station like ISS and the coordination and participation should be simpler.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: KelvinZero on 11/05/2015 06:53 am
I would have liked to go with Obama's original plan, get out of the space trucking business and spend money on tech development, depots, three commercial crew vehicles, a robotic lunar lander including ISRU packages and so on.

Of the provided options, and assuming SLS and Orion are not optional, I voted "Stay with the current Mars plan" which I expect will also be equivalent to "Join in an international Moon quest". Either way we are not getting funding for a HSF moon base let alone a mars lander in the forseeable future.

..so.. what we are headed for is some sort of base in high lunar orbit which will be both good preparation for a Phobos mission and interacting with asteroid material via ARM and DSH experience, and also a focus for an international moon exploration goal as described by ESA, starting with teleoperating robotic lunar missions.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/05/2015 08:08 am
Can't agree with the choices given.

     I think we should go back to the Moon and use it as a testing ground for the equipment that we'll need on Mars.  After properly working out the issues from that same equipment, then go on to Mars.

The problem with that idea, is that the stuff you need to go to the Moon is nearly all different from the stuff you need to go to Mars.

The environments are very different. Radiation exposure levels and gravity are different. Methods required for landing on the surface are very different. Heating / cooling loads, and how you get rid heat or stay warm are different. Available materials for ISRU are different. and so on.

The landers are definitely different because Mars's high gravity means they need bigger fuel tanks. The extreme heat when passing through Mars's atmosphere will cause big problems necessitating a thermal protection system.

Radiation is only a problem on Mars if the protection designed for the Moon cannot be used. Otherwise the rovers, spacesuits and habitats just end up being heavier.

Many items will be common with the zero-G environment because none of the environments can support human life. However there are weird differences - tables and chairs do not work in zero-G but do on Mars and the Moon.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: redliox on 11/05/2015 08:23 am
The landers are definitely different because Mars's high gravity means they need bigger fuel tanks. The extreme heat when passing through Mars's atmosphere will cause big problems necessitating a thermal protection system.

Radiation is only a problem on Mars if the protection designed for the Moon cannot be used. Otherwise the rovers, spacesuits and habitats just end up being heavier.

Many items will be common with the zero-G environment because none of the environments can support human life. However there are weird differences - tables and chairs do not work in zero-G but do on Mars and the Moon.

Good points regarding landers.  Overall, the only shared elements for Lunar and Martian landers would be life support and radiation shielding.  That does mean an orbital Lunar vehicle might make a better template for a Mars lander than a Lunar lander ironically; as in the crew compartment could be quickly adopted from one to the other; the Orion would be a bit cramped but a DSH could work.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/05/2015 09:29 am
Rovers built for Martian gravity should work on the Moon. They will have to be designed to lose heat by radiation. I suspect that the radiators will work on Mars.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: vapour_nudge on 11/05/2015 01:03 pm
We choose to go to the moon in the next decade and not do the other thing, not because it is easy, but because it is hard to do some things under a tight budget in most readers lifetimes
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: kch on 11/05/2015 03:15 pm
We choose to go to the moon in the next decade and not do the other thing, not because it is easy, but because it is hard to do some things under a tight budget in most readers lifetimes

I've long thought that Kennedy's pause after saying ...

"I believe that this nation should commit itself"

... was more than just a place to take a breath.  ;)
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: whitelancer64 on 11/05/2015 04:12 pm
Rovers built for Martian gravity should work on the Moon. They will have to be designed to lose heat by radiation. I suspect that the radiators will work on Mars.

For gravity loads, sure, but otherwise, no, it probably wouldn't work. The heat loads / temperature extremes are much too different, there's much less of a day/night swing on Mars, the Martian atmosphere is useful both as insulation for the night time and can help with taking away heat during the day, whereas in a vacuum, as on the Moon, only radiating away the heat is possible. You want to reject as much of it during the lunar day and keep as much of it during the lunar night. A rover built for Mars would overheat during the day and freeze at night on the Moon. A rover built for the Moon might work on Mars, though. Mars is much milder and is less harsh of an environment than the Moon.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: gbaikie on 11/05/2015 05:17 pm
I would have liked to go with Obama's original plan, get out of the space trucking business and spend money on tech development, depots, three commercial crew vehicles, a robotic lunar lander including ISRU packages and so on.

Of the provided options, and assuming SLS and Orion are not optional, I voted "Stay with the current Mars plan" which I expect will also be equivalent to "Join in an international Moon quest". Either way we are not getting funding for a HSF moon base let alone a mars lander in the forseeable future.

..so.. what we are headed for is some sort of base in high lunar orbit which will be both good preparation for a Phobos mission and interacting with asteroid material via ARM and DSH experience, and also a focus for an international moon exploration goal as described by ESA, starting with teleoperating robotic lunar missions.

Rather de-orbit ISS, we should move ISS to higher orbit, and this higher orbit could on the path to the Moon or Mars [or anywhere]. So ISS could be some sort of base in high earth orbit.
So instead of station keeping for 10 years in LEO and using say 50 tons of rocket fuel to do this, you use hundreds of tons of rocket fuel to put ISS in orbit that uses less tons of rocket fuel per year for stationkeeping. Or over 50 year period one use about the same amount of rocket fuel and idea is to have ISS in orbit for +100 years.
One would need more shielding and it will cost more to get to ISS. But if agree that SpaceX can and will lower launch costs, it possible that it could be cheaper to get to ISS in higher orbit, than it currently is to get to ISS in LEO.
So the moving of ISS is basically a replacement for the plan to de-orbit ISS, and the focus of moving it, is to get it out of Earth's atmosphere so it doesn't have the yearly drag from Earth atmosphere.
So the first "major move" does not need to get to High Earth/High lunar orbit, but at some point ISS could be latter moved to higher Earth orbits [or even Mars].
The longer term purpose of moving ISS to higher orbit is to mothball ISS in regards to NASA's budget- in a sense ISS becomes more of an international station which not dependent of US or Russia to maintain it's orbit. And allowing NASA to have more budget for Mars exploration.
But not allowing NASA more budget for lunar exploration which can occur before even moving ISS, but perhaps by the time, NASA sends crew to the Moon, ISS could be moved.
Lunar exploration would focus on making a depot in LEO, and sending many robotic missions to the Moon, and after several years, send crew to the Moon.
And all this NASA lunar exploration is focused on one task- finding minable lunar water, and have no plans for a lunar base or plans of mining lunar water.
Other countries may continue with a focus with ISS, and perhaps building lunar bases. Or when Europe is involved building lunar bases, NASA focus would be focused on Mars bases.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: whitelancer64 on 11/05/2015 06:05 pm
I would have liked to go with Obama's original plan, get out of the space trucking business and spend money on tech development, depots, three commercial crew vehicles, a robotic lunar lander including ISRU packages and so on.

Of the provided options, and assuming SLS and Orion are not optional, I voted "Stay with the current Mars plan" which I expect will also be equivalent to "Join in an international Moon quest". Either way we are not getting funding for a HSF moon base let alone a mars lander in the forseeable future.

..so.. what we are headed for is some sort of base in high lunar orbit which will be both good preparation for a Phobos mission and interacting with asteroid material via ARM and DSH experience, and also a focus for an international moon exploration goal as described by ESA, starting with teleoperating robotic lunar missions.

Rather de-orbit ISS, we should move ISS to higher orbit, and this higher orbit could on the path to the Moon or Mars [or anywhere]. So ISS could be some sort of base in high earth orbit.
...
So the first "major move" does not need to get to High Earth/High lunar orbit, but at some point ISS could be latter moved to higher Earth orbits [or even Mars].


Not possible to move ISS to a higH orbit, or at least, not possible to move it to a high enough orbit to make it a practical waypoint on the "path to the Moon or Mars."

It's not designed to be moved, for one thing. Yes, its orbit can be boosted, but it can't move very fast. Moving it fast would break it apart. However, if you move it slow, the furthest you can go is the Van Allen belts. If it went slowly through the radiation belts, its electronics would get fried. So its highest practical orbit must remain lower than the Van Allen belts.

An additional consideration is that the ISS passes through the shadow of the Earth for about half its orbit. It uses this time in Earth's shadow to radiate away heat. If it is constantly exposed to sunlight, it would overheat.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: SLC17A5 on 11/05/2015 06:48 pm
Can we get a poll option for 'None of the above'?  I believe NASA should be directed towards icy asteroids.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: gbaikie on 11/06/2015 01:16 am
I would have liked to go with Obama's original plan, get out of the space trucking business and spend money on tech development, depots, three commercial crew vehicles, a robotic lunar lander including ISRU packages and so on.

Of the provided options, and assuming SLS and Orion are not optional, I voted "Stay with the current Mars plan" which I expect will also be equivalent to "Join in an international Moon quest". Either way we are not getting funding for a HSF moon base let alone a mars lander in the forseeable future.

..so.. what we are headed for is some sort of base in high lunar orbit which will be both good preparation for a Phobos mission and interacting with asteroid material via ARM and DSH experience, and also a focus for an international moon exploration goal as described by ESA, starting with teleoperating robotic lunar missions.

Rather de-orbit ISS, we should move ISS to higher orbit, and this higher orbit could on the path to the Moon or Mars [or anywhere]. So ISS could be some sort of base in high earth orbit.
...
So the first "major move" does not need to get to High Earth/High lunar orbit, but at some point ISS could be latter moved to higher Earth orbits [or even Mars].


Not possible to move ISS to a higH orbit, or at least, not possible to move it to a high enough orbit to make it a practical waypoint on the "path to the Moon or Mars."

It's not designed to be moved, for one thing. Yes, its orbit can be boosted, but it can't move very fast. Moving it fast would break it apart. However, if you move it slow, the furthest you can go is the Van Allen belts. If it went slowly through the radiation belts, its electronics would get fried. So its highest practical orbit must remain lower than the Van Allen belts.

An additional consideration is that the ISS passes through the shadow of the Earth for about half its orbit. It uses this time in Earth's shadow to radiate away heat. If it is constantly exposed to sunlight, it would overheat.

Well regardless of how fast one goes, ISS would have to go thru the Van Allen belts. And in terms of electronics, it seems it would not matter much how long it took to go thru the Van Allen belts AND a solar flare below the Van belts could have larger impact on electronic than passing thru the Van Allen Belts. So what you seem to be suggesting is that ISS electronics were not designed properly to withstand a significant solar flare.

As you say ISS is designed to be re boosted in order to remain in orbit, and so if one use same acceleration as designed withstand being re-boosted, it's simply a matter of having a longer duration of the boost.
As far as practical waypoint to Mars. I would define such waypoint as not being a 51 inclination. And one can't change it's inclination at 400 km from Earth, whereas it's possible/practical to change it's inclination at say 20,000 km or more from Earth.
I would suggest one first worry about putting into a higher orbit that doesn't require yearly reboosting due to drag from Earth atmosphere. So a minimum perigee of +800 km, but tend to think it's perigee should be above to Van Van Belt [+20,000 km]. If flying thru the Van Alan Belts, then it would have crew area shielded enough so crew are not exposed to harmful radiation from the Van Alan Belts. But outside the Van Allen Belt one would need a small portion of crew area for solar flare shelter- more shielding than ISS has now for solar flares. So something on the order of making the entire living areas able to withstand large solar flare [in it's present location] and having smaller area which is even better shielded than rest of ISS, is what you need to do to make ISS usable in higher orbit.
So want to get ISS in higher orbit and usable by crew, and this doesn't necessary require that one change it's inclination. But after one does this, then international countries [or NASA] might decide at some later date to change it's inclination and make a practical waypoint to Mars.
But one purpose of putting in higher orbit, is NASA could mothball it's use of ISS [though allowing other parties to use the station [and being "able to use station" means it would have at least a portion of station in which crew would not be exposed to harmful radiation during time spent at station].
So NASA mothballs ISS, and other parties or NASA can un-mothballs for their use. Or nation have access to ISS- if they choose to use it.  And perhaps one use, could be invest resources to make it function as a practical waypoint to Mars [or the Moon].

 
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: KelvinZero on 11/06/2015 03:25 am
Rather de-orbit ISS, we should move ISS to higher orbit, and this higher orbit could on the path to the Moon or Mars [or anywhere]. So ISS could be some sort of base in high earth orbit.
There have been threads discussing this and apparently it is not feasible. I don't understand the details but I accept the authority of the opinions.

In any case I think it is at least as important to reuse the infrastructure and engineers on the ground than the hardware in orbit. We don't want to get into the situation of the Shuttle where reusing a handful of vehicles meant discarding the ability to build more. We should constantly be building more ISS-like modules and evolving new and better approaches.

I also want to see a better way of constructing bases than the ISS. I like the idea of a sort of plug and play construction that can be done robotically around phobos before sending people. I would like to see us practice these techniques in high lunar orbit.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 11/06/2015 04:22 am
By the time we could get around to using it, ISS will be more useful as a source of raw materials rather than as an operational station.  The seals will be gone, the electronics obsolete if not fried, and other things long past their use-by date.   But orbital smelting plants are so far in the future it probably is not worth saving it.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: gbaikie on 11/06/2015 05:49 am
Rather de-orbit ISS, we should move ISS to higher orbit, and this higher orbit could on the path to the Moon or Mars [or anywhere]. So ISS could be some sort of base in high earth orbit.
There have been threads discussing this and apparently it is not feasible. I don't understand the details but I accept the authority of the opinions.
I will listen to the the authority of the opinions, despite the history of them being proven repetitively and constantly to be wrong.
For example the authority of opinion was that private launch companies could not resupply ISS.
And there is not enough space to give detailed list of such things- humans can't fly, only 3 computer are needed in the world, etc, etc, etc. And the Moon doesn't have water.

But just to be clear, I was against ISS, just as was against SLS. But I was fan of launching ISS at point in time when their was question about whether it should be further delayed from deciding to launch it.
Now, I don't need to be proven right that we should have never built ISS, and de-obriting ISS will be pretty good proof, that we shouldn't have wasted so much money and time on ISS.

I was in favor of idea of trying to save the Shuttle by privatizing despite NASA claiming it did privatize the shuttle and that was... well, a joke. And I was favor of the Shuttle- C and thought it might possible if NASA were to actually privatize the shuttle.

I want ISS to last to end of time, not for sentimental reasons- not my sentimental reasons. Other people could be sentimental about it.
But I think if we can't build orbital stations that last more than 40 years, this is going to be a problem.
If we can't build houses that can't last more than 40 years, we would have a problem.
Now, the Apollo sites could last longer than the pyramids- though Apollo site  were not made to last very long, rather it's the nature of the Moon. Or any fool could build lunar bases which last forever, but designing a micro-gravity base, has more moving parts, and not a given that long duration orbital stations could be built to last 50 to 100 years.
So I see ISS as non-deliberate protype for the design of long duration orbital stations- and that's about it regarding my sentimental attachment to ISS.
And that is not very important which  I will concede.
I do think a main value of ISS was that it was an international project- despite that it wasn't really international, else we would not bother with wondering whether the Chinese should become involved with it.
And considering Russian international behavior, with Russia it is without  question involved with ISS.

The main reason to put ISS in higher orbit is to end NASA 3 billion dollar a year commitment [self-inflicted] to ISS.
If I was a fan of Mars, I might become so impatient with ISS, and I could be happy to see it de-orbited, despite the possibility that blowing up 150 billion dollar project might sour support for spending trillions of dollar on some silly governmental adventure on Mars.

Now it seems to me that were one to actually believe that they was some value in an international project in space, that there would be the flip side of some negative value in destroying an international project in space.
One could also imagine, one might be able to do some parlor trick to mitigate any blow back, but I think one could be deluding oneself, and that unforeseeable consequences could happen which would not be mitigated by empty gestures.

Quote
In any case I think it is at least as important to reuse the infrastructure and engineers on the ground than the hardware in orbit. We don't want to get into the situation of the Shuttle where reusing a handful of vehicles meant discarding the ability to build more. We should constantly be building more ISS-like modules and evolving new and better approaches.

It doesn't seem to me that by not destroying ISS, one is preventing other orbital stations from being built.
In fact I see this as superstitious [not a fan of].
Rather I see keeping ISS is more a factor of causing more orbital stations being made.  Not that I am fan of this.
I don't want to de-orbit ISS because I don't want space exploration to stop, before it has begun.
And don't think making orbital space stations has much to do with space exploration.

Quote
I also want to see a better way of constructing bases than the ISS. I like the idea of a sort of plug and play construction that can be done robotically around phobos before sending people. I would like to see us practice these techniques in high lunar orbit.
I don't. But but it seems fairly clear that de-orbiting ISS would be path in the opposite direction of what you want.

Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: gbaikie on 11/06/2015 06:25 am
By the time we could get around to using it, ISS will be more useful as a source of raw materials rather than as an operational station.  The seals will be gone, the electronics obsolete if not fried, and other things long past their use-by date.   But orbital smelting plants are so far in the future it probably is not worth saving it.

I think using +100 tons of GEO non-operational Sats as better scrap.
Though I might favor scrapping ISS at some point, there would probably be much more people who didn't want to use ISS as scrap. I can imagine a distant future of protesters at congress doors arguing against such practical uses of an old station.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: dror on 11/06/2015 06:46 am
None of the above.

I don't see HSF as a short term goal.
science is a goal. exploration is a goal. so is technology and economy.
Humans in space, like girrafs under water, should be there only when they must.

Cost effectiveness should be the measure of scale, not adventure.

edit: voted for joining international moon for if that happens, Nasa should not be left outside.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: redliox on 11/06/2015 12:10 pm
None of the above.

I don't see HSF as a short term goal.
science is a goal. exploration is a goal. so is technology and economy.
Humans in space, like girrafs under water, should be there only when they must.

Cost effectiveness should be the measure of scale, not adventure.

edit: voted for joining international moon for if that happens, Nasa should not be left outside.

You have strong opinions, but it is good you understand how being left out may have ramifications.

For the near future, all we know is NASA will have a Moon orbiter, a big rocket, and a lot of potential partners all eyeing the Moon.  If we won't be landing on Mars for another 15 years, may as well spend 10 of them landing on the Moon considering 'THE PLAN' NASA's allegedly is going by dictates time in 'The Proving Ground.'  Frankly it just depends on how much any partners can contribute, and they've already prioritized Luna over Mars.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: woods170 on 11/06/2015 01:23 pm
The USA does not need another refocus of what to do in space. Every time there is a refocus the POR get's brushed aside and a new one is put in place.

Of all the many dozens of HSF plans put into motion in the past 40 decades less than a handfull actually became reality: STS and the space station. All other lofty goals, including many Moon plans and many Mars plans came to nothing.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: RonM on 11/06/2015 03:34 pm
Rather de-orbit ISS, we should move ISS to higher orbit, and this higher orbit could on the path to the Moon or Mars [or anywhere]. So ISS could be some sort of base in high earth orbit.
There have been threads discussing this and apparently it is not feasible. I don't understand the details but I accept the authority of the opinions.

The biggest issue limiting the lifetime of ISS is the structure. Docking, berthing, and thermal cycles introduce micro fractures. Eventually, the structure becomes unsafe. That's why 2024 or 2028 are considered to be end of life for ISS.

Newer ISS modules could be used to as the basis for a new space station. The Russians were thinking about saving their newer modules. However, I don't think anyone has the money for that.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: spacenut on 11/06/2015 03:49 pm
I think NASA or even SpaceX should at least send some ISRU equipment to the moon to test how hard it would be to manufacture lox, or obtain other materials.  This equipment could also be used on Mars.  The only other reason is to explore the polar regions and craters for water.  Otherwise, no real reason. 

If Lox could be made and thrown into orbit via electromagnetic rail. Capture and take to a fuel depot at one of the LaGrange points, then it would be worth the effort.  With a refueling depot in LEO and one at an L point, a robust Mars transportation infrastructure could be build.  It would be great if all spacefaring nations could work together on this. 
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: gbaikie on 11/06/2015 07:06 pm
Rather de-orbit ISS, we should move ISS to higher orbit, and this higher orbit could on the path to the Moon or Mars [or anywhere]. So ISS could be some sort of base in high earth orbit.
There have been threads discussing this and apparently it is not feasible. I don't understand the details but I accept the authority of the opinions.

The biggest issue limiting the lifetime of ISS is the structure. Docking, berthing, and thermal cycles introduce micro fractures. Eventually, the structure becomes unsafe. That's why 2024 or 2028 are considered to be end of life for ISS.
I doubt it.
Though if you included micrometeorite impact damage, that could be more convincing.
If ISS is crashed into our atmosphere in 2028, then ISS would be about as old as the Shuttle.
It seems unlikely that ISS has had an equal or greater amount of structural damage per year as the Shuttle orbiters.
Quote
Newer ISS modules could be used to as the basis for a new space station. The Russians were thinking about saving their newer modules. However, I don't think anyone has the money for that.
The Soviets always cause trouble.
A saner person flees from it, and there is lots doing so- one might hope they continue have somewhere to flee to. And one could imagine it doesn't look good.
The economic contrast between NASA and Russian Space agency is interesting.  In overly simplistic terms,
imagine what the Russian Space agency could do if it had NASA's budget?
Of course it does not remotely work that way, obviously Russian corruption makes American government corruption seem insignificant/civilized, though in terms of quantity money, the Russians are taking rubles vs dollars.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: DarkenedOne on 11/06/2015 07:37 pm
The USA does not need another refocus of what to do in space. Every time there is a refocus the POR get's brushed aside and a new one is put in place.

Of all the many dozens of HSF plans put into motion in the past 40 decades less than a handfull actually became reality: STS and the space station. All other lofty goals, including many Moon plans and many Mars plans came to nothing.
That is definitely a good observation, but there is a pattern to it.  The more a program cost the more likely it is to get canceled.  The longer a program takes the more likely it is to get canceled.  The more people are unclear about the benefits the more likely it is to get cancelled.  There few projects that would cost more and take longer than a manned Mars program.  At the same time I do not believe it is clear what the benefits will be. 

Honestly I definitely want to see a manned Mars mission happen, but I highly doubt that it will survive given it is a multi-decade that will cost many 10s of billions if not hundreds of billions of dollars.  Going back to the moon will be expensive and take time, but not nearly as much as going to Mars.  I also believe that going back to the Moon will significantly lower costs and risks for eventually to going to Mars.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: DarkenedOne on 11/06/2015 08:04 pm
Rovers built for Martian gravity should work on the Moon. They will have to be designed to lose heat by radiation. I suspect that the radiators will work on Mars.

For gravity loads, sure, but otherwise, no, it probably wouldn't work. The heat loads / temperature extremes are much too different, there's much less of a day/night swing on Mars, the Martian atmosphere is useful both as insulation for the night time and can help with taking away heat during the day, whereas in a vacuum, as on the Moon, only radiating away the heat is possible. You want to reject as much of it during the lunar day and keep as much of it during the lunar night. A rover built for Mars would overheat during the day and freeze at night on the Moon. A rover built for the Moon might work on Mars, though. Mars is much milder and is less harsh of an environment than the Moon.

The temperatures do are not that different.  The Moon's temperature ranges between 70 and 390 degrees K.  Mars temperature ranges between 130 and 308.  In both environments there is little to no atmosphere, so there is little loss of heat to convection. 

The gravity is different, but not in a way that I believe would radically alter the design of the rover. 

I definitely believe that NASA can use a common rover design with variants for Mars and the Moon. 
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 11/06/2015 09:03 pm
I think NASA or even SpaceX should at least send some ISRU equipment to the moon to test how hard it would be to manufacture lox, or obtain other materials.  This equipment could also be used on Mars.  The only other reason is to explore the polar regions and craters for water.  Otherwise, no real reason. 

If Lox could be made and thrown into orbit via electromagnetic rail. Capture and take to a fuel depot at one of the LaGrange points, then it would be worth the effort.  With a refueling depot in LEO and one at an L point, a robust Mars transportation infrastructure could be build.  It would be great if all spacefaring nations could work together on this.

Both Nasa and SpaceX want to use Methane based fuels on Mars. Granted, the same processes used for mining LOX are transferrable to the needs of a Mars colony, but these are extremely different regoliths in different gravity wells.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: savuporo on 11/06/2015 09:41 pm
I definitely believe that NASA can use a common rover design with variants for Mars and the Moon. 
The idea that you can re-use spacecraft in vastly different locations is almost always a bad one. Lunar 2-week day/night cycles require different thermal and electronics storage design, lunar 2-second signal lag opens up vastly more powerful options for teleoperations. Landing and hence egress methods are different, too. And a myriad of other things. Its just a bad idea.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: KelvinZero on 11/06/2015 09:46 pm
The USA does not need another refocus of what to do in space. Every time there is a refocus the POR get's brushed aside and a new one is put in place.

Of all the many dozens of HSF plans put into motion in the past 40 decades less than a handfull actually became reality: STS and the space station. All other lofty goals, including many Moon plans and many Mars plans came to nothing.
That is definitely a good observation, but there is a pattern to it.  The more a program cost the more likely it is to get canceled.  The longer a program takes the more likely it is to get canceled.  The more people are unclear about the benefits the more likely it is to get cancelled.  There few projects that would cost more and take longer than a manned Mars program.  At the same time I do not believe it is clear what the benefits will be. 

Honestly I definitely want to see a manned Mars mission happen, but I highly doubt that it will survive given it is a multi-decade that will cost many 10s of billions if not hundreds of billions of dollars.  Going back to the moon will be expensive and take time, but not nearly as much as going to Mars.  I also believe that going back to the Moon will significantly lower costs and risks for eventually to going to Mars.
Another factor is political inertia. It was difficult to cancel the shuttle and move funding to actually utilising the ISS. I think in a sense the SLS is just the external symptom of the fact we still have not really cancelled the shuttle.

Im hoping that the ISS will gain similar inertia. Arguments that the physical space station is aging will not matter a jot as seen by the shuttle-derived zombie. If they get the inertia they will get the funding. Unlike the shuttle they will easily be able to invent some reasonable goal to justify that funding, because this lobby will consist of commercial launchers, people who build the modules, people with research grants. If we knocked the ISS from the sky today it would take these guys about five minutes to put some sensible proposal together.

The other big difference is that the ISS lobby requires actual achievements in space, unlike the shuttle-derived lobby which can happily accept billions year after year building a rocket giving only lip service to a future payload. The ISS uses existing launchers so the public would notice very quickly if they were launching with nothing on top of them. The microgravity researchers can't look very professional if their research is not getting into space.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: KelvinZero on 11/06/2015 10:08 pm
I think NASA or even SpaceX should at least send some ISRU equipment to the moon to test how hard it would be to manufacture lox, or obtain other materials.  This equipment could also be used on Mars.  The only other reason is to explore the polar regions and craters for water.  Otherwise, no real reason. 

If Lox could be made and thrown into orbit via electromagnetic rail. Capture and take to a fuel depot at one of the LaGrange points, then it would be worth the effort.  With a refueling depot in LEO and one at an L point, a robust Mars transportation infrastructure could be build.  It would be great if all spacefaring nations could work together on this.

Both Nasa and SpaceX want to use Methane based fuels on Mars. Granted, the same processes used for mining LOX are transferrable to the needs of a Mars colony, but these are extremely different regoliths in different gravity wells.
Im not sure why articles always focus purely on the evidence of water at the poles. The belief is more carbon monoxide in the volatiles than h20. You could produce a lot more methane than hydrogen.
http://www.universetoday.com/76329/water-on-the-moon-and-much-much-more-latest-lcross-results/
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: RonM on 11/06/2015 11:33 pm
Rather de-orbit ISS, we should move ISS to higher orbit, and this higher orbit could on the path to the Moon or Mars [or anywhere]. So ISS could be some sort of base in high earth orbit.
There have been threads discussing this and apparently it is not feasible. I don't understand the details but I accept the authority of the opinions.

The biggest issue limiting the lifetime of ISS is the structure. Docking, berthing, and thermal cycles introduce micro fractures. Eventually, the structure becomes unsafe. That's why 2024 or 2028 are considered to be end of life for ISS.
I doubt it.
Though if you included micrometeorite impact damage, that could be more convincing.
If ISS is crashed into our atmosphere in 2028, then ISS would be about as old as the Shuttle.
It seems unlikely that ISS has had an equal or greater amount of structural damage per year as the Shuttle orbiters.
Quote
Newer ISS modules could be used to as the basis for a new space station. The Russians were thinking about saving their newer modules. However, I don't think anyone has the money for that.
The Soviets always cause trouble.
A saner person flees from it, and there is lots doing so- one might hope they continue have somewhere to flee to. And one could imagine it doesn't look good.
The economic contrast between NASA and Russian Space agency is interesting.  In overly simplistic terms,
imagine what the Russian Space agency could do if it had NASA's budget?
Of course it does not remotely work that way, obviously Russian corruption makes American government corruption seem insignificant/civilized, though in terms of quantity money, the Russians are taking rubles vs dollars.

Comparing ISS to the Shuttle is the proverbial comparing apples to oranges. I suggest you search threads about retiring ISS to see why it can't keep flying. It's engineering, not opinion.

Even if ISS could last indefinitely, keeping it operational would cost billions of dollars per year. NASA needs that money post-ISS to fund exploration. After ISS, renting time on commercial stations is the current NASA concept.

Don't forget the upcoming Chinese space station. At least Russia and ESA are talking to China about it. That's probably the group heading to the Moon with or without NASA.

BTW, the Soviet Union went out of business in 1991.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: gbaikie on 11/07/2015 02:48 am
Rather de-orbit ISS, we should move ISS to higher orbit, and this higher orbit could on the path to the Moon or Mars [or anywhere]. So ISS could be some sort of base in high earth orbit.
There have been threads discussing this and apparently it is not feasible. I don't understand the details but I accept the authority of the opinions.

The biggest issue limiting the lifetime of ISS is the structure. Docking, berthing, and thermal cycles introduce micro fractures. Eventually, the structure becomes unsafe. That's why 2024 or 2028 are considered to be end of life for ISS.
I doubt it.
Though if you included micrometeorite impact damage, that could be more convincing.
If ISS is crashed into our atmosphere in 2028, then ISS would be about as old as the Shuttle.
It seems unlikely that ISS has had an equal or greater amount of structural damage per year as the Shuttle orbiters.
Quote
Newer ISS modules could be used to as the basis for a new space station. The Russians were thinking about saving their newer modules. However, I don't think anyone has the money for that.
The Soviets always cause trouble.
A saner person flees from it, and there is lots doing so- one might hope they continue have somewhere to flee to. And one could imagine it doesn't look good.
The economic contrast between NASA and Russian Space agency is interesting.  In overly simplistic terms,
imagine what the Russian Space agency could do if it had NASA's budget?
Of course it does not remotely work that way, obviously Russian corruption makes American government corruption seem insignificant/civilized, though in terms of quantity money, the Russians are taking rubles vs dollars.

Comparing ISS to the Shuttle is the proverbial comparing apples to oranges. I suggest you search threads about retiring ISS to see why it can't keep flying. It's engineering, not opinion.

Even if ISS could last indefinitely, keeping it operational would cost billions of dollars per year. NASA needs that money post-ISS to fund exploration. After ISS, renting time on commercial stations is the current NASA concept.

Don't forget the upcoming Chinese space station. At least Russia and ESA are talking to China about it. That's probably the group heading to the Moon with or without NASA.

BTW, the Soviet Union went out of business in 1991.
Btw: "Soviets : the people and especially the political and military leaders of the former U.S.S.R."

Well since purpose of putting in higher orbit would be to lower yearly operational costs. If "Even if ISS could last indefinitely, keeping it operational would cost billions of dollars per year. "
Then one would doing it wrong. Because even keeping in LEO, it's possible to lower the yearly operational costs. Or the other solution would be to hand over ISS operations to a private interest which did not charge billions of dollar to keep ISS flying.
So if "After ISS, renting time on commercial stations is the current NASA concept." Was true, then a commercial interest taking over ISS would be cheaper than building a launching a new station. And considering NASA could spend about 1 billion dollar on a program to de-orbiting ISS,  one starting with 1 billion dollar ahead of the game.
It's true that ISS is not in a good location, but there could be some commercial value associated to flying at 51 inclination- or it's negative but could have some positives. But it would depend on what commercial activity was involved.


Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: RonM on 11/07/2015 03:44 am
So if "After ISS, renting time on commercial stations is the current NASA concept." Was true, then a commercial interest taking over ISS would be cheaper than building a launching a new station. And considering NASA could spend about 1 billion dollar on a program to de-orbiting ISS,  one starting with 1 billion dollar ahead of the game.
It's true that ISS is not in a good location, but there could be some commercial value associated to flying at 51 inclination- or it's negative but could have some positives. But it would depend on what commercial activity was involved.

Perhaps a commercial interest could figure out what to do with ISS and keep it flying. Reconfigure, salvage or deorbit what's no longer needed, add a Bigelow module, etc.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: gbaikie on 11/07/2015 03:52 am
So if "After ISS, renting time on commercial stations is the current NASA concept." Was true, then a commercial interest taking over ISS would be cheaper than building a launching a new station. And considering NASA could spend about 1 billion dollar on a program to de-orbiting ISS,  one starting with 1 billion dollar ahead of the game.
It's true that ISS is not in a good location, but there could be some commercial value associated to flying at 51 inclination- or it's negative but could have some positives. But it would depend on what commercial activity was involved.

Perhaps a commercial interest could figure out what to do with ISS and keep it flying. Reconfigure, salvage or deorbit what's no longer needed, add a Bigelow module, etc.

Or perhaps a group of nations could take over operation of ISS.
But, it seems there could be many options other crashing it into the atmosphere and I think it is very important for NASA work out a plan in which, NASA at some point can stop paying billions per year and still have ISS remain in space.

Edit: Or NASA policy should be that de-orbiting ISS is not an option to take.
Also I will add that NASA can begin a lunar exploration before ending ISS, but it seems unlikely NASA could start Mars exploration without first resolving a way not to have ISS eating up it's budget.
Running SLS program and ISS and doing a lunar exploration program at the same time would be difficult, but doing a Mars program with SLS and ISS is not doable.
lunar program could start with LEO depot, followed with robotic exploration and ending within 10 years and the last couple years, having manned lunar exploration and then switch to Mars program.
And at point in time of last couple years and doing manned lunar, one would have to have ISS program resolved and it's not resolved by de-orbiting the station.
Or if started Lunar program in say 2016, then need ISS issue resolved by 2024.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 11/07/2015 04:02 am
I don’t think the moon will be a thought for the next administration at all.  They will have nothing capable of going to it at the time when they would be willing to plan it.  SLS’s planned test launch should nothing happen is 2018 and it isn’t planned to carry crew till 2021(and probably 2023). The first manned flight is pretty much already out of his term. In order to land on the moon you would need to convince this administration to fund or find a partner for a lander not likely.

A station or other item in cis lunar space is more likely, but still needs lots of funding (development of station hardware, upgrades or development of cargo craft). Again not likely as ESA is tapped out developing Orion’s SM and Russian relations are growing hostile not to mention inability of said partner to be able to get to the cis lunar station without the US.

Here is what I think is most likely. An exchange mission to the ISS and the Chinese space station.  It could involve docking spacecraft at each or it could just involve plane tickets but it would be cheap, quick, and could net some good publicity. I think LEO will be the focus of the next administration either on purpose because the new commercial crew craft may be something useful to latch on to or by default(why risk getting bashed in the press over wasteful spending by increasing NASA’s budget ahead of dozens of other agencies. I think the ISS will be extended till 2028 which is a date outside of his term and thus no need to propose anything.

Mars is too expensive, long and complex to even get an start.

I also think that an more realistic plan going forward is that NASA would be an tenant at an Commercial station either post ISS or before the ISS is decommissioned. Before decommissioning it could be say an man tended laboratory. Post ISS a full station. I think commercial capabilities will need to develop just an bit more(re usability, increased payload to lunar) before an Government mission is cheap enough to be doable.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: gbaikie on 11/07/2015 04:33 am
I don’t think the moon will be a thought for the next administration at all.  They will have nothing capable of going to it at the time when they would be willing to plan it.  SLS’s planned test launch should nothing happen is 2018 and it isn’t planned to carry crew till 2021(and probably 2023). The first manned flight is pretty much already out of his term. In order to land on the moon you would need to convince this administration to fund or find a partner for a lander not likely.
The only new thing this administration could do is start a LEO depot program.
And LEO depot program is how I would choose to start a lunar program and having operational depots
will lower the cost of Mars program. It would also lower program cost of getting the small rock.
And I would start  a depot program which started with refueling LOX- and make refueling LOX operational
before storing other kinds of rocket fuel.
One could argue it could be started with only "storable" rocket fuel, but I think LOX might be better.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/07/2015 07:58 am
I definitely believe that NASA can use a common rover design with variants for Mars and the Moon. 
The idea that you can re-use spacecraft in vastly different locations is almost always a bad one. Lunar 2-week day/night cycles require different thermal and electronics storage design, lunar 2-second signal lag opens up vastly more powerful options for teleoperations. Landing and hence egress methods are different, too. And a myriad of other things. Its just a bad idea.

In which case we will just have to delay the Mars mission for 10 years. NASA will not be able to afford to pay for the development of a lunar rover, a manned Mars rover and Mars ISRU equipment simultaneously.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Eric Hedman on 11/07/2015 01:52 pm
I definitely believe that NASA can use a common rover design with variants for Mars and the Moon. 
The idea that you can re-use spacecraft in vastly different locations is almost always a bad one. Lunar 2-week day/night cycles require different thermal and electronics storage design, lunar 2-second signal lag opens up vastly more powerful options for teleoperations. Landing and hence egress methods are different, too. And a myriad of other things. Its just a bad idea.
It reminds me of the cost explosion in the F-35 program when they tried to make one aircraft fit multiple mission profiles.  I'm not saying it can't be done, but the potential for costs growing out of control is real.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: gbaikie on 11/07/2015 04:40 pm
I think exploring the Moon with hoppers rather than rovers could a good idea which also can be used on Mars for exploration.
The Moon's gravity is about 1/6th Earth and Mars is about 1/3, so hoppers could function better with lunar gravity and the rugged terrain of where you want to explore for water deposits, may be more suitable for the Moon, but using the Moon as testbed for hoppers could develop this method and one can expect improvements in the design and operation so that one has a better hoppers available to use with Mars exploration.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 11/07/2015 08:28 pm
I think exploring the Moon with hoppers rather than rovers could a good idea which also can be used on Mars for exploration.
The Moon's gravity is about 1/6th Earth and Mars is about 1/3, so hoppers could function better with lunar gravity and the rugged terrain of where you want to explore for water deposits, may be more suitable for the Moon, but using the Moon as testbed for hoppers could develop this method and one can expect improvements in the design and operation so that one has a better hoppers available to use with Mars exploration.

A lack of gravity is bad for things with wheels in general, especially when moving at considerable velocities.  Hoppers are faster, but also burn resources a lot faster and rocket engines wear out faster than electric motors generally. A hopper can't easily haul cargo, whilst a wheeled craft can.

Edit: You can't make a hopper excavator easily, for one.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: DarkenedOne on 11/07/2015 09:02 pm
I definitely believe that NASA can use a common rover design with variants for Mars and the Moon. 
The idea that you can re-use spacecraft in vastly different locations is almost always a bad one. Lunar 2-week day/night cycles require different thermal and electronics storage design, lunar 2-second signal lag opens up vastly more powerful options for teleoperations. Landing and hence egress methods are different, too. And a myriad of other things. Its just a bad idea.

I am not saying exactly the same, but I am saying similar enough to warrant a common design and common parts.  For example, take at the differences between the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and a typical Earth Observation satellite.  When you at them they appear to be largely the same.  There are definitely differences like the fact that MRO needs to have larger solar panels in order to get the same amount of power, and the fact that it needs a more powerful antenna to communicate with Earth.  Despite these differences they are composed of many of the same components, and they share a common design. 

The problem that NASA faces with regard to building a Marian or Lunar rover is that we that we have no experience with building, operating, and maintaining anything like it.  I mean we are talking about a rover that operates in an environment where there is low gravity, relatively high radioactivity, and low pressure, and where the temperature can change by hundreds of degrees.  There is nothing remotely like that on Earth, which is why designing such a rover and getting it right is difficult.  If we go back to the Moon, and design a lunar rover the equipment we develop and the experience we gain from doing so will definitely doing the same on Mars less risky and expensive. 
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: gbaikie on 11/07/2015 10:05 pm
I think exploring the Moon with hoppers rather than rovers could a good idea which also can be used on Mars for exploration.
The Moon's gravity is about 1/6th Earth and Mars is about 1/3, so hoppers could function better with lunar gravity and the rugged terrain of where you want to explore for water deposits, may be more suitable for the Moon, but using the Moon as testbed for hoppers could develop this method and one can expect improvements in the design and operation so that one has a better hoppers available to use with Mars exploration.

A lack of gravity is bad for things with wheels in general, especially when moving at considerable velocities.  Hoppers are faster, but also burn resources a lot faster and rocket engines wear out faster than electric motors generally. A hopper can't easily haul cargo, whilst a wheeled craft can.

Edit: You can't make a hopper excavator easily, for one.

Right well, don't need an  excavator which is a hopper.
I am not talking about mining or ISRU, rather I am talking about  exploration of the moon which going to find minable water deposits which generally speaking, such deposits would be within a meter of the surface. Or water deposit at and near the surface would be the most likely to be profitably mined when you consider that the volume of water needed in the first couple year is around 200 tons. Or one is looking for a site which has about 10,000 tons of water within 1 square km. Or 1 square km 1 meter deep with 10% per volume of extractable water, has 100,000 tons of minable water. And 100,000 tons is more water needed within a decade of lunar water mining operation. And if consider water is worth $500 per kg or $500,000 per ton, then,  it's 50 billion dollars of water.
But it's unlikely that 100,000 tons of water is worth $500 per kg, though 10,000 tons of water could be worth as much as $500 per kg- so, 10,000 tons of water is worth about 5 billion dollars. And rocket fuel made from that amount of lunar water mined is worth about 20 to 25 billion dollars.
After a decade of mining it's possible one might mine or all mining operations on the Moon might mine over 1000 tons of water per year. Whether one can mine 10,000 tons of water per year, probably depends upon whether there are settlements on Mars. But were there more than 1000 tons of water mined on the Moon,  this would support or make the possibility of having Mars settlements. Or if there was more 1000 tons of water mined on the Moon, then this would also enable asteroid mining, and asteroid mining might be more significant to Mars settlements than Lunar water mining. And possible that asteroid mining could be more significant than lunar mining in terms of Earth SPS and L-5 type colonies.
Any serious attempt or plan to mine the Moon, will be helpful in terms of political support for Mars exploration. Actual products from Lunar water mining, may be useful for NASA Mars exploration, though I would say it's *requirement* for Mars settlements. Or mining water somewhere in space [other than the Martian surface] is requirement for Mars settlements.

But getting back to hoppers. One idea is one deliver hoppers to the Moon with a crasher stage which gets the payload to 5 km above the surface. The second stage could be a mothership for hoppers which gets the hoppers 500 meter above the lunar surface, at which point the hoppers hop off the mothership, and the mothership lands without it's hoppers. So one hopper could land on highest ground within 10 km, serving as earth relay point. Other hoppers could land within a deep dark craters- how many hopper might go inside a crater might depend upon size of crater and other hoppers could land outside the crater, as would the mothership.
The hopper going into the crater could stay in crater for an hour or two and than hop back to the mothership. And generally speaking one think of hopper being capable of traveling 10 to 20 km away from the mothership's location.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: savuporo on 11/07/2015 10:40 pm
For example, take at the differences between the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and a typical Earth Observation satellite.  When you at them they appear to be largely the same.
Huh ? Care to talk about that in detail ? For instance, if you could elaborate which earth observation satellites are specifically designed for aerobraking maneuvers ?
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 11/08/2015 02:17 am
Depends if we can drop the silly "been there done that" mentality...

It amazes me that after 5 years, people are still whining about that line. Grown adults acting like spoiled children who didn't get the candy.

VSE was proposed to develop lunar (probably polar) resources. That idea was dropped almost immediately for a near equatorial base. The latter, of course, never saw a cent of funding. So by the time it was cancelled, the program's goals had been reduced to a slight larger version of Apollo. Land, collect rocks, come home. That's it.

There are many things that we could do with the moon, however in 40 years NASA has not landed a single lander or rover on the moon, has not sample-returned a single gram of lunar regolith. Even when it looked like there were billions of tonnes of water ice (and perhaps other volatiles) at the poles, there was not a cent of funding for to land robots (except the LCROSS impactor); even when VSE talked about using lunar resources, there was zero funding for robotic precursor missions.

There's so much demand for lunar science that we're willing to divert pretty much the entire HSF budget to it, and yet, somehow, for 40 years there's no funding to do the vastly cheaper robotic missions? How does that make sense?

Isn't it more reasonable to suggest that those proposing manned lunar mission are not really interested in polar resources, or lava caves, or far side sites, or building bases, or testing technology for Mars, or any of the other justifications offered, but are instead merely interesting in building a very big rocket to send a handful of guys to the moon a handful of times just so we can say we've done it.

Something we quite literally have "been there and done".

And so any lunar program will quickly strip out all those interesting and novel targets, until all that's left is a big rocket, a handful of equatorial landing sites, and flags'n'footprints missions. Just as Constellation did. (Just as Apollo did.) Because those interesting things aren't ever the real goal.

For the record, I voted for "Go to moon solo", as the least-worst option. But I mean starting with robotic missions to the polar regions to explore volatile-ices. Then robotic fuel/air/water ISRU. Then, if there's a reason to, humans to assist the process, enabled by the availability of fuel/air/water. All as part of a stated effort to end the fixation on "destinations" and instead focus solely on enabling technologies for "capability".
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: gbaikie on 11/08/2015 03:55 am
Depends if we can drop the silly "been there done that" mentality...

It amazes me that after 5 years, people are still whining about that line. Grown adults acting like spoiled children who didn't get the candy.

VSE was proposed to develop lunar (probably polar) resources. That idea was dropped almost immediately for a near equatorial base. The latter, of course, never saw a cent of funding. So by the time it was cancelled, the program's goals had been reduced to a slight larger version of Apollo. Land, collect rocks, come home. That's it.

There are many things that we could do with the moon, however in 40 years NASA has not landed a single lander or rover on the moon, has not sample-returned a single gram of lunar regolith. Even when it looked like there were billions of tonnes of water ice (and perhaps other volatiles) at the poles, there was not a cent of funding for to land robots (except the LCROSS impactor); even when VSE talked about using lunar resources, there was zero funding for robotic precursor missions.

There's so much demand for lunar science that we're willing to divert pretty much the entire HSF budget to it, and yet, somehow, for 40 years there's no funding to do the vastly cheaper robotic missions? How does that make sense?
That's a good question.
Quote
Isn't it more reasonable to suggest that those proposing manned lunar mission are not really interested in polar resources, or lava caves, or far side sites, or building bases, or testing technology for Mars, or any of the other justifications offered, but are instead merely interesting in building a very big rocket to send a handful of guys to the moon a handful of times just so we can say we've done it.

Something we quite literally have "been there and done".
Hmm, I doubt it.
One could say the Bush senior was not interested in making a big rocket.
But a big rocket is a common solution. For instance Zubrin wanted a big rocket to go to Mars.
I think big rocket is same stuff of nuclear rockets or Ion rockets.
Superficially [and one could also say in fundamental way] a large rocket is route to lower launch costs.
It also it appears like the only way for a government to lower launch costs.
So have government build a big rocket, or nuclear rocket, or ion/vasimr, or reusable space shuttle in order to lower the cost of doing things in space.
Problem is that government have no history of lowering costs of anything. They have history of keeping prices high- if want to keep prices up, government is your go to guy. They have various proven ways of doing this. And most people associate these with governmental corruption.
And used to be that people were aware of it. Use to be that people who thought prices were too low, would turn to a government to fix that problem or some considered the main problem of the private sector is they do the crazy of making things too cheap and it was consider that this caused all kinds of terrible problems.

The Soviets were going to make everything cheap and control the world- of course that failed miserably. They filled warehouse full of stuff that nobody needed or wanted, and had scarcity of the stuff people actually wanted and needed. Or reason Altas-V uses russian rocket engines is because the soviet build a lot more rocket engine than they could use. The Russian had warehouses of rocket engines collecting dust. So the soviets built warehouse of a variety of stuff, and now we have the Chinese building their empty cities while having their poor live in huts. Chinese Ghost cities:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/07/20/what-will-become-of-chinas-ghost-cities/

Fundamentally big trucks, big ships, big rockets are cheaper, if they can be used- there is enough demand for what they do- then big is cheaper because of require less manhours to move X amount of stuff. And other reasons.
But basically the people at NASA have no clue how to run a business. Everyone knows this. But what might be surprising is I would say, that the people at NASA can't and shouldn't know how to run a business. Rather what NASA should do is explore Space.
NASA can lower the cost of getting into space by exploring space.




Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: sdsds on 11/08/2015 03:59 am
I mean starting with robotic missions to the polar regions to explore volatile-ices. Then robotic fuel/air/water ISRU. Then, if there's a reason to, humans to assist the process

Yeah, if only there were funding to do that.

Now try to design a mission sequence than is "affordable" in the sense of "can get funded."
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 11/08/2015 05:24 am
I mean starting with robotic missions to the polar regions to explore volatile-ices. Then robotic fuel/air/water ISRU. Then, if there's a reason to, humans to assist the process
Yeah, if only there were funding to do that.
Now try to design a mission sequence than is "affordable" in the sense of "can get funded."

So people are expecting several $billion per year in funding for a human mission, but nothing for a robotic precursor mission? Explain to me how the demand for a human lunar mission is somehow not just a desire for Apollo redux, and not something we've "been and done".
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Oli on 11/08/2015 09:10 am
There's so much demand for lunar science that we're willing to divert pretty much the entire HSF budget to it, and yet, somehow, for 40 years there's no funding to do the vastly cheaper robotic missions? How does that make sense?

Since when is science a primary objective of human spaceflight? Do you think 25 years from now, when we've had sample return and super-advanced rovers, scientists will get all excited about a bunch of meatbags stumbling around on Mars?

The primary job of the future austronaut is to a) not die and b) post pics and status updates on twitter and facebook.

Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: redliox on 11/08/2015 09:47 am
Since when is science a primary objective of human spaceflight? Do you think 25 years from now, when we've had sample return and super-advanced rovers, scientists will get all excited about a bunch of meatbags stumbling around on Mars?

The primary job of the future austronaut is to a) not die and b) post pics and status updates on twitter and facebook.

There actually would be a third function...

c) Do actual experiments in live time on the Moon, Mars, ect.

All the work rovers do is heavily bogged down by the immense lag between Earth and Mars.  On the Moon this is less of an issue, but most robots lack the manipulative ability of even a space-suited hand (after all, why do we still have EVAs on the ISS despite having the most sophisticated robotic arm aboard it?).  A human at the actual place closes the gap between scientist and subject.  While a sample return mission might be overall cheaper than a human effort, the human would be able to pick out rocks of obvious interest and walk them over to the bin in a matter of minutes what a rover would need weeks of effort to accomplish (even on Luna).

A robot is cute, and useful for preliminary scouting...but a human doesn't need computer code to step around a boulder or to shove a hand shovel into the dirt.  Quality versus quantity.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Oli on 11/08/2015 10:34 am
A robot is cute, and useful for preliminary scouting...but a human doesn't need computer code to step around a boulder or to shove a hand shovel into the dirt.  Quality versus quantity.

I don't want to go too much off topic here, but the only study I know of that compares human vs. robotic performance in field geology is this one:

http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/497h/0497%20%28Glass%29.pdf

According to this study, a suited human is 25x more productive (obs/unit time) than a rover in a simulated EVA, assuming 2015 technology for the rover.

Sounds like a lot, but: It doesn't take into account the time it takes to travel between science sites (where the rover is less disadvantaged) and the availability of the rover vs. humans (a rover can potentially be operated for up to a decade, humans stay maybe 500 days per mission, they also need to sleep etc.).

I have little hope for astronauts when it comes to their usefulness for planetary science.

Edit: removed.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: DarkenedOne on 11/08/2015 03:55 pm
For example, take at the differences between the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and a typical Earth Observation satellite.  When you at them they appear to be largely the same.
Huh ? Care to talk about that in detail ? For instance, if you could elaborate which earth observation satellites are specifically designed for aerobraking maneuvers ?

None, but that requirement did not mean that all the technology and components that exist for commercial satellites could not be used.  Many of the parts used in the MRO are commercial parts.  Its computers, its batteries, its solar panels, its thrusters, and its propellant tanks all could be commercially acquired. 

Compare that to the
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 11/08/2015 04:10 pm
I believe invoking "been there done that" as the reason why people wouldn't immediately shoot for the moon constitutes the kind of argument that we love referring to here: a straw man.

It's debasing to people who believe in any other primary planetary science/human spaceflight target (Europa, Mars, Titan, Venus, etc), to say that they don't want to direct money to the moon because it'd be an Apollo rehash. As is mentioned upthread, there are an incredible amount of lunar missions that can be done that are not an Apollo rehash. The moon has a day/night cycle that is prohibitively long. You can't perform aerocapture. It has an incredibly lumpy gravity well that likes to sling things into strange orbits except for a few particular paths. Gravity is low enough to be awkwardly prohibitive for long term human activity. There's objectively less potential to the Moon for manned settlement than there is for Mars.

Granted, there are a plethora of reasons why we should consider returning to the moon, but a solid refocus would involve no short amount of flailing - flailing which needs to be publically, politically and scientifically justified.

Edit: Ultimately I would love to see any kind of manned interplanetary spaceflight in my lifetime, but everytime we change plans, we add anything between five and thirty years onto the likelyhood of something actually happening. It's easy to tell people that they're wrong, but it takes real political bravery to stick to something. So let's commit.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: gbaikie on 11/08/2015 05:46 pm
I mean starting with robotic missions to the polar regions to explore volatile-ices. Then robotic fuel/air/water ISRU. Then, if there's a reason to, humans to assist the process

Yeah, if only there were funding to do that.

Now try to design a mission sequence than is "affordable" in the sense of "can get funded."

The simple answer is have a program that doesn't last a long time.
And a Mars program can't be done in short period of time.
And a non simple answer is do exploration.
And considering the amount of money NASA gets, NASA is not doing any exploration, though
considering what other things the government spends money on, NASA is underfunded.
But NASA is not underfunded were it exploring space, rather than what it's spending it's
money on.

So we have taken the first step towards exploring the Moon with LRO. One can state the obvious that
it is not enough, but as far as first step, it's wonderful. LRO was certainly a step in the direction of not completely ignoring the Moon.
Impacting the Moon was a important aspect of LRO as is the continuous lunar orbiting observation.
It would have been better to have some follow up lunar exploration.
And in terms of science, after LRO ends, one can expect further results from LRO- which the case with all
efforts of exploration. Or in terms of the science there is no a short term program.
Apollo which was primarily a stunt, has resulted in decades of science related to it, and the aspect of asteroids still impacting Earth in terms of a on going process [a result of Apollo] is still not digested in terms of how it related to the history of Earth. Ie, was our recent interglacial period connected to an impactor?
But this a rather small example of process I am talking about and the example certainly continues as a question to be answered.
Or one could say that lunar science isn't done on the Moon, though exploration is important starting point of science and exploration provides evidence for various theories.
The reason for exploration is to find resources, and the search of resources has required scientific understanding and resulted in explosion of scientific understanding. One could say geology is hobby, but it's funded by mining- making it a profession and thereby a subject in institutional education.

The Moon is an endlessly fascination in terms of science, but I would say this completely unimportant in the near term, unless the Moon has minable water. Or were lunar water minable, then this opens the door to lots of lunar science, and such activity would funded related to lunar mining and governmental science
will achieve more due to lower costs of doing anything on the Moon.
In terms of certainty, we know Mars has trillions of tons of water- or this appears to me to be more certain than then there is billions of tons of water at lunar poles.
The significant of lunar water is that minable lunar water make the Moon more accessible, and at the moment the moon is the most accessible. Lunar water which could be mined makes Moon closer to Earth in terms of using it. Or Moon is distant to earth because one needs to bring rocket fuel from Earth in order to leave the Moon, having rocket fuel available on the Moon, makes the Moon similar to Geostationary orbit- which currently is 200 billion dollar global market.
And that Moon would a gateway to other planets and GEO is possible with minable lunar water and for the US space agency, NASA, this aspect should be important.
At the moment the Moon does not need to be mined for water, nor does it need lunar bases, what is needed is exploration to determine if and where there is minable water on the Moon.
And the area of concern is about 1/4 million square km at the lunar poles.
And need robotic exploration to narrow the 250,000 square km to less than 1000 square km and we need good evidence to support such narrowing of the area of potential interest.
This should not cost hundred of billions of dollar to do, but I think one needs crew landing on the Moon at some point near the end of such a lunar program.

An element of whether lunar water is minable involves shipping lunar rocket fuel to Lunar orbit. Or the biggest problem of mining lunar water profitably will be having enough demand for the water mined.
This should emphatically indicate why NASA can't mine the water on the Moon- if you need a reason.
This enormous task of getting enough market for water mined, will be challenging and could prove impossible [within some particular time period]. Of course humans can and have done the impossible- fairly routinely, actually.
Though idea of  planning to mine water on the Moon before exploring to Moon, is stone dead impossible.

Anyhow as for: "Now try to design a mission sequence than is "affordable" in the sense of "can get funded."
First, that is NASA's job. I can suggest the importance of  exploring the moon to find minable water and other thing is to limit the scope of the program.
First one could say NASA has already started and should add further robotic lunar programs.
Second it should develop an operational depot in LEO, and so other commercial depots can invested in in other places in space. And depot in LEO would used for robotic exploration of the Moon and depots will be needed for Mars exploration. So NASA depot should regarded as experimental evolving towards operational.
But before this, NASA needs a specific plan to explore the Moon and gets Congress informed and involved in such a plan, and key element of this is cheap lunar exploration program which is entirely focused on exploring the moon to determine if and where there is minable lunar water.
It's going to be cheap because it will start and end within 10 years.
Now as said we have started it with LRO, but for this purpose the start of Lunar program begins with program to make operational depot in LEO, and progressing with major robotic program of lunar exploration, and ends with crew landings and lunar sample returns of the Moon.
Of course congress will want to know what follows this, and that is Mars exploration, which will be continuation of lunar major robotic program which will instead be focused on Mars, and continued
crewed program which will be focused on Mars. And by the time NASA starts the Mars program, NASA will have resolved the ISS program, so that ISS continues to be in space and NASA would spend less than 1 billion of it's budget on it.
And as far as SLS, it continues towards development and planned launch.

So lunar program for the 10 years will total 40 billion dollars [or less].
Depot program a few billion.
Mars program probably around 50 billion per decade

Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 11/08/2015 06:57 pm
According to this study, a suited human is 25x more productive (obs/unit time) than a rover in a simulated EVA, assuming 2015 technology for the rover.
Sounds like a lot, but: It doesn't take into account the time it takes to travel between science sites (where the rover is less disadvantaged) and the availability of the rover vs. humans (a rover can potentially be operated for up to a decade, humans stay maybe 500 days per mission, they also need to sleep etc.).

Additionally, the human will need somewhere to live. And that place will essentially be a high-maintenance machine that will suck up a decent proportion of the astronaut's time.

But humans rock at maintenance. So I would hope that if we can lower the cost of getting to, and working in space, eventually the cost/benefit shifts in favour of humans again. "Send someone to look at it" is just the easiest solution to a problem, compared to "Design a half billion dollar custom robot to..."
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: savuporo on 11/08/2015 07:08 pm
For example, take at the differences between the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and a typical Earth Observation satellite.  When you at them they appear to be largely the same.
Huh ? Care to talk about that in detail ? For instance, if you could elaborate which earth observation satellites are specifically designed for aerobraking maneuvers ?

None, but that requirement did not mean that all the technology and components that exist for commercial satellites could not be used.  Many of the parts used in the MRO are commercial parts.  Its computers, its batteries, its solar panels, its thrusters, and its propellant tanks all could be commercially acquired. 

Compare that to the

Whats that got to do with anything ? Pretty much everything, except nukes and classified tech can be 'commercially acquired'.
MRO is not a commercial satellite, it is built different, it functions different and it is operated very differently. Likewise for is any other spacecraft sent to Mars.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: the_other_Doug on 11/08/2015 07:13 pm
Remember, too, that your half-billion-dollar maintenance robot will inevitably be programmed to be able to respond to just a specific set of maintenance issues.  Every project that starts out with design statements like "will be able to adaptively respond to unanticipated situations" seems to end up with a design "able to respond to the following limited set of situations".  Because it's awfully, awfully hard to design adaptive robotic systems robust enough to bet your mission-critical systems on.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: KelvinZero on 11/09/2015 04:38 am
One place robotic precursors make a lot of sense for space colonisation is to answer basic ISRU questions before locking your HSF architecture and ISRU into certain assumptions, such as methane vs hydrogen.

The other example where I think there is a clear argument to send robots first is the HSF-scale rover. You are going to land it anyway, so landing it first is not diverting money that would otherwise go to HSF. It does mean extra missions but also more testing of your HSF lander before other parts are even assembled, and also a smaller lander (and thus smaller launcher etc) so I expect it actually ends up saving a lot of money to the HSF-scale rover ahead.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: wdobner on 11/09/2015 05:51 am
I said Moon Solo, but I'd be just as open to an international program.

It's the thoroughly nonprofessional, barely considered opinion of this mostly-lurker that we're nowhere near ready to go to Mars.  Life support, propellant transfer, IRSU, and power generation and storage technologies all appear to be somewhat lacking in readiness to support a manned Martian presence.  And our current program of record does nothing to improve that situation, despite Mars being the end goal.  But beyond research and development to me the big thing is logistics.  You don't need those things to be at TRL 9 if you can make up for some deficiencies at the end of a logistics chain measured in days or weeks as opposed to months or years.  Your life support doesn't have to be completely closed loop if you can send some water or oxygen up on a supply flight without killing your budget. 

Fine, the lander for Mars won't be identical to a lunar lander.  But the ELCSS, propellant transfer, and a dozen other technologies which will get your Martian lander to the point where it might actually land on Mars with its precious human cargo can be proved out in cislunar space at lower cost and with greater chance of survival in the event of a loss of mission incident than making the leap to Mars in our current state.  I realize in some cases the Moon will prove to be a more extreme environment than Mars, but again I'd argue being able to get supplies to the moon within a week of launching them from the Earth somewhat mitigates that.

I was a bit fond of the Bigelow proposal to land a trio of BA-330s on the Moon as a preassembled lunar base.  Let NASA Centers rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic SLS Mars Program for now, it'd be nice to chip off a small fraction of NASA's "exploration" SLS budget actually do exploration and finance a return to the Moon by commercial groups with whatever country wants a seat kicking in an appropriate amount of funding.  Land Bigelow's lunar base next to one of those lava tubes, or the ice at the South Pole and start looking around there.  Have NASA finance it in a manner similar to the CRS and CCDEV programs, with commercial entities controlling everything up to and including the station on the moon.  With any luck they'll develop the propellant depot technology that will make any attempt at a Martian landing a whole lot simpler.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/09/2015 06:19 am
One place robotic precursors make a lot of sense for space colonisation is to answer basic ISRU questions before locking your HSF architecture and ISRU into certain assumptions, such as methane vs hydrogen.

The other example where I think there is a clear argument to send robots first is the HSF-scale rover. You are going to land it anyway, so landing it first is not diverting money that would otherwise go to HSF. It does mean extra missions but also more testing of your HSF lander before other parts are even assembled, and also a smaller lander (and thus smaller launcher etc) so I expect it actually ends up saving a lot of money to the HSF-scale rover ahead.
With all the XPrize landers and rovers in development.  NASA can buy an existing flight proven system, they only need to develop their payload. Even better they have a choice from <10kg (Moonexpress) to 210kg (Astrobotic).

Moon Express are even planning a sample return lander. Link that in with a cislunar HSF mission and Orion could bring sample home.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: sdsds on 11/09/2015 06:22 am
One place robotic precursors make a lot of sense for space colonisation is to answer basic ISRU questions before locking your HSF architecture and ISRU into certain assumptions, such as methane vs hydrogen.

Yes. The buzz-phrase for this is to say there is a "Strategic Knowledge Gap" regarding (in particular for this thread) lunar ice.

it'd be nice to chip off a small fraction of NASA's "exploration" SLS budget actually do exploration and finance a return to the Moon by commercial groups with whatever country wants a seat kicking in an appropriate amount of funding.

Thank-you for taking on the rather daunting task of finding a funding mechanism for a forward path. I don't see how this "chipping off" would work, though. What NASA has done is to approve the "Lunar Flashlight" ride-along mission on EM-1.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/cubesat/missions/lunar_flashlight.php

I predict NASA will use the (assumed to be positive) results from Lunar Flashlight in a media campaign designed to build public support -- and more importantly Congressional  funding support -- for lunar surface missions, both robotic and crewed.

As regards that funding support they are hoping to garner, note that Dr. Cohen, the science lead for Lunar Flashlight, is from Marshall Space Flight Center.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: KelvinZero on 11/09/2015 07:33 am
Yes. The buzz-phrase for this is to say there is a "Strategic Knowledge Gap" regarding (in particular for this thread) lunar ice.
Also there is meant to be more CO than H2O in the LCROSS results so lunar methane ISRU sounds plausible and arguably less wasteful of all those volatiles. There is some other stuff too. We should investigate Phobos ISRU as well before making any long range Mars plans.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MP99 on 11/09/2015 07:54 am
The simple answer is have a program that doesn't last a long time.
And a Mars program can't be done in short period of time.
And a non simple answer is do exploration.


I said Moon Solo, but I'd be just as open to an international program.

It's the thoroughly nonprofessional, barely considered opinion of this mostly-lurker that we're nowhere near ready to go to Mars.  Life support, propellant transfer, IRSU, and power generation and storage technologies all appear to be somewhat lacking in readiness to support a manned Martian presence.  And our current program of record does nothing to improve that situation, despite Mars being the end goal.  But beyond research and development to me the big thing is logistics.  You don't need those things to be at TRL 9 if you can make up for some deficiencies at the end of a logistics chain measured in days or weeks as opposed to months or years.  Your life support doesn't have to be completely closed loop if you can send some water or oxygen up on a supply flight without killing your budget. 

Fine, the lander for Mars won't be identical to a lunar lander.  But the ELCSS, propellant transfer, and a dozen other technologies which will get your Martian lander to the point where it might actually land on Mars with its precious human cargo can be proved out in cislunar space at lower cost and with greater chance of survival in the event of a loss of mission incident than making the leap to Mars in our current state.  I realize in some cases the Moon will prove to be a more extreme environment than Mars, but again I'd argue being able to get supplies to the moon within a week of launching them from the Earth somewhat mitigates that.

Agree with both of these (though in-space ECLSS will be long-term tested in cislunar space).

Even more important, engineers don't have to have "jeez these guys will be cut off without external support for two years" constantly at the back of their minds while designing this stuff. I think that will make a huge difference. Adding the Moon as a way point makes the whole thing much more incremental, and the in-gravity elements much more field proven before making the leap to Mars.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Burninate on 11/09/2015 10:58 am
By the time we could get around to using it, ISS will be more useful as a source of raw materials rather than as an operational station.  The seals will be gone, the electronics obsolete if not fried, and other things long past their use-by date.   But orbital smelting plants are so far in the future it probably is not worth saving it.

I think using +100 tons of GEO non-operational Sats as better scrap.
Though I might favor scrapping ISS at some point, there would probably be much more people who didn't want to use ISS as scrap. I can imagine a distant future of protesters at congress doors arguing against such practical uses of an old station.

The problem with any of these proposals is that by the time we have orbital foundries, ~800 tons of mixed metals in LEO won't be a large number.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: gbaikie on 11/09/2015 05:25 pm
Re this:
Quote
There's bound to be some inevitable shakeups once a new US president takes office, and likely with it a new NASA administration and directive.  In addition, especially from the international conference recently held in Israel, the other nations of the world almost unanimously agree the Moon is a sensible, prime target with only NASA holding out.  There's a chance the combination may coax NASA onto a Lunar path.

Which option seems the most likely for NASA to adopt post-2016 onward?
And re something linked at Instapundit:
"So let's hear from you. What will the world be like in six months, next year, in five years, in twenty? What are the most important gathering historical forces? What is the big picture? Which political figure, if any, has shown a sign that he -- or she -- has the ability to master them? If none of them do, and if the task by some accident fell to you, how would you approach it?"
https://ricochet.com/geopolitical-predictions-place-your-bets/

Or things seem to be converging. One could say the latter is about global disruptions and topic of this thread is what is hoped for in terms of space policy. One connection of the two is Europe and it's "troubles" and how will this affect any of it's lunar ambitious or connection to US space policy.

I think the Iraq war had very significant effect upon US space policy. Or broadly speaking I would say the Iraq war delayed the potential of exploring the Moon. So not significant in terms shifting in direction, but rather something like hibernation.
It's possible for example that any Europe plans regarding space and the Moon could be delayed due to it's present situation.
It seems to me it's quite possible that instead of causing delay the various problems of major space players [Russian, China, Europe]  could accelerate involvement space activities, even if things get rather ulgy. Another aspect is minor space power may fill a vacuum created by disruption.

But point is that in terms predicting what going to happen at  the time US gets a new Potus, what occurring globally probably will have an effect.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Rhyshaelkan on 11/29/2015 05:20 pm
I dont care where they go, as long as they have a plan to industrialize space. No more flags and footprints, or even exploration. We can send robots to explore. We need to make space our own. Get off this rock and go.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: TomH on 02/11/2016 12:39 am
No button for my choice.

NASA buys FH-R-Raptor US and Dragons from SpaceX and develops other components it needs for a moon program. NASA takes the lead and SpaceX assists.

NASA assists SpaceX through SAAs in a Mars program. SpaceX takes the lead and NASA assists.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: hydra9 on 02/20/2016 05:54 pm
NASA should focus on returning to the Moon-- solo-- in the 2020s. International efforts really don't save you any money. Plus you end up outsourcing American aerospace jobs instead of building your space architecture domestically.

But NASA should offer a couple of seats on the journey for six human crews to the astronauts of foreign agencies for about $150 million for each astronaut. You could even allow them to bring back up to 10 kilograms of lunar samples each for their foreign space agencies. This would save NASA $300 million per  crewed lunar mission.

For foreign space agencies, sending an astronaut to the Moon for just $150 million plus bringing back lunar samples would be an incredible bargain!


A simple regolith shielded lunar outpost should primarily be used for the manufacturing of polar water and propellant for export to the Earth-Moon Lagrange points for crewed voyages to Mars in the 2030s.

But the manufacturing of lunar propellant could also allow reusable lunar crew landers to be utilized as reusable lunar hoppers. Lunar hoppers could be launched every few months from the polar lunar outpost to practically every region on the lunar surface in less than an hour for a few hours or a few days of exploration. 

Marcel



Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: sdsds on 02/21/2016 04:31 am
International efforts really don't save you any money.
The reason why human spaceflight efforts get internationalized isn't to save money.
Quote
Plus you end up outsourcing American aerospace jobs instead of building your space architecture domestically.

But NASA should offer a couple of seats on the journey for six human crews to the astronauts of foreign agencies for about $150 million for each astronaut. [...] For foreign space agencies, sending an astronaut to the Moon for just $150 million plus bringing back lunar samples would be an incredible bargain!

They don't want to do it at bargain prices. They want to do it to insource aerospace DDT&E.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: hydra9 on 02/21/2016 10:17 pm
International efforts really don't save you any money.
The reason why human spaceflight efforts get internationalized isn't to save money.
Quote

You're certainly correct on that one. International cooperation doesn't save the American tax payer any money!

Plus you end up outsourcing American aerospace jobs instead of building your space architecture domestically.

But NASA should offer a couple of seats on the journey for six human crews to the astronauts of foreign agencies for about $150 million for each astronaut. [...] For foreign space agencies, sending an astronaut to the Moon for just $150 million plus bringing back lunar samples would be an incredible bargain!

They don't want to do it at bargain prices. They want to do it to insource aerospace DDT&E.

Exactly! So there's no logical reason for American's to want to outsource their aerospace industry.

But I disagree with you as far as no nation wanting to pay for a cheap  seat to the Moon, plus bring back lunar material that your country can study for their own space program. 10 kilograms of lunar regolith would be some very precious material for a country that would someday like to use its own technological resources to travel to the Moon.

Marcel
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: sdsds on 02/22/2016 12:12 am
We're pretty much on the same wavelength, but I think there is a reason why the United States would want to lead an international high tech effort like a Moon mission, rather than going it alone, even if doing so were more costly and outsourced DDT&E. That's because leadership in this has both prestige benefits, and also diplomatic benefits.

Try looking at in in a context other than spaceflight. I recently suggested to a friend that a worthy successor to ISS would be an "International Heavy Icebreaker" project. (The polar regions of the globe really could use at least one more heavy icebreaker!) Some nation would contribute the hull; some other nation the massive engines; maybe a third the guidance, navigation and control electronics.

But for such an effort to work, one nation would need to step up and write the specification, or at least specify the requirements. How much ice really needs to be broken? If the United States does that specification-of-the-need part, it looks like its in the lead of the effort. That's maybe too easy for an icebreaker. But for a sustained lunar effort I suggest it would be not easy, but rather a difficult effort worthy of a great nation.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/22/2016 12:32 am
But I disagree with you as far as no nation wanting to pay for a cheap  seat to the Moon, plus bring back lunar material that your country can study for their own space program. 10 kilograms of lunar regolith would be some very precious material for a country that would someday like to use its own technological resources to travel to the Moon.

Of the material we brought back from the Moon, part of it was given away as gifts - essentially no real scientific value.

There is always a cost-benefit analysis of doing something, but I don't see where the country of Portugal would see a big need to pay for 10 kilograms of random Moon dust.  Or Saudi Arabia.  Or ??

And material from the Moon is only "precious" right now because of scarcity, not because it consists of material we can't find here on Earth.  The more material that is brought back will lower the perceived value of what is brought back, so at some point it doesn't make sense to spend so much money to get so little.  Based on that, other than geologic knowledge random material from the Moon is not really of any value.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: KelvinZero on 03/18/2016 07:21 am
I think other countries would be more likely to wish to contribute by supplying modules or delivering cargo with unmanned landers. It is more about pushing their own technological prowess. And paying your own scientists $100m is very different from paying america 100m since it flows straight back into your own economy.

Integration on the surface could avoid a lot of the unhealthy co-dependent relationship of the ISS. In some cases integration would just mean within rover distance. Rovers are another thing they could contribute.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Jonathan_Blatter on 03/20/2016 06:08 pm
NASA should get the technology Ready for Use. as quick as possible. ESA and Jaxa the same way. And let the privet take the Risk and the profit. when That will happen the comptesion will star and the price will fall.
and the Asteroid Moon and Mars will be discovered. by the right way and means.
I really hope to see more rockets with the names of companies like SpaceX, DSM, boing, Biglow, ... Starting from around the World.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: gbaikie on 03/20/2016 09:43 pm
But I disagree with you as far as no nation wanting to pay for a cheap  seat to the Moon, plus bring back lunar material that your country can study for their own space program. 10 kilograms of lunar regolith would be some very precious material for a country that would someday like to use its own technological resources to travel to the Moon.

Of the material we brought back from the Moon, part of it was given away as gifts - essentially no real scientific value.

There is always a cost-benefit analysis of doing something, but I don't see where the country of Portugal would see a big need to pay for 10 kilograms of random Moon dust.  Or Saudi Arabia.  Or ??

And material from the Moon is only "precious" right now because of scarcity, not because it consists of material we can't find here on Earth.  The more material that is brought back will lower the perceived value of what is brought back, so at some point it doesn't make sense to spend so much money to get so little.  Based on that, other than geologic knowledge random material from the Moon is not really of any value.

Material from the Moon is "precious" but it's actually over-priced due to scarcity.
It would be a good thing if material from the Moon was not over-priced due to scarcity, and were that to be the case, lunar material would be precious rather than "precious".

There is no reality in which Moon dirt becomes as cheap as Earth dirt and that is also that is bad situation for earthlings.
What would be good is that lunar dirt was a commodity and that commodity was at a low price. And a very low price of lunar dirt is about $10 per gram. What determines lunar dirt value is the ability of using money to get it in exchange for money- and at the moment the ability to get lunar dirt with money is limited- it's "precious" not precious.
One can't make lunar dirt, one can only make a poor copy of lunar dirt. This quite different than diamonds- as one can make "good copies" of diamonds.
A significant difference between diamonds and artificially made diamonds, is that natural diamonds are encoded with information- that you might want. Though if wanted information on how to make artificial diamonds, artificial diamonds could also encoded information. Natural diamonds encode how nature makes diamond, artificial diamonds could tell how humans make diamonds. So, a natural diamond might be a billion year old and an artificial might a year or two old.
The aspect that one can't make a good copy of lunar dirt is valuable- not a value which is realized, but rather a potential value which could be realized. Sprinkle paper money with moon dirt could be way to prevent forgery. And preventing forgery has value for more things than just money.

In order to develop value for lunar dirt one needs lunar dirt to be able to be bought with money, and we don't have this situation at the moment. And this is all about "making money" in sense that governments may be the ones that print money but governments don't "make money". To "make money" or create wealth from nothing, one needs markets.

The Moon is covered with stuff which could be worth $50 to $100 per gram, but like gold the more mined
the lower it's price becomes [which is good- if you want gold]. Lowering the price of gold to $5 to $10 would good for everyone except those hoarding gold. And it's not particularly important if people hoard gold or lunar dirt, or it's welcome news that China mine more gold than any other nation. Likewise it would be welcome news whenever some would mine lunar dirt- particular if such mining is selling to a free market.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Rhyshaelkan on 03/24/2016 06:49 pm
Having watched a few programs by Zubrin again lately. My problem with Mars First, is the lack of focus on industry. We will never be space fairing until we make stuff in space for space.

If a gab breaks down, the answer cannot be "we can ship another one from Earth." Even if you had the resources to do so, it is a noose around your neck.

Why i want people, not necessarily NASA, to go Moon First is to get astro industry rolling sooner.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Blackstar on 03/27/2016 04:12 pm
This and other related subjects are discussed in a new issue. You can download the articles for free:

http://online.liebertpub.com/toc/space/4/1
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Rhyshaelkan on 03/27/2016 10:35 pm
Great PDFs to read.

Luna for Transportation and Industry Hub of the solar system.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Nibb31 on 03/28/2016 09:19 am
Whether NASA likes it or not, the only think Orion/SLS is useful for (and was actually designed and scaled for) is cislunar exploration. Orion is useless for Mars and with infrastructure scaled for 1 launch/year, assembling an MTV that will require 3 or 4 SLS launches is pretty much impossible.

Orion was originally designed to go to the Moon, and although it has evolved a lot since Constellation, that's still pretty much all it can be used for. Although NASA is towing the party line with its silly  "Journey to Mars" PR, everybody knows that what they are building now is a cislunar infrastructure, not a Mars vehicle.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 03/28/2016 03:03 pm
Whether NASA likes it or not, the only think Orion/SLS is useful for (and was actually designed and scaled for) is cislunar exploration. Orion is useless for Mars and with infrastructure scaled for 1 launch/year, assembling an MTV that will require 3 or 4 SLS launches is pretty much impossible.
Orion was originally designed to go to the Moon, and although it has evolved a lot since Constellation, that's still pretty much all it can be used for. Although NASA is towing the party line with its silly  "Journey to Mars" PR, everybody knows that what they are building now is a cislunar infrastructure, not a Mars vehicle.

However, the same maths applies to lunar missions as Mars, for both budget and timing. It will be around 2030 before funding is freed up (combination of killing ISS in 2028 and ending initial development of the SLS-130 in 2032) to start development on lunar infrastructure. In the meantime, the launcher and capsule development and operations consumes the entirety of the development budget.

And looking at the current rate & cost of development, and projected rate of launch, you are looking at 2040 before you would see the first humans on the moon. With a subsequent flight-rate of one mission every 2 years or so.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/29/2016 12:20 pm
<snip>
And looking at the current rate & cost of development, and projected rate of launch, you are looking at 2040 before you would see the first humans on the moon. With a subsequent flight-rate of one mission every 2 years or so.

Getting people on the Moon will not take decades. There are cheaper alternatives to both the SLS and Orion in the pipeline.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 03/30/2016 04:58 am
Getting people on the Moon will not take decades. There are cheaper alternatives to both the SLS and Orion in the pipeline.

Nibb31's post was solely about SLS/Orion. His whole point was that their only purpose and capability is a lunar mission. My response was predicated on that, nothing else.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: robertinventor on 06/22/2016 07:21 pm
I think an international effort would save money for all concerned. Examples, just straight off:
* Landing pad and beacon. Will simplify landing to have a flat surface of lunar glass, no dust, and beacon to land there
* Site. Especially at the lunar poles there may not be that many sites, just a few square kilometers total. In an international effort then all the habitats can be built at the most optimum site. Similarly there may be some caves that are optimal.
* Contamination. If some areas need to be preserved for scientific study, then putting all the habitats in one place reduces contamination
* Services. Especially for new arrivals, it may be a great benefit to be able to hook into the villages electricity and oxygen generation and fuel generation capabilities, and power storage until you develop your own.
* Able to develop a large space. This especially applies to the lunar caves. If the caves are large, as they may be, it might be possible to develop the entire interior of a cave like a Stanford Torus / O'Neil cylinder. If so, again it makes much more sense for everyone to be in the same cave rather than have a half dozen here trying to develop one cave, a dozen in another place and three astronauts in another place all trying to create their own habitats.
* 3D printing of the regolith shielding. If someone has already brought a 3D printer to the Moon able to make shielding for habitats by sintering the regolith or making it into some form of concrete using resin or whatever, then everyone else from then on can use the same machinery and don't need to bring their own printers with them. This is likely to be a large machine.
* Similarly for cranes, or for vehicles to travel over the surface
* Ability for neighbours in the village to help each other. Especially in case of an accident, but also simple things like you have short term trouble with your oxygen supply, or CO2 scrubbing, or even just, that  temporarily you run out of salt or whatever it is. Or your plants die and your neighbours can give you new seedlings.
* Also to help with advice and tips. Maybe the Americans have an expert in environmental control and spacesuits, and the Russians have a good doctor expert at heart conditions or an osteopathic surgeon, and the Europeans have an expert in the technology of the rovers, and the Japanese, an expert in telerobotics, or whatever, they can just call by, look at the situation, and give their advice in person.
* Refuges in an emergency. Any of the habitats can be an emergency shelter for all the others.

I think myself that for as long as the US have the policy that they are not permitted to co-operate with the Chinese that they should join the village, not lead it. Can lead in particular areas of course. But I think it's important that the Chinese can build their own base within the village, and are not forced to build it somewhere else on the Moon just because they can't be involved in a US / Chinese project. I think we need to avoid dividing up the Moon into sections that the Chinese control and sections that everyone else controls. They couldn't own it because of the OST, but I just think it is better for future co-operation and peace in space if they are in the same village. Which they want to do themselves. For the present, I think the ESA are best for leading it, though of course that could change as time goes on. This has nothing to do with issues of human rights, and everything to do with the way that astronauts in space find that they see no frontiers - especially on the Moon and that they are just people out there. Also that China joins in with other countries in the Olympic games, and there it surely helps with world piece to have this sort of friendly competition between athletes. So a similar approach in space with space exploration.

To late to vote but obviously, I'd vote the last, that the US should join in with an international effort. But I think not as leaders, but as partners.

Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/22/2016 07:30 pm
1) How much is the entire lunar thing going to cost through the point where hundreds of tons of lunar propellant are delivered to orbit?

2) How much does it cost to simply launch propellant to orbit from Earth?


If #1 includes people, it's not going to be cheaper than #2. Ergo, NASA shouldn't be "refocusing" on returning to the Moon if the purpose is to get to Mars.

NASA could offer to buy propellant from companies who might want to do it, but if NASA "refocuses" on the Moon, it'd be an ENORMOUS waste of money (if the end-goal is humans to Mars).
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: jongoff on 06/22/2016 11:57 pm
I think NASA should keep its focus on Mars, but throw the Moon a bone in the form of Lunar COTS and then ongoing lunar CRS as part of ESA's Moon Village. They could probably do this with ~10% of their HEOMD budget post-ISS.

"Focusing on the Moon" is almost a guaranteed way to attract those at NASA who care more about setting up destination-specific Program Offices and fiefdoms than on actual results. I'd rather see a small enough chunk thrown at the Moon to keep it as a lean public/private partnership, while NASA keeps its main focus on pretending like it's going to send people to Mars. I'll probably blog some more about it later.

Cynical? Qui moi?

~Jon
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: robertinventor on 06/23/2016 12:46 pm
1) How much is the entire lunar thing going to cost through the point where hundreds of tons of lunar propellant are delivered to orbit?

2) How much does it cost to simply launch propellant to orbit from Earth?


If #1 includes people, it's not going to be cheaper than #2. Ergo, NASA shouldn't be "refocusing" on returning to the Moon if the purpose is to get to Mars.

Well that's the nub of it. Do you have as your main focus to send humans to Mars? Mars doesn't really lead anywhere else, just to more Mars. Or do you have as your main focus the entire solar system? Including the Moon? And including Mars?

If your focus is the  entire solar system, the Moon itself is part of the solar system with many surprises in the last decade or two and prospects of many more to come.  It's also at a fixed distance from Earth. Far safer, get back in 3 days, resupply at any time in an emergency. While going to Mars is like a six months sea voyage without lifeboats - and if anything goes wrong Apollo 13 style soon after you leave Earth, it's nearly two years before you can get back to Earth.

The Moon is higher in the Earth's gravity well, indeed there's a method, Hoyt's cislunar tether transport system, that can get mass from the lunar surface down to LEO with almost no fuel needed at all, it actually generates energy through transporting matter from the Moon to LEO (a bit like rolling something down a mountain).

The Moon seems by far the easiest place to make economically viable by exports,with many valuable materials there. I don't know if it is possible, anywhere in space, but if so the Moon is a good bet for that. It's got the potentially huge lunar caves too, they could be kilometers in diameter and over a hundred kilometers long. Already pre-fabricated "O'Neil Cylinders". It has volatiles at the poles, potentially hundreds of millions of tons, enough for everyone in a city of a million to have one lane of an Olympic sized swimming pool's worth of water, and millions of tons of ammonia and CO2.

Lots of potential benefits. And of much interest itself as a "record keeper" of the Earth and the inner solar system in its layers of ice if they exist - and surely must have Earth meteorites from early Earth - and possibly from early Venus too. And for that matter it must have Mars meteorites as well, preserved untransformed for billions of years. The ones on Earth all left Mars some time in the last 20 million years (from impacts on Mars roughly once every one or two million years) - that's because Earth clears its orbit on those timescales. So though they may have formed on ancient Mars, some of them, the ones on the Moon could have left ancient Mars while it still had oceans! As well as meteorites from Earth from throughout its geological past too.

And the main thing is, it's a gateway to the rest of the solar system.  Could be used for making the spaceships too, according to Dennis Wingo's ideas, not limited in size and shape by need to launch the completed craft through an atmosphere, and able to make very high grade electronics in its high vacuum.  Setting up bases and settlements on the Moon is a far forward looking vision that could open the entire solar system including Venus, Mercury, Jupiter's moons, asteroids. On the Moon we can do experiments in closed system recycling, get used to exploring with telerobotics, find out how little you can manage on in a habitat on another surface, find out how much it contaminates the immediate vicinity with the various wastes from the habitat, learn to explore in a clean and responsible way.

See my Case for Moon First, Gateway to Entire Solar System - Open Ended Exploration, Planetary Protection at its Heart (http://robertinventor.com/booklets/Online-Case-for-Moon.htm).
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/23/2016 01:21 pm
If you design a system capable of sending you to Mars and back, you can easily get to the Moon and back and also many asteroids. With a little cleverness, perhaps Ceres as well.

The reverse is not true. If you focus on the Moon, you won't have the stuff necessary to go to Mars.

But yes, I do think that if you had to pick anywhere, Mars is by far the best place for sustained settlement in the solar system. But focusing on Mars does not restrict you from going elsewhere, not in the least.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: rocx on 06/23/2016 02:45 pm
If you design a system capable of sending you to Mars and back, you can easily get to the Moon and back and also many asteroids. With a little cleverness, perhaps Ceres as well.

Definitely wrong if you are talking about landing. You cannot aerobrake on the Moon so you need bigger propellant tanks. Oh, and making propellant from an atmosphere that doesn't exist won't work either.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/23/2016 02:58 pm
If you design a system capable of sending you to Mars and back, you can easily get to the Moon and back and also many asteroids. With a little cleverness, perhaps Ceres as well.

Definitely wrong if you are talking about landing. You cannot aerobrake on the Moon so you need bigger propellant tanks. Oh, and making propellant from an atmosphere that doesn't exist won't work either.
Your Mars ascent vehicle needs ~5km/s delta-v. That's the same as needed to land on the Moon and take off again. You wouldn't need to make propellant on the surface!

Specifically, I'm thinking of MCT/BFS which would have more like 6-7km/s delta-v.

But I had similar thoughts long before MCT was first hinted at. A single-stage lunar lander/ascender has the same performance requirements as a Mars ascent vehicle. So if you want to do both, you're much better starting with the Mars design first, as it allows you to do a simpler lunar architecture anyway. Starting off with a lander that only works for the Moon will mean you basically have to start over. Plus, you might be tempted to pursue a two-stage Apollo-like design which limits ability to reuse. A single-stage lander allows you to refuel in orbit (thus allow reuse before propellant production begins) AND allows you to land MUCH larger payloads if/when you DO get surface propellant production working.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: robertinventor on 06/23/2016 03:38 pm
If you design a system capable of sending you to Mars and back, you can easily get to the Moon and back and also many asteroids. With a little cleverness, perhaps Ceres as well.

The reverse is not true. If you focus on the Moon, you won't have the stuff necessary to go to Mars.

But yes, I do think that if you had to pick anywhere, Mars is by far the best place for sustained settlement in the solar system. But focusing on Mars does not restrict you from going elsewhere, not in the least.

If it's to Mars orbit or its moons, then there's not that much difference except the need to be able to last several years without resupply from Earth. I suggest EML2 which is a useful site for Moon exploration as a good place to start there. It's safer because if anything goes wrong you can get back to Earth in 3 days. But a totally alien environment. You can't see Earth in the sky and no direct communications with Earth, have to relay, so it's got some of the isolation of a trip to Mars or Venus or Mercury or Jupiter but without the much higher risks of those missions.

You can also use it for telepresence operation on the lunar surface, indeed main use of it. That's the same as telepresence operation on the lunar surface. There's a lot of parallel technology that can be used anywhere in the solar system. You can also work on artificial gravity and closed systems. And I don't think it is safe to go on a multi-year interplanetary mission with no lifeboats without first having a shakeout cruise closer to Earth first, so EML2 is your first shakeout cruise, but it is also simultaneously an asset for lunar exploration. And very low cost operation as human spaceflight goes because if you are able to do interplanetary flight (which I don't think we can do safely yet) you only need to resupply it once every few years, and also crew can go there for a multi-year duration mission. I think myself we need to use artificial gravity and can sort that out in cislunar space, and if we can find an AG gravity prescription for long term health, then there is no limit on how long humans can spend inside a spacship on an interplanetary cruise, so the whole solar system is open to us.

As for radiation shielding, you can supply that from the Moon, even if it is regolith. Low cost export of material from the Moon + lower cost fuel would mean that every interplanetary spaceship can be supplied with sufficient shielding to eliminate cosmic radiation / solar storms issues completely, if you so wish. Perhaps not right away but fairly soon. Also if going to the Moon actually is economically valuable, that can help fund interplanetary missions too.

For planetary protection reasons both ways, Earth to Mars and Mars to Earth, I don't think we should send humans to the surface of Mars until we have given it a reasonably complete biological survey. Perhaps 54 lander missions (a fairly random figure taken from Sagan) and 30 orbiters devoted to search for life there. And if there are habitats for life on Mars, whether for Earth life and uninhabited or already inhabited by indigenous life, I think that we should in that case step very carefully. Because introducing Earth life to Mars would then be biologically irreversible. This means it creates a new "geological era" given that eras in geology are usually marked out by the life present on Earth. And for all future time this would be the start of the Anthropocene era on Mars. Which may seem great, but it is closing off future options. Whatever is there now, it can't be studied any more after the start of the biological anthropocene era there, and there may also be many ways that life on Mars could continue in the future depending on what life is introduced there, in what order, whether accidentally or on purpose. E.g. do you want methanogens there? What about secondary producers that eat algae, do you want them now or not until later? What about hydrogen sulfide producing life? Methanotrophs eating methane (if perhaps you want methane to make the atmosphere more warming)? And some people say that if we find exobiology on Mars we should reverse all biological contamination there and have Mars for the Martians.

I think that the best thing is to keep all our options open and not close things off when our understanding is so minimal as it is at present, especially for exobiology. Going to the Moon with humans does that, while at the same time being an exciting future with a lot of potential for humans in space, with the giant caves probably, volatiles etc. And all the time you are building up experience and assets that can be used anywhere. For instance I happen to think myself that there's a lot of potential in Venus cloud colonies, far more than seems at first. The least technological of all the possible habitats in space outside of Earth, and largest volume habitat for a given payload mass, that much I think is reasonably certain. Also habitats made from the asteroids themselves, and there are enthusiasts who advocate colonies on Mercury and on Jupiter's Callisto. It's not just Mars by any means. So why rush to the place most vulnerable to Earth microbes as quickly as possible? Why not start with the Moon, and then keep all our options open throughout the solar system as we find more ,and for Mars, once we have the capability, start with humans in orbit and exploring its moons? That's where this is coming from.

A lot of the ideas for Mars colonies can be used on the Moon, e.g. the suitport for keeping dust out. And the ideas for in situ creation of fuel on Mars can be used to fuel fast moving telerobots controlled from orbit. Avatars that let you experience the surface with binocular vision, haptic feedback, able to walk around on the surface also as with the virtuix omni, I see a future where astronauts in orbit around Mars can explore the surface actually with more freedom than they would have in spacesuits on the surface, and that's a technique that can also be explored on the Moon where for safety reasons I expect a lot of the exploration will be done telerobotically with EVA perhaps used mostly for recreation. It's slowly heading that way with the ISS and satellite repair. And that then is a model that can be used throughout the solar system to explore environments where humans just couldn't survive for long at all, some of them. Again means the whole solar system opens out to us.

And if exploring is done by telepresence, everything you see is streamed and recorded as live feed HD stereoscopic video + binaural sound (where it makes sense), and anyone can then go and follow through, could also be used to create 3D versions of the landscape you explore, for anyone back on Earth to then explore for themselves and maybe spot things the astronauts missed or didn't have the specialized expertise to notice.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/23/2016 03:53 pm
I count 53 missions (counting both orbiters and landers) to Mars that have been attempted so far:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Mars

We're actually quite close to that number of 54. We've been lazy and haven't actually done much direct exobiology on those missions. But we HAVE done a lot of observations of Mars, which provides the opportunity for surreptitious exobiology, if any extant life is visible.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/23/2016 03:58 pm
How about ~50 small cubesat-sized landers (or penetrators) with exobiology equipment? That'd allow you to get to Sagan's numbers efficiently and quickly, before the first human missions, even on SpaceX's timeline.

...you could do that with a single launch of a partially-reusable Falcon 9.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: robertinventor on 06/23/2016 04:55 pm
We're actually quite close to that number of 54. We've been lazy and haven't actually done much direct exobiology on those missions. But we HAVE done a lot of observations of Mars, which provides the opportunity for surreptitious exobiology, if any extant life is visible.

Oh sorry didn't explain it right. They are landers that land successfully and are devoted to search for life on Mars. So far we only have the two Viking landers, so 2 out of the 54.

And those are missions devoted to search for present day life, so you can't count Curiosity, anyway Curiosity is not able to identify past life either from the organics, if it found it, or not easily anyway, it's a past habitibility mission not a past life mission. but the organics it found is thought to be from meteorites.

Exobiologists have been trying to get NASA to send life detection missions to Mars but no success since Viking. The latest attempt was UREY and was going to be a collaborative mission with ESA but NASA pulled out and the result is ExoMars instead which though very capable in a way is not as capable as UREY for search for life.

And - we've only had 7 successful landers so far. But if this steps up to 2 a year successful, then that would be 52 years. I think the best way to speed it up is through miniaturization. Or lots of robotic missions. Or both.

Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/23/2016 05:01 pm
We're actually quite close to that number of 54. We've been lazy and haven't actually done much direct exobiology on those missions. But we HAVE done a lot of observations of Mars, which provides the opportunity for surreptitious exobiology, if any extant life is visible.

Oh sorry didn't explain it right. They are landers that land successfully and are devoted to search for life on Mars. So far we only have the two Viking landers, so 2 out of the 54.

And those are missions devoted to search for present day life, so you can't count Curiosity, anyway Curiosity is not able to identify past life either from the organics, if it found it, or not easily anyway, it's a past habitibility mission not a past life mission. but the organics it found is thought to be from meteorites.

Exobiologists have been trying to get NASA to send life detection missions to Mars but no success since Viking. The latest attempt was UREY and was going to be a collaborative mission with ESA but NASA pulled out and the result is ExoMars instead which though very capable in a way is not as capable as UREY for search for life.

And - we've only had 7 successful landers so far. But if this steps up to 2 a year successful, then that would be 52 years. I think the best way to speed it up is through miniaturization. Or lots of robotic missions. Or both.
As I said, just have a mission with 50 cubesats or penetrators, each with miniaturized exobiology instruments. You could complete the survey with a single RTLS Falcon 9 launch and by the 2022 launch window (if you started rightsoonnow).
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: robertinventor on 06/23/2016 05:06 pm
How about ~50 small cubesat-sized landers (or penetrators) with exobiology equipment? That'd allow you to get to Sagan's numbers efficiently and quickly, before the first human missions, even on SpaceX's timeline.

...you could do that with a single launch of a partially-reusable Falcon 9.

Yes, though it's not just a numbers game. A swarm of 54 identical probes all sent to explore a single cave or a single region on Mars wouldn't hack it. And he was thinking surely of missions with capability similar to Viking, so several instruments and very sensitive. Can certainly do with a lot less mass than Viking, very tiny nowadays.

There are many places we need to explore and dedicated missions for each. But if small they could all go on the same launch perhaps.

I'd think you need a few missions to each of these targets myself:

* The RSLs, send missions to more than one of those as they are especially interesting, geographically isolated and it's possible some have life and some don't.

* The flow like features in Richardson's crater near the south pole. This may consist of fresh water trapped under ice, so especially interesting for viability

* Equatorial sand dunes. Levin thinks Viking discovered life already. A few others think there is a possibility of that also, and as well as that, whether it did or not, are ways they could be habitable. So we need to check up on that to be sure. Also Curiosity found a liquid water layer a few cms below the surface of the sand dunes indirectly. Nilton Renno has suggested that microbes could find a way to create a niche in it, by transforming the environment as it can do on Earth even though the data suggests it is always either too salty or too cold for life.

[ExoMars may give the first ideas about this - though it's not quite as sensitive as Viking's labelled release, it could find life in the Atacama desert core which Curiosity couldn't]

* Salt / ice interfaces. Nilton Renno's "swimming pools for microbes"

* Salt pillars and deliquescing salts.

* Both of those could be combined with a visit back to Phoenix's landing site - a study from ground level there able to detect life could also detect whether any of the Earth microbes from Phoenix have been able to replicate as Phoenix was crushed. Hopefully not, but if they have best to know at an early stage. And gives us some ground truth for robotic exploration sterilization to show our measures are adequate.

* I think we should study the Hellas basin because of the icy mists that form there and because it is the densest atmosphere on Mars which could make a difference to habitability.

* I think caves need a visit. Not so much lava tube caves as other types of caves. Difficulty is, they are hard to spot form orbit. We do need survey not just orbital images, which are also limited to particular times of day and such like. E.g. miniature planes to fly along the Valles Marineres to photograph it up close.

* Should explore the surface itself for life, for lichens that might be able to grow using just the night time humidity, according to the DLR experiments.

* Study the Martian dust as it might have spores in it from anywhere on Mars.

There may be others, but those are the main ones I can think of right away.  And there would be some building on previous expeditions so I think definitely can't just do it all in one mission :). You'd have survey missions and preliminary missions first, but if we had the funding, say a dozen missions every two years for twelve years :). Each wave of missions building on the previous ones, refining the search. Or some other combination including maybe building up to more and more missions as we get an idea of which places to target.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/23/2016 05:11 pm
The idea with the 54 landers is to allow a very broad, planet-wide sample to be acquired. I think that was the thinking behind Sagan's original claim.

If you want to explore every possible niche, that won't be possible without either strong AI or landing humans.

But I have a question to ask:
Are you moving the goal posts each time in order to justify the claim that we cannot send people soon, not matter how effective the mission is?
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: robertinventor on 06/23/2016 05:21 pm
The idea with the 54 landers is to allow a very broad, planet-wide sample to be acquired. I think that was the thinking behind Sagan's original claim.

If you want to explore every possible niche, that won't be possible without either strong AI or landing humans.

But I have a question to ask:
Are you moving the goal posts each time in order to justify the claim that we cannot send people soon, not matter how effective the mission is?

None of those suggestions need humans on the surface. Can be done from Earth. It would be a good idea to set up broadband communications which you could do with the orbiters. Forgot to add those, he said 30 orbiters. Devoted to searchign for life like the Trace Gas Orbiter - and broadband would make a huge difference to pace of discovery.

Carl Sagan wrote this back in the 1960s before Viking. I use it because - well he was an astrobiologist, trained in biology so has some idea of what is needed. And with new ideas of habitability of Mars, is getting back to the complex world he envisioned back then.

So he had no idea what would be the special places to explore. My list was just a list of some examples that you would bring up nowadays. Of course not just 54 missions at random over the surface of Mars, would be targeted missions.  No point in doing endless biological surveys of the Martian uplands or the equatorial regions. These are nearly all places that we know of from orbit - places we can target on the ground to within meters. Except the caves, that's a harder one to crack. Can explore the lava tube caves, not sure how we'll find the other types of caves which might have geothermal activity plus vents to the surface. The methane plume localizatio may help there, if they are related. Heat signature searches.

It's just the sort of thing that would be involved in something like this. It would need to be planned and worked out by astrobiologists. Not just get a geologist to scatter life detection probes over Mars, that would not work at all.

Is that clear? 54 missions, but 54 carefully planned missions. The examples I gave were just to give an idea of why we'd need so many,  using modern ideas of possible habitats on Mars. But I think you could indeed have many of them simultaneously though some would need to build on previous ones. Just many carefully planned missions simultaneously.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/23/2016 05:29 pm
To explore the very deep subsurface (which is probably the most likely place to find life) would likely require something close to humans. And to explore every likely subsurface niche definitely would.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: robertinventor on 06/23/2016 05:32 pm
And ideally you have humans in orbit operating them by telerobotics. A bit like Civilization -they step in when one of them is stuck about what to do or to make the more important executive decisions. So - in a future like that you might, once we have the capability to do it safely, and once all those landers are deployed, have half a dozen humans in orbit, perhaps in alternating two person shifts,  each responsible for 27 rovers / landers on the surface. Lesser numbers to start with but build up to that many at the end. But they just control one of those at a time of course and "teleport" from one to the other, doing the interesting and challenging things.

I think that would speed up the pace of discovery a lot. And give them power to range widely over the surface of Mars and you could do a huge amount with those 54 landers. Still nowhere near complete, imagine trying to get a clear view of the biological diversity of Earth with 54 landers, so about eight per continent, or in terms of countries, one lander for every three countries. When you think about it that way, it's not a lot to try to find out about a planet with a total land area similar to Earth.

But - idea is it is adequate to get a first idea of what is there biologically.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/23/2016 05:36 pm
Who is going to pay for it, just to satisfy a tiny slice of the scientific community, but not all of it (since you'll STILL have hold-outs)?

You're talking about an effort probably much more expensive than sending humans to the surface. And you STILL won't be accessing the place most likely to have life: the very, very deep subsurface.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: robertinventor on 06/23/2016 05:39 pm
To explore the very deep subsurface (which is probably the most likely place to find life) would likely require something close to humans. And to explore every likely subsurface niche definitely would.

Drilling can be done using self hammering moles. That's what Insight uses for it's 5 meters drill and that is extendible to any depth in the regolith of Mars.

But - I think it's no longer clear that the very deep subsurface is the most likely place to find life. What I described was a survey of the surface and near subsurface. Down to a few cms as below that you have the permafrost and it is too cold even for salty brines, anywhere on Mars - you'd go deeper only where there are open caves or geological hot spots or other reasons to suppose you need to drill - that's for present day life. For past life you do have to drill.

There is one other present day deep habitat - that's in the ice sheets. If the ice melts below 900 meters below the surface then the geothermal heat from Mars itself is enough to keep it liquid (though not enough to make it liquid from the solid state). So there may be subsurface lakes in the polar regions like that. That is sort of intermediate, not extremely deep like kilometers deep but deep enough to be hard of access, and maybe you melt your way down.

I wasn't counting that. I think there's a decent chance of surface life there. Perhaps 50/50? And also looking for habitats with no life, as if there are surface habitats, those are vulnerable to Earth microbes meaning that sending microbes there is irreversible so you want to know that too even if they are uninhabited. So it is specifically a search for present day surface habitats and life - or reasonably easily accessible from the surface. I think that is what Sagan had in mind. Those are the habitats most vulnerable to contamination by Earth microbes and planetary protection issues.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: robertinventor on 06/23/2016 05:46 pm
Who is going to pay for it, just to satisfy a tiny slice of the scientific community, but not all of it (since you'll STILL have hold-outs)?

You're talking about an effort probably much more expensive than sending humans to the surface. And you STILL won't be accessing the place most likely to have life: the very, very deep subsurface.
That's the view from ten years ago, but I think nowadays it's not so clear at all that the kilometers deep subsurface is the place to search for life. There are so many present day surface habitats now proposed.

It could be part of the humans to Mars mission, humans in orbit studying the surface by telerobotics. This would be only a small part of the cost of sending humans to Mars orbit. Especially with miniaturization - you were talking about possibly putting all the missions in one Falcon heavy. If that was possible then that 12 a year is one Falcon heavy a year. I was going with your idea, but saying that it would need to be spread out over several years and they would need to be intelligently targetted, not just dump them all in the same spot or randomly over the surface, and carefully designed. I'm sure you'd get many astrobiologists jump on the chance to design the missions, target them, design the instruments etc.

Depends on how you think about Mars. But if you think it is an interesting place to study scientifically, and think that the search for life is the most interesting thing about Mars, then this seems the way to go, to do a proper biological survey of the planet before you decide what to do next. Meanwhile your humans in orbit, or on Mars' moons, or else working on settlement ideas on the Moon or elsewhere in the solar system.

Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/23/2016 05:54 pm
To explore the very deep subsurface (which is probably the most likely place to find life) would likely require something close to humans. And to explore every likely subsurface niche definitely would.

Drilling can be done using self hammering moles. That's what Insight uses for it's 5 meters drill and that is extendible to any depth in the regolith of Mars....
...you need to get beyond regolith and into the bedrock.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: robertinventor on 06/23/2016 06:52 pm
Drilling can be done using self hammering moles. That's what Insight uses for it's 5 meters drill and that is extendible to any depth in the regolith of Mars....
...you need to get beyond regolith and into the bedrock.

It depends what you are looking for. For the surface life then most of the habitats are at most a few cms below the surface, or on the surface.

You may need to drill half a meter into ice in the polar regions for the solid state greenhouse effect. Perhaps you need to drill some way into the ground at the head of the RSLs - some of the theories suggest they are supplied from deep below the surface.

If you try to find deep subsurface lakes - if those exist and are detected in the polar regions, that's 900 meters plus, but drilling through ice.

For past life, then you may need to drill up to 10 meters to reach material that has been preserved for billions of years not damaged so much by the cosmic radiation that the chirality signature is lost.

Present day life doesn't need to be deep down in the same way though. It can handle the surface cosmic radiation easily - even thousands of years - levels are roughly the same as the interior of the ISS on average). But because it is an exponential process, then levels of radiation that are tolerated by radiation hardy microbes up to hundreds of thousands of years will erase most traces of life over billions of years. For instance if a particular level of radiation reduces the amount of some molecule to a tenth in 100,000 years, then it will reduce it to a hundredth in 200,000 years (reduced to a tenth twice), and to a hundred millionth of the original in  a million years, so you get rather sharp cut offs like that as you move up to a period of time ten times larger.

So levels of radiation that are easily tolerated by radioresistant microbes on the thousands of years timescale can be impossible for anything to tolerate on the billions of years timescale

The regolith thickness varies,  here is an estimate for the site of the Insight lander (http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2016/pdf/2231.pdf) - they estimate that ~90% of the Insight landing region is covered by a regolith that is at least ~2 to 3 m thick. ... and that the regolith is 5 to 6 m thick over ~50% of the
area.

So gives a rough idea. So yes if they go to depths of hundreds of meters as NASA plan to do with future robotic moles, they need something that can go through material harder than regolith. Honeybee robotic are working on a drill that will be able to drill through gypsum and hard ice to a depth of hundreds of meters. (http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2016/20160119-planetary-deep-drill-field-test.html). I'm sure they'll progress to harder rocks later on. The drills have to be reliable as of course they can't be repaired if they fail. But - it's not so easy to repair if you have humans there either. And new techniques are needed anyway to drill in a vacuum. And remember humans can't be anywhere near any site that is potentially habitable on Mars so chances are they would have to do it robotically anyway. Why have them on the surface at all? The biggest risk there is of a human crash landing on Mars. If that happened it would be an end to planetary protection of Mars. But anyway - you don't need to drill into bedrock for the proposed surface habitats. You don't need to drill far into the regolith either. You may need to drill into salt or ice.

This is a survey I did of some of the proposed surface habitats on Mars as well as some of the near surface ones. Are There Habitats For Life On Mars? - Salty Seeps, Clear Ice Greenhouses, Ice Fumaroles, Dune Bioreactors,... (http://www.science20.com/robert_inventor/are_there_habitats_for_life_on_mars_salty_seeps_clear_ice_greenhouses_ice_fumaroles_dune_bioreactors-156053) which may give an idea of the variety of possible surface habitats that have been suggested, most of them new suggestions in the last decade or so, and of course, the RSLs now confirmed to have liquid water (almost certainly) though not yet settled whether they are habitable or not.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/23/2016 08:34 pm
Just reminder this conversation is difting off topic ie  Moon.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: robertinventor on 06/23/2016 08:52 pm
Just reminder this conversation is difting off topic ie  Moon.

My apologies! I forgot about the forum rules for a moment there.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/23/2016 09:47 pm
Just reminder this conversation is difting off topic ie  Moon.

My apologies! I forgot about the forum rules for a moment there.
Don't worry about it Robert. Most of us do it at one stage or another, get wrapped in discussion and forget thread title.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: TakeOff on 07/09/2016 04:29 pm
Why is international cooperation so popular here?
Does anyone have any good example of international cooperation in space? Every ambitious state develops its own launchers for military reasons, to nuke other nations. And they are supposed to cooperate on this? So naive.

Any international space cooperation will suddenly be abolished for irrelevant reasons, such as one country invading another or an elecection takes place somewhere or the euro crisis gets going again or whatever next. For every new international partner involved the probability of total project failure more than triples. Even in the best possible case the costs and delays also explode much faster than the number of countries involved. The bureaucracies are incompatible and there are about as many corrupt special interests in each country to bribe with decisions which are very very bad for the project. Like  deciding to only use rocket engines made in Elbonia, just because Elbonia never had any space industry and development is a nice word, so $20B and 30 years must be spent to create one from scratch for political reasons. And no 30 year plan is ever possible in Elbonia because of their random religious hate, so the mission will never have any rocket engine. Details like that you know.

International cooperation is certain failure.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/09/2016 04:54 pm
If you want to design a propellant depot based architecture to land cargo on the Moon.

Atlas 5 has a LEO payload of 9,800kg–18,810kg. Suitable for a pre-filled depot.

Falcon 9 FT has a LEO payload of 22,800 kg. Could be a lander and lunar cargo but likely to be propellant.

Electron has a 500 km (LEO sun synchronous) payload of 150 kg for US$5 million. More cargo can be delivered to the lunar surface if the small lander's tanks are launched nearly empty.

LEO to lunar surface has a delta-v of about 5.93 km/s.

edit : change Falcon 9 from V1.1 to Full Thrust (FT)
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: robertinventor on 07/09/2016 05:47 pm
Why is international cooperation so popular here?
Does anyone have any good example of international cooperation in space? Every ambitious state develops its own launchers for military reasons, to nuke other nations. And they are supposed to cooperate on this? So naive.

Are you being serious here? The ISS is an example, though relationships were strained during the Russian interventions in the Ukraine, the ISS continued. Indeed the Russian Soyuz is still the only way we can get humans into space. Astronauts from many nations have flown on the ISS, and it has also been used to launch mini satellites from various nations.

The ESA, though it has its own launchers is collaborating with Russia, and for instance the most recent ExoMars launch to Mars is an ESA / Roscosmos collaboration. Europeans also co-operate even with China, in space, although the US is prohibited to do this.

Indeed also Japan for instance has a strong space program, with it's own  H-IIA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-IIA) rocket launcher, it also hopes to send astronauts to the Moon, eventually, and is a nuclear weapon free state, perhaps not surprisingly as the one country to have actually experienced the effects of a nuclear bomb first hand - there's very strong anti nuclear sentiment in Japan, and surely not too likely they will adopt nuclear weapons, even in face of the threats from North Korea.

So, yes, co-operation in space is very common, both directly, in shared missions, and also sharing of results from scientific missions.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: AS_501 on 07/09/2016 06:38 pm
Perhaps a better, albeit indirect model for an international cooperation on a Moon settlement is the Antarctic, not the ISS.  Each country has its own research station but all can share information, medical services, (if necessary) etc.  No one is in any one else's critical path and anyone can take shelter in someone else's facility.  If someone's transportation system is down, the others are available.  If there is to be a international lunar colony some day, it may be structured with a U.S. sector, European sector, Russian or Russian-Chinese sector, etc.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Kasponaut on 07/09/2016 06:56 pm
If you want to design a propellant depot based architecture to land cargo on the Moon.

Atlas 5 has a LEO payload of 9,800kg–18,810kg. Suitable for a pre-filled depot.

Falcon 9 V1.1 has a LEO payload of 13,150 kg. Could be a lander and lunar cargo but likely to be propellant.

Electron has a 500 km (LEO sun synchronous) payload of 150 kg for US$5 million. More cargo can be delivered to the lunar surface if the small lander's tanks are launched nearly empty.

LEO to lunar surface has a delta-v of about 5.93 km/s.

The Falcon 9 V1.1 FT has a LEO payload og 22,800 kg.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: robertinventor on 07/09/2016 07:09 pm
Perhaps a better, albeit indirect model for an international cooperation on a Moon settlement is the Antarctic, not the ISS.  Each country has its own research station but all can share information, medical services, (if necessary) etc.  No one is in any one else's critical path and anyone can take shelter in someone else's facility.  If someone's transportation system is down, the others are available.  If there is to be a international lunar colony some day, it may be structured with a U.S. sector, European sector, Russian or Russian-Chinese sector, etc.

Yes that's the ESA plan, that's why Johann-Dietrich Woerner calls it a "lunar village". The different habitats in the village can be maintained by different space agencies but with shared utilities etc. That's partly why i think it is one of the most promising to actually come to something. Why duplicate everything? Amongst other things they can also share the same power supply, or have multiply redundant supplies for power, and for oxygen recycling etc, as for the ISS. Only one landing pad needed, only need one regolith printer to use to print insulation around the habitats, etc etc.

And you can see that something like that needs the bases to be close together because of the difficulty of moving around on the Moon and the swiftness with which issues could arise. If the other bases are hundreds of kilometers away they wouldn't be able to share much or do much to help each other in a real emergency.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 07/09/2016 07:29 pm
Does anyone have any good example of international cooperation in space?

ESA.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/09/2016 07:29 pm
If you want to design a propellant depot based architecture to land cargo on the Moon.

Atlas 5 has a LEO payload of 9,800kg–18,810kg. Suitable for a pre-filled depot.

Falcon 9 V1.1 has a LEO payload of 13,150 kg. Could be a lander and lunar cargo but likely to be propellant.

Electron has a 500 km (LEO sun synchronous) payload of 150 kg for US$5 million. More cargo can be delivered to the lunar surface if the small lander's tanks are launched nearly empty.

LEO to lunar surface has a delta-v of about 5.93 km/s.

The Falcon 9 V1.1 FT has a LEO payload og 22,800 kg.

I will change the reply and the Wiki entry to the Falcon 9 Full Thrust.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: TakeOff on 07/09/2016 09:28 pm
I think people here confuse academic cooperation, which is global, with political cooperation. While science probes and telescopes are taken care of very well all over the world under the radar of the politicians, launchers and human space flight is extremely inefficient because of international cooperation failures. ESA has no program at all for HSF. Their launchers are forced to use engines based upon in which country they are manufactured. They are forced to use both liquid and solid fuel engines in Ariane 6 too just because political corruption has established both manufacturers and they demand their billions of tax money even if the new launches is hopelessly uncompetitive. Innovation is always avoided since that could change the balance of political power. Astronauts are selected on irrelevant racist nationality instead of on merits. The ISS costs more than all cancer research in the world history and they research microgravity which isn't exactly a plague on Earth. A rational space station would have been more of a prototype of an interplanetary spaceship. The ISS can be scrapped any day now. It still exists only because Putin is unreasonably cooperative with the western leaders who all hate him and boycott him and call him Hitler. He could order to evacuate and shut it down any minute. A kind of risk which is completely irrelevant to the technical task at hand. International cooperation means guaranteed failure due to corruption and military conflict and I see no exception from this. Only single states, and soon single companies, have ever and can ever achieve HSF. ESA hopes for a ride with the Chinese to the Moon. Good luck with that naive fantasy! ESA will never launch a human to space. The organization may very well suddenly dissolve together with EU and the euro when European politicians really start to hate each other furiously again. Why subject space flight to such uncontrollable risks?
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: robertinventor on 07/09/2016 10:01 pm
I think people here confuse academic cooperation, which is global, with political cooperation. While science probes and telescopes are taken care of very well all over the world under the radar of the politicians, launchers and human space flight is extremely inefficient because of international cooperation failures. ESA has no program at all for HSF. Their launchers are forced to use engines based upon in which country they are manufactured. They are forced to use both liquid and solid fuel engines in Ariane 6 too just because political corruption has established both manufacturers and they demand their billions of tax money even if the new launches is hopelessly uncompetitive. Innovation is always avoided since that could change the balance of political power. Astronauts are selected on irrelevant racist nationality instead of on merits. The ISS costs more than all cancer research in the world history and they research microgravity which isn't exactly a plague on Earth. A rational space station would have been more of a prototype of an interplanetary spaceship. The ISS can be scrapped any day now. It still exists only because Putin is unreasonably cooperative with the western leaders who all hate him and boycott him and call him Hitler. He could order to evacuate and shut it down any minute. A kind of risk which is completely irrelevant to the technical task at hand. International cooperation means guaranteed failure due to corruption and military conflict and I see no exception from this. Only single states, and soon single companies, have ever and can ever achieve HSF. ESA hopes for a ride with the Chinese to the Moon. Good luck with that naive fantasy! ESA will never launch a human to space. The organization may very well suddenly dissolve together with EU and the euro when European politicians really start to hate each other furiously again. Why subject space flight to such uncontrollable risks?

Just to say that the European Space Agency was established before the EU and includes countries that are not in the EU. It was founded in 1975. The EU was created by the Maastricht Treaty, which entered into force on November 1, 1993

So you shouldn't confuse the two and think that it depends in any way on the EU. At the moment it seems pretty clear that UK will leave the EU but it will remain in ESA. Norway and Switzerland are full members of ESA and Canada is an associate member, none of those are in the EU. (http://spacenews.com/britains-quitting-the-eu-but-will-it-be-forced-out-of-eu-space-programs)

I don't think ESA plan human spaceflight themselves, yes, will be partnering with other countries. Their strength is in their international partnerships and very good at the instruments and high technology. But they just haven't focused on sending humans into space. Russia, US and now China have. I think they are more likely to go to the Moon with Russia, but China has invited other countries to send spacecraft, science experiments and astronauts to their space station in LEO when ready, in a new international agreement signed with the UN (http://gbtimes.com/china/china-opens-space-station-rest-world-united-nations-agreement), and I think that's likely to go ahead.

Russia couldn't unilaterally halt the ISS, which was established by international treaty and they have shown no signs at all of wanting to do this. Indeed Russia want to keep the ISS on longer than the US. When the ISS is finally de-orbited they have talked about removing their modules to use to make a new space station, though that's still so far ahead I expect plans will change several times before anything happens. This is about the International legal framework for the ISS (http://m.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/International_Space_Station/International_Space_Station_legal_framework)

I think you can argue all day or all week about whether the ISS was worth its cost. But it was still only the tiniest fraction of the contributing nations budgets. For the EU it cost about 1 euro per person - not per year but in its entirety. For the USA it was rather more, but still only $8 per person per year. It spends far more on its military spy satellites, and other military projects. 0.8% of the budget goes to the whole of NASA, including HSF, 19% on the Military, 8% on servicing the national debt. (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/150-people-in-astronomy/space-exploration-and-astronauts/general-questions/921-how-much-money-is-spent-on-space-exploration-intermediate)

Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: jongoff on 11/22/2016 03:43 pm
Yes. The buzz-phrase for this is to say there is a "Strategic Knowledge Gap" regarding (in particular for this thread) lunar ice.
Also there is meant to be more CO than H2O in the LCROSS results so lunar methane ISRU sounds plausible and arguably less wasteful of all those volatiles.

I know this piece of common knowledge (that LCROSS found more CO than H2O) has been repeated a lot on NSF, but it may not be accurate, based on a conversation I had with Paul Spudis:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39559.msg1612453#msg1612453

tl;dr is that only one of the two sensors showed less H2O, and it's the one they trust a lot less. The IR mass spectrometer data on the LCROSS shepherding craft showed 90-95% of the volatiles were water, and its results have never been revised downward. The LAMP data from LRO (which was within line-of-site for the impact) was revised downward, but we have a lot less experience with interpreting UV spectrometry than we do IR spectrometry.

~Jon
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: KelvinZero on 11/23/2016 06:03 am
Also there is meant to be more CO than H2O in the LCROSS results so lunar methane ISRU sounds plausible and arguably less wasteful of all those volatiles.
I know this piece of common knowledge (that LCROSS found more CO than H2O) has been repeated a lot on NSF, but it may not be accurate, based on a conversation I had with Paul Spudis:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39559.msg1612453#msg1612453
In my own defence I didn't just pass around things other posters said, and I try to qualify things to represent my uncertainty. These came from online articles such as
http://www.universetoday.com/76329/water-on-the-moon-and-much-much-more-latest-lcross-results/
..also there was a table floating around at some point but I have never been able to find that since.

I can totally imagine these results turning out to be mistaken. Im very much against arguing to commit to any expensive architecture choices based on current information. We simply have to send some rovers to the poles to have a look.

LCROSS was hugely exciting for me. It is so frustrating that the people purporting to support lunar exploration have allowed so many years and so many billions to be spent without any interest in this basic homework.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: jongoff on 11/24/2016 03:52 am
Also there is meant to be more CO than H2O in the LCROSS results so lunar methane ISRU sounds plausible and arguably less wasteful of all those volatiles.
I know this piece of common knowledge (that LCROSS found more CO than H2O) has been repeated a lot on NSF, but it may not be accurate, based on a conversation I had with Paul Spudis:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39559.msg1612453#msg1612453
In my own defence I didn't just pass around things other posters said, and I try to qualify things to represent my uncertainty. These came from online articles such as
http://www.universetoday.com/76329/water-on-the-moon-and-much-much-more-latest-lcross-results/
..also there was a table floating around at some point but I have never been able to find that since.

Fair enough. Just wanted to bring up the new data point, since I had a chance to discuss it with someone who's been more directly involved in the science than most of us.

Quote
I can totally imagine these results turning out to be mistaken. Im very much against arguing to commit to any expensive architecture choices based on current information. We simply have to send some rovers to the poles to have a look.

LCROSS was hugely exciting for me. It is so frustrating that the people purporting to support lunar exploration have allowed so many years and so many billions to be spent without any interest in this basic homework.

No doubt. I totally agree that we should be pushing harder to get more and better data, particularly ground-truth data. I'd also like to see someone test out Warren Platt's lunar aquifer theory, even if only using ground penetrating radar like Warren's been noodling. 

~Jon
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 11/25/2016 07:10 pm
Generally the first phase of a renewed Lunar mission should be exploration and discovery of ISRU related issues and not just at the poles.

These explorations missions should be focused and inexpensive. Lunar prospector for a NASA program meets these criteria but is not as focused and inexpensive as that of more innovative commercial managed missions.
It is this later that should then fill in the knowledge gaps vs a NASA managed program. With a public/private bent with NASA contributing most of the funds but not all preserving the commercial self-interest in maintaining focus and cost control of these missions will get the "Most Buck Rogers for the buck!"
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: redliox on 11/25/2016 07:49 pm
Generally the first phase of a renewed Lunar mission should be exploration and discovery of ISRU related issues and not just at the poles.

Right.  The ice at the poles (which might be a pain to extract) shouldn't be the only site and concern.  There's the entire Far Side and numerous types of terrain no one's set foot on.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: AncientU on 11/25/2016 08:19 pm
Generally the first phase of a renewed Lunar mission should be exploration and discovery of ISRU related issues and not just at the poles.

Right.  The ice at the poles (which might be a pain to extract) shouldn't be the only site and concern.  There's the entire Far Side and numerous types of terrain no one's set foot on.

This boots-on-the-ground exploration category (I call this the expeditionary mode) has been lacking in all plans seen to date.  Certainly some narrowing of options can be done from orbit, but before a significant investment in a semi-permanent base or 'settlement,' local resources should be investigated more thoroughly. True on Luna, more true on Mars.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: redliox on 11/25/2016 08:35 pm
This boots-on-the-ground exploration category (I call this the expeditionary mode) has been lacking in all plans seen to date.  Certainly some narrowing of options can be done from orbit, but before a significant investment in a semi-permanent base or 'settlement,' local resources should be investigated more thoroughly. True on Luna, more true on Mars.

Also right.  Some elements of NASA have been cautious over the years, in the way of trying to appeal both Martian and Lunar favoritism.  The ARM stuff aside, that amounts to putting something near the Moon (either in orbit or Lagrange point) and making a habitat there using the same designs for a Mars Transit Vehicle.

Hard to say what exactly will happen with the incoming administration, but we'll hopefully find out within the next few months.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: sdsds on 11/26/2016 01:34 am
This boots-on-the-ground exploration category (I call this the expeditionary mode) has been lacking in all plans seen to date.  Certainly some narrowing of options can be done from orbit, but before a significant investment in a semi-permanent base or 'settlement,' local resources should be investigated more thoroughly. True on Luna, more true on Mars.

Your reasoning here is quite good -- thank you for making the case so clearly.

I took the liberty of emboldening what I see as the key point regarding what NASA should be doing next on the lunar surface. I also underscored the bit I wish you would expand upon.

Certainly NASA isn't going to settle the lunar surface! That will be done (if ever) after some future version of the 1862 Homestead Act is passed.

I share you concern about establishing a "permanent" fixed base of operations for crew on the lunar surface. But why isn't the right approach something like Mir or ISS, which were orbital bases designed with intentional limits on their lifetimes?
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: jongoff on 11/26/2016 02:33 am
Generally the first phase of a renewed Lunar mission should be exploration and discovery of ISRU related issues and not just at the poles.

Right.  The ice at the poles (which might be a pain to extract) shouldn't be the only site and concern.  There's the entire Far Side and numerous types of terrain no one's set foot on.

The challenge is that I think sortie missions are likely to stay a lot more expensive than missions involving a base, especially if you can get ISRU up and running. I agree it's worth doing more prospecting along the way--but with the goal of picking some place that's good enough from an ISRU standpoint to start getting that to work. Once you can source your propellant locally, the cost of additional missions can start dropping very rapidly.

The goal should be getting that beachhead selected and built as quickly as possible. IMO. YMMV.

~Jon
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 11/26/2016 04:26 am
Generally the first phase of a renewed Lunar mission should be exploration and discovery of ISRU related issues and not just at the poles.
Right.  The ice at the poles (which might be a pain to extract) shouldn't be the only site and concern.  There's the entire Far Side and numerous types of terrain no one's set foot on.

The polar ISRU fuel production is meant to be an enabler for everything else.

The problem with any focus on "everything else" during the early stages is that it ends up dominating the planning, and the ISRU fuel production is quickly dropped when funding proves inadequate for it and everything else.

As happened with Constellation. VSE was premised on the idea of creating fuel production on the moon to enable Mars missions, it was a key part of Bush's speech. It quickly mutated into just a near-equatorial base. And by the time it was cancelled, had reduced even further to a small number of short, low-latitude, 4-man sorties, with everything else being deferred until "funding became available", which, realistically, no-one expected.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: guckyfan on 11/26/2016 05:20 am
Before we even think of lunar ISRU we should look, what is really there. That should not be too difficult or expensive.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 11/26/2016 07:35 am
Before we even think of lunar ISRU we should look, what is really there. That should not be too difficult or expensive.

And stunning that it hasn't been a priority.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: sdsds on 11/26/2016 08:48 am
Before we even think of lunar ISRU we should look, what is really there. That should not be too difficult or expensive.

And stunning that it hasn't been a priority.

Massively stunning at first; not so much after thinking about what establishes NASA priorities.

No mission to the lunar surface, whether robotic or with a crew, has been able to gain much traction since the demise of CxP. The reasons for that are not technical and thus don't seem logical to those who see spaceflight as a set of problems to be solved. Speaking of which:

[...]  it's worth doing more prospecting along the way--but with the goal of picking some place that's good enough from an ISRU standpoint to start getting that to work. Once you can source your propellant locally, the cost of additional missions can start dropping very rapidly.

Of course Jon is absolutely clear-thinking here: sourcing propellant on site breaks the tyranny as they say. So too in a lesser way does propellant transfer. It's simpler (indeed sourcing propellant locally implies transfer). So how have the propellant transfer projects at NASA been prioritized? Lots of funding for that kind of key enabler technology?

Oh. Really? I wonder why not....
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 11/26/2016 11:12 am
Before we even think of lunar ISRU we should look, what is really there. That should not be too difficult or expensive.
And stunning that it hasn't been a priority.
Massively stunning at first; not so much after thinking about what establishes NASA priorities.
No mission to the lunar surface, whether robotic or with a crew, has been able to gain much traction since the demise of CxP.

Unlike the long list of robotic lunar landers/rovers during the Constellation program?
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: AncientU on 11/26/2016 01:10 pm
This boots-on-the-ground exploration category (I call this the expeditionary mode) has been lacking in all plans seen to date.  Certainly some narrowing of options can be done from orbit, but before a significant investment in a semi-permanent base or 'settlement,' local resources should be investigated more thoroughly. True on Luna, more true on Mars.

Your reasoning here is quite good -- thank you for making the case so clearly.

I took the liberty of emboldening what I see as the key point regarding what NASA should be doing next on the lunar surface. I also underscored the bit I wish you would expand upon.

Certainly NASA isn't going to settle the lunar surface! That will be done (if ever) after some future version of the 1862 Homestead Act is passed.

I share you concern about establishing a "permanent" fixed base of operations for crew on the lunar surface. But why isn't the right approach something like Mir or ISS, which were orbital bases designed with intentional limits on their lifetimes?

When I say semi-permanent or settlement, I'm referring to investing in building up infrastructure... habs, ISRU facilities, rovers, landing pads...

Jon hit the terminology squarely with 'prospecting' -- without it, you are randomly picking a landing spot and immediately pitching tent -- proximity to essential resources could spell difference between success and failure.  A round of early sorties in which the 'expeditionary elements' are highly mobile and equipped to search a significant area for concentrations and/or variations in the available resources could optimize the chance for success. 

On the Moon, it might be found that resources don't vary much from location to location, or that any highland location is vastly superior to any basaltic lowland, or whatever surprises may be found.  Build up infrastructure where chances are best for success.

On Mars, this is much more vital, since the variability is already known to be vastly greater.  Spirit and Opportunity found completely different environments resources-wise.  Interestingly, Spirit's boring environment completely changed when it got stuck and found itself in a thermal vent mineral deposit. 

Similar robotic (at a minimum, a swarm of Spirit-class rovers, each with more autonomy) searches could be a start.  Boots-on-the-ground could accomplish much more prospecting with a few expeditionary sorties.  This would optimally be done with reusable equipment, staging from an orbital (or EML-1/2) outpost.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/26/2016 01:54 pm
From a personal standpoint I look forward to humanity expanding out to the Moon and beyond, and using local resources wherever possible to support local communities.

However NASA is a government agency, and any effort to go anywhere in space requires a national political consensus.  For the ISS that consensus is "science", with a major focus on learning how humans can live, work and survive in space.  And obviously we're only doing this, with an international partnership, because we intend to expand humanity out into space sometime in the future.

But when?

The challenge with talking about setting up propellant production on the Moon is that it is a massive down payment on what should be a commitment to spending even more on expanding humanity out into space.  But have we, the people of the United States of America, decided that now is the right time to do that?

Not yet.  And based on the political conversations coming after this most recent election, it doesn't sound like shipping taxpayers permanently off of Earth will be a priority.

But NASA can be, and should be, a technology pathfinder, and there is hope that future NASA budgets can be reprogrammed so that they can support private efforts to start resource identification and processing on the Moon, Mars or wherever.

So I would suggest that we should focus our efforts on getting the new Administration to get funding for that type of pathfinder technology.

My $0.02
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/26/2016 04:54 pm
1) Prospect for water, NASA lead and funded missions, ideally using commercial landers and rovers.
2) Small demonstration extraction mission. Ideally with some commercial funding.
3) Small production plant (<5t yr)done alone COTS line where NASA agrees to buy so much fuel over a few years. Fuel is to supply robotic reusable landers for exploration missions.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: sdsds on 11/26/2016 10:17 pm
No mission to the lunar surface, whether robotic or with a crew, has been able to gain much traction since the demise of CxP.

Unlike the long list of robotic lunar landers/rovers during the Constellation program?

Depending on your perspective the Constellation program is either recent history or ancient history. I suppose any discussion of NASA and the Moon must include it regardless. But the emotional wounds resulting from CxP were cut deep and it isn't clear they have fully healed yet, so it is likely best to tread this terrain with care, and with compassion.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Darkseraph on 11/26/2016 10:32 pm
Yes, for the following reasons:

-Lunar missions require far less mass to orbit than Martian missions, therefore less cost.
-Lower mass makes it easier to support such missions with available launch systems.
-Fewer technological breakthroughs required so it can happen sooner than Mars.
-Taking less than two decades will help it survive politically.
- NASA is not getting a huge budget increase any time soon. Unfortunately.
-The partnerships established on the ISS can more easily be extended to Lunar missions.
-Several of NASA's international partners have expressed interest in going to the Moon.
-Launch opportunities to the Moon are vastly more frequent.
- Benefits from ISRU and Distributed Launch, but doesn't require them upfront.


Given that, I think NASA should refocus its manned efforts on Moon with a blend of Commercial, International and Government systems. The government may cancel SLS/Orion at some point but a Lunar program could work with or without it. Some form of Lunar COTS could be established to supply a Lunar Base, which later could evolve to crew transport systems. International Partners such as Japan, Europe and Russia could certainly use their current launch systems to support such missions, much in the same way they currently support the ISS.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: sdsds on 11/26/2016 10:44 pm
The government may cancel SLS/Orion at some point but a Lunar program could work with or without it.

This sentence makes it seem like you might have cause and effect reversed.

It won't help to think too much about how things should be. Think instead about how they are. In reality, the measure by which the merit of a NASA HSF program is evaluated is the extent to which it justifies the creation of a heavy-lift launch vehicle.

So as you point out, since a solely lunar program could work without SLS/Orion, that hypothetical program alone does not receive a passing grade.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/27/2016 12:05 am
A lunar/Martian module is a launch vehicle. What matters for Congress is where stuff is built and how many it employs, not what is built. So employ people to build a lander.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Darkseraph on 11/27/2016 01:31 am
The government may cancel SLS/Orion at some point but a Lunar program could work with or without it.

This sentence makes it seem like you might have cause and effect reversed.

It won't help to think too much about how things should be. Think instead about how they are. In reality, the measure by which the merit of a NASA HSF program is evaluated is the extent to which it justifies the creation of a heavy-lift launch vehicle.

So as you point out, since a solely lunar program could work without SLS/Orion, that hypothetical program alone does not receive a passing grade.

I'm thinking in a similar vein to how the Shuttle helped build the ISS, which arguably could have been launched on EELV class launchers. The Shuttle is now gone, but the ISS still exists and has even been extended in the post-shuttle era, with approval from multiple governments. It is now supported by commercial cargo and is soon to receive commercial crew.

Although some interests are definitely pushing for heavy-lift as an end in itself,  political reality has a few shades of grey in there. There are various competing interests among industry, political and technical communities in regards to the space program. There is room for horse-trading and compromise from which a workable program may emerge. An achievable near term destination happens to justify lots of programs.

Obama ended up with a space program that was a compromise. No community quite 'won', but no one completely lost. Commercial Crew got funded and the decision to sink the ISS was reversed. Constellation was cancelled but some parts of it where allowed to live on. I expect similar for the next administration and that through an imperfect compromise some modest form of BLEO program can be created that gives every group at least something.




Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: sdsds on 11/27/2016 02:09 am
A lunar/Martian module is a launch vehicle. What matters for Congress is where stuff is built and how many it employs, not what is built. So employ people to build a lander.

In principle this seems right on.

In practice, though, haven't all of NASA's crewed lunar landers been built on Long Island, N.Y.? I don't think that's the right zip code any longer (if it ever really was).
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: jongoff on 11/27/2016 05:36 am
[...]  it's worth doing more prospecting along the way--but with the goal of picking some place that's good enough from an ISRU standpoint to start getting that to work. Once you can source your propellant locally, the cost of additional missions can start dropping very rapidly.

Of course Jon is absolutely clear-thinking here: sourcing propellant on site breaks the tyranny as they say. So too in a lesser way does propellant transfer. It's simpler (indeed sourcing propellant locally implies transfer). So how have the propellant transfer projects at NASA been prioritized? Lots of funding for that kind of key enabler technology?
Oh. Really? I wonder why not....

To be fair, Altius is currently being funded by NASA under an SBIR Phase I project ($125k, 6mo feasibility study) to look at in-space cryogenic propellant transfer couplings... It may not be NASA's highest priority, but I of all people can't complain that they aren't funding it at all... :-)

~Jon
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: jongoff on 11/27/2016 05:46 am
This boots-on-the-ground exploration category (I call this the expeditionary mode) has been lacking in all plans seen to date.  Certainly some narrowing of options can be done from orbit, but before a significant investment in a semi-permanent base or 'settlement,' local resources should be investigated more thoroughly. True on Luna, more true on Mars.

Your reasoning here is quite good -- thank you for making the case so clearly.

I took the liberty of emboldening what I see as the key point regarding what NASA should be doing next on the lunar surface. I also underscored the bit I wish you would expand upon.

Certainly NASA isn't going to settle the lunar surface! That will be done (if ever) after some future version of the 1862 Homestead Act is passed.

I share you concern about establishing a "permanent" fixed base of operations for crew on the lunar surface. But why isn't the right approach something like Mir or ISS, which were orbital bases designed with intentional limits on their lifetimes?

When I say semi-permanent or settlement, I'm referring to investing in building up infrastructure... habs, ISRU facilities, rovers, landing pads...

Jon hit the terminology squarely with 'prospecting' -- without it, you are randomly picking a landing spot and immediately pitching tent -- proximity to essential resources could spell difference between success and failure.  A round of early sorties in which the 'expeditionary elements' are highly mobile and equipped to search a significant area for concentrations and/or variations in the available resources could optimize the chance for success. 

On the Moon, it might be found that resources don't vary much from location to location, or that any highland location is vastly superior to any basaltic lowland, or whatever surprises may be found.  Build up infrastructure where chances are best for success.

That said, we're not starting from zero information. By far the most important resource in bringing the cost of cislunar transportation down is water. And we now have a significant amount of data from several remote sensing missions and LCROSS suggesting that we know of at least some locations that have a high probability of useful concentrations of water ice (permanently shadowed polar craters). More ground-truth verification of the water and its harvestability at those sites would be good, but we're not exactly starting with zero information. We already have good data on polar craters with remote sensing signals suggesting water that are right next to peaks with good sunlight availability. The only thing that would get me interested in checking out a site other than one of those polar craters for an initial base would be remote sensing data that validated Warren Platt's lunar aquifer concept (the idea that moisture in the lunar mantle could be trapped by selenological features in a way to contain tappable, near-surface liquid water sources).

~Jon
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: jongoff on 11/27/2016 05:51 am
A lunar/Martian module is a launch vehicle. What matters for Congress is where stuff is built and how many it employs, not what is built. So employ people to build a lander.

I'd rather the Moon be a sideshow--one where NASA throws a little bone at commercial industry in a COTS-like fashion to develop their own *cargo* landers, in support of ESA's Moon Village concept, but keeps the bulk of its money and centers focused on Mars stuff.

http://selenianboondocks.com/2016/11/random-thoughts-throwing-the-moon-a-bone/

If NASA decided to build a lunar lander, it would likely end up being a monstrosity like LSAM that cost $10B to develop and $1B per flight. I'd much rather see them give commercial industry with ideas like XEUS/DTAL getting a chance at funding.

~Jon
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/27/2016 07:20 am
Jon is on right track.

Without ISRU fuel the occasionally manned sortie will be all that anybody can afford. Hence importance of robotic prospecting missions. Without knowing where and what water/ice deposits are it is impossible to create detail costings for developing a fuel production facility.

Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 11/27/2016 11:50 am
Yes, for the following reasons:
-Lunar missions require far less mass to orbit than Martian missions, therefore less cost.
-Lower mass makes it easier to support such missions with available launch systems.
-Fewer technological breakthroughs required so it can happen sooner than Mars.
-Taking less than two decades will help it survive politically.
-NASA is not getting a huge budget increase any time soon. Unfortunately.
-The partnerships established on the ISS can more easily be extended to Lunar missions.
-Several of NASA's international partners have expressed interest in going to the Moon.
-Launch opportunities to the Moon are vastly more frequent.
-Benefits from ISRU and Distributed Launch, but doesn't require them upfront.

Without the last, what is the point of sending humans to the moon at all?

If the last, then you want to develop the enabling technologies (and precursor science surveys) in advance. If they are not the primary core goal, they will be cancelled. That's because a program without them will always expand to consume the entire available budget plus a bit. If they aren't the point of the program, they'll never be in the program. And when the program ends, we'll again have nothing to show for it but photos and dust.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: vapour_nudge on 11/27/2016 11:55 am
Yes, for the following reasons:
-Lunar missions require far less mass to orbit than Martian missions, therefore less cost.
-Lower mass makes it easier to support such missions with available launch systems.
-Fewer technological breakthroughs required so it can happen sooner than Mars.
-Taking less than two decades will help it survive politically.
-NASA is not getting a huge budget increase any time soon. Unfortunately.
-The partnerships established on the ISS can more easily be extended to Lunar missions.
-Several of NASA's international partners have expressed interest in going to the Moon.
-Launch opportunities to the Moon are vastly more frequent.
-Benefits from ISRU and Distributed Launch, but doesn't require them upfront.

Without the last, what is the point of sending humans to the moon at all?

If the last, then you want to develop the enabling technologies (and precursor science surveys) in advance. If they are not the primary core goal, they will be cancelled. That's because a program without them will always expand to consume the entire available budget plus a bit. If they aren't the point of the program, they'll never be in the program. And when the program ends, we'll again have nothing to show for it but photos and dust.
The same could be said for Mars
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 11/27/2016 12:11 pm
Yes, for the following reasons:
-Lunar missions require far less mass to orbit than Martian missions, therefore less cost.
-Lower mass makes it easier to support such missions with available launch systems.
-Fewer technological breakthroughs required so it can happen sooner than Mars.
-Taking less than two decades will help it survive politically.
-NASA is not getting a huge budget increase any time soon. Unfortunately.
-The partnerships established on the ISS can more easily be extended to Lunar missions.
-Several of NASA's international partners have expressed interest in going to the Moon.
-Launch opportunities to the Moon are vastly more frequent.
-Benefits from ISRU and Distributed Launch, but doesn't require them upfront.
Without the last, what is the point of sending humans to the moon at all?
If the last, then you want to develop the enabling technologies (and precursor science surveys) in advance. If they are not the primary core goal, they will be cancelled. That's because a program without them will always expand to consume the entire available budget plus a bit. If they aren't the point of the program, they'll never be in the program. And when the program ends, we'll again have nothing to show for it but photos and dust.
The same could be said for Mars

I often do.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/27/2016 01:23 pm
In practice, though, haven't all of NASA's crewed lunar landers been built on Long Island, N.Y.? I don't think that's the right zip code any longer (if it ever really was).

The Apollo Lunar Lander was built by Grumman, but I don't know which facility.  At the time Grumman had facilities on Long Island, but they are gone.  As a reference, here are where Northrop Grumman facilities are currently located:

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Careers/DiscoverNorthropGrumman/Pages/Locations.aspx
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Phil Stooke on 11/27/2016 01:40 pm
Bethpage in Nassau County, Long Island was  location of the Grumman plant which built the LM.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Darkseraph on 11/27/2016 03:02 pm

-Benefits from ISRU and Distributed Launch, but doesn't require them upfront.

Without the last, what is the point of sending humans to the moon at all?

If the last, then you want to develop the enabling technologies (and precursor science surveys) in advance. If they are not the primary core goal, they will be cancelled. That's because a program without them will always expand to consume the entire available budget plus a bit. If they aren't the point of the program, they'll never be in the program. And when the program ends, we'll again have nothing to show for it but photos and dust.
I agree, there is no point in sending humans back to the Moon if technology isn't developed to make it cheaper and easier to access space. It is however easier to incorporate these technologies if you're the incumbent program with hardware in orbit. ISS didn't start off with commercial transport, 3D printers or private modules. It has been gradually incorporating new technologies and concepts. ISS barely avoided cancellation itself but has been later able to add these things on.

Front loading multiple advanced and expensive technologies with long lead times on the critical path is a recipe for cancellation. Countless examples of this happening in NASA's history.





Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/27/2016 03:40 pm
1) Prospect for water, NASA lead and funded missions, ideally using commercial landers and rovers.

To the extent that this is "science", having NASA do that with taxpayer money makes sense.

However once you start talking about commercialization that's where things get tricky... see below.

Quote
2) Small demonstration extraction mission. Ideally with some commercial funding.
3) Small production plant (<5t yr)done alone COTS line where NASA agrees to buy so much fuel over a few years. Fuel is to supply robotic reusable landers for exploration missions.

NASA buying fuel just to provide a market for commercial fuel production is not a good idea, and a terrible waste of taxpayer money.

In order for the U.S. Government to agree to fund such a capability the U.S. Government would need to have a forecasted need for the fuel being produced?  What is that need?

And don't say "to go to X, or Y", because that is not a "need", that is a solution to a need.

Much as I would LOVE to have government money funding all of my space dreams, the reality we live in requires an actual need that sending government employees to space solves.  Until that "need" is identified, we should just focus on the "science-only" parts - which we should be able to do a lot with, if managed correctly.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/27/2016 05:39 pm
That 5t a year along with reusable lander plus fuel depot based at DSH allows sample return missions from anywhere on moon. The same lander can deliver rovers payloads that have come from earth with Orion crew.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 11/27/2016 06:41 pm
Front loading multiple advanced and expensive technologies with long lead times on the critical path is a recipe for cancellation.

I'm not. I'm saying if you want to go to the moon, there must be resources. If there aren't, your program is a waste and you need to find another target. Cheaper to cancel a bad program early than commit tens of billions and end up with nothing to show for it but flags'n'footprints.

ISS is a good example of a bad program. It is not an example of success simply because it survived.

CRS and commercial crew wouldn't exist if they hadn't painted themselves into a corner with the failure to develop CRV or any Shuttle alternative before the Shuttle termination. BEAM is extremely cheap, for NASA, but won't actually lead to an expansion of ISS, nor to a "private module", it kind of snuck in between the gaps. The 3d-printing (like "Robonaut") is a vacuous PR gimmick. If they wanted to test 3d-printing in space, show me something like this:
(http://mx3d.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Jobs1-1500x630.jpg)
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Phil Stooke on 11/27/2016 07:06 pm
"And don't say "to go to X, or Y", because that is not a "need", that is a solution to a need."

The 'need' comes about through policy.  If an administration establishes - for example - human exploration of the Moon (or Mars) as the nation's space policy over the next few decades, and the architecture for achieving that is set up to include lunar resource production, that creates the need.  It's not buying fuel to create a market, it's creating fuel to satisfy a market.  Your economic argument is the wrong way round.  By all means argue that human exploration is the wrong way to go, but if it becomes the policy it creates a whole bunch of needs.  And if those needs can be met more cheaply or securely via private development of the resource than by hauling stuff up from Earth, there is your space economy.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/27/2016 07:16 pm
A lunar/Martian module is a launch vehicle. What matters for Congress is where stuff is built and how many it employs, not what is built. So employ people to build a lander.

In principle this seems right on.

In practice, though, haven't all of NASA's crewed lunar landers been built on Long Island, N.Y.? I don't think that's the right zip code any longer (if it ever really was).

Try the Orion zip code.

The Orion capsule has an air tight case, heat shield, docking system, avionics including radio and navigation, life support for several days and a service module for propulsion.

A reusable lunar lander will need an air tight case, docking system, avionics including radio and navigation, life support for several days and a lunar orbit-surface-orbit propulsion system possibly in a service module. It does not need a heat shield, the case does not need to survive the heat of reentry but will need very long legs to protect the against engine blown dust.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: AncientU on 11/27/2016 10:33 pm
Are you suggesting Orion is most of the way to a lander?
Think that's a stretch... any human rated spacecraft would have a vague resemblance to a lander, but emphasis is on vague.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: sdsds on 11/27/2016 11:11 pm
Try the Orion zip code.

The Orion capsule has an air tight case, heat shield, docking system, avionics including radio and navigation, life support for several days and a service module for propulsion.

A reusable lunar lander will need an air tight case, docking system, avionics including radio and navigation, life support for several days and a lunar orbit-surface-orbit propulsion system possibly in a service module. It does not need a heat shield, the case does not need to survive the heat of reentry but will need very long legs to protect the against engine blown dust.

Yes, that zip code would probably work. But to be fair, the same zip code that just won the B-21 Raider contract (apparently by offering a lower cost to the government) should be given a fair shot too.

On another note: one of the really great aspects of a cis-lunar habitat is that -- once its location is settled -- designs for transport from that location to the lunar surface become easier to assess.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: zodiacchris on 11/28/2016 12:11 am
Orion is way to heavy for a lander, even without heat shield. The structure is designed for much higher loads than a lunar lander would experience. A Dragon or even a Cygnus would be better starting points, but best to custom design a lightweight pressure vessel and add all the other bits...
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: sdsds on 11/28/2016 01:12 am
best to custom design a lightweight pressure vessel and add all the other bits...

If optimizing for performance? Yes of course you are correct.

If optimizing for total program cost? Or total program likelihood of avoiding cancellation? Those are more difficult calls to make!
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/28/2016 02:58 am
"And don't say "to go to X, or Y", because that is not a "need", that is a solution to a need."

The 'need' comes about through policy.  If an administration establishes - for example - human exploration of the Moon (or Mars) as the nation's space policy over the next few decades...

That has been the goal for quite a long time, but unless you identify specific goals (i.e. land a man on the Moon and return him, etc.) it's difficult to keep the proper amount of money being allocated by Congress.  And what's even harder is to keep a clear focus on what the money should be spent on - which is the problem we have today with the SLS and Orion.

Quote
...and the architecture for achieving that is set up to include lunar resource production, that creates the need.

The phrase "lunar resource production" is pretty nebulous - do you mean fuel, or H3, or something else?  How is progress measured, and how is success determined?  More specifically, how is Congress going to know whether the money being spent is being spent efficiently or in a wasteful manner?

Quote
It's not buying fuel to create a market, it's creating fuel to satisfy a market.

Yes, self-licking ice cream cones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licking_ice_cream_cone)...  ;)

Quote
Your economic argument is the wrong way round.  By all means argue that human exploration is the wrong way to go, but if it becomes the policy it creates a whole bunch of needs.

We've had lots of policy that has been created by one President and Congress, and ignored and forgotten after they have gone.  So creating "policy" is not a proven method of creating a sustainable effort that is supported by subsequent sessions of Congress and Presidents.

Quote
And if those needs can be met more cheaply or securely via private development of the resource than by hauling stuff up from Earth, there is your space economy.

Are you familiar with the "5 Why's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys)?"  Because I think you are only at the first question, but you need to ask the other four to truly come up with a more sustainable and durable "need" for why we should do what you propose.  And even though I think resource extraction in space is a good idea, I wouldn't be able to come up with an economic justification for it in the near future that would create enthusiasm in the U.S. Congress to fund such an effort for decades, so I'm not saying I have the answer either.

I think we're waiting for an inflection point to appear, and it could take a while...
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: redliox on 11/28/2016 09:10 am
Suddenly I understand why we haven't been back to the moon in nearly 50 years...

(http://66.media.tumblr.com/dfa103a97dea9d52e75286bf26c01d79/tumblr_o37ylh5iIM1qe8p34o1_500.jpg)

Would anyone agree this sums up NASA's true policies for both Moon and Mars?  ;)
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 11/28/2016 03:13 pm
We've had lots of policy that has been created by one President and Congress, and ignored and forgotten after they have gone.

It doesn't require a change of Presidents, most of the major programs fail their original intent within the same President's administration.

Nixon's low-cost space truck had become The Shuttle Program before he'd been run out of office. Bush Sr's moon-to-stay/on-to-Mars "challenge" seemed to last about a week before NASA turned it into a monstrosity. Bush Jr's VSE melted into an overpriced booster program long before Obama came into office. Obama didn't even get a chance for non-SLS ARM to run off-course, of course, the reins were ripped right out of his hands. And SLS/Orion has certainly failed to meet any of the promises whispered into the ears on the Congressmen who pushed it. Likewise NASP (DoD) and X-33, JWST, etc etc.

Even Kennedy, it seemed, didn't have any notion of the scale of program that Apollo would turn into.

Oddly enough, other than Constellation, most of the programs actually survive more than one President. Its a myth that NASA gets jerked around with each change in Administration. The cause of failure of most programs is already baked into them at inception, they aren't made that way later on, they simply aren't bailed out sufficiently when reality sets in. The only difference between them and Apollo is that a couple of key people anticipated and (reluctantly) approved the actual price-tag.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 11/28/2016 03:15 pm
Are you suggesting Orion is most of the way to a lander?
Think that's a stretch... any human rated spacecraft would have a vague resemblance to a lander, but emphasis is on vague.

They were riffing on the idea of using lander development as a jobs program in specific states, to offer Congress as a substitution for SLS.

That the pressure vessel is the easiest, least part of a lander doesn't matter, it's the kind of pseudo-truth that lobbyists feed to their pet Congressmen to justify stupid decisions.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: guckyfan on 11/28/2016 03:43 pm
Oddly enough, other than Constellation, most of the programs actually survive more than one President. Its a myth that NASA gets jerked around with each change in Administration. The cause of failure of most programs is already baked into them at inception, they aren't made that way later on, they simply aren't bailed out sufficiently when reality sets in. The only difference between them and Apollo is that a couple of key people anticipated and (reluctantly) approved the actual price-tag.

That has been my impression but I did not want to express it to people so much more knowledgeable than me.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Oli on 11/28/2016 03:44 pm
A lunar/Martian module is a launch vehicle. What matters for Congress is where stuff is built and how many it employs, not what is built. So employ people to build a lander.

I'd rather the Moon be a sideshow--one where NASA throws a little bone at commercial industry in a COTS-like fashion to develop their own *cargo* landers, in support of ESA's Moon Village concept, but keeps the bulk of its money and centers focused on Mars stuff.

http://selenianboondocks.com/2016/11/random-thoughts-throwing-the-moon-a-bone/

If NASA decided to build a lunar lander, it would likely end up being a monstrosity like LSAM that cost $10B to develop and $1B per flight. I'd much rather see them give commercial industry with ideas like XEUS/DTAL getting a chance at funding.

~Jon

That's not going to work. ESA/JAXA do not have the HSF budget to build/maintain a lunar base. Neither does Roscosmos. NASA would have to go "all in" for a lunar base to happen.
 
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: jongoff on 11/28/2016 06:21 pm
A lunar/Martian module is a launch vehicle. What matters for Congress is where stuff is built and how many it employs, not what is built. So employ people to build a lander.

I'd rather the Moon be a sideshow--one where NASA throws a little bone at commercial industry in a COTS-like fashion to develop their own *cargo* landers, in support of ESA's Moon Village concept, but keeps the bulk of its money and centers focused on Mars stuff.

http://selenianboondocks.com/2016/11/random-thoughts-throwing-the-moon-a-bone/

If NASA decided to build a lunar lander, it would likely end up being a monstrosity like LSAM that cost $10B to develop and $1B per flight. I'd much rather see them give commercial industry with ideas like XEUS/DTAL getting a chance at funding.

~Jon

That's not going to work. ESA/JAXA do not have the HSF budget to build/maintain a lunar base. Neither does Roscosmos. NASA would have to go "all in" for a lunar base to happen.

I don't know if that's actually true. If the US is providing regular cargo landers via a Lunar COTS/CRS program, I think ESA/JAXA could have a chance of making something like that work. Especially if they pulled in Roscosmos and/or the Chinese (though that's a harder sell with Congress for stupid reasons).

~Jon
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: sdsds on 11/28/2016 07:09 pm
Hopefully ESA and JAXA will lead the research effort to determine how lunar partial gravity influences the health of crew members whose stay on the surface is longer than a few days. Along the way they will set the record for "lunar surface stay duration," which will add to the prestige they garner from conducting this human physiology research for which science has as yet no data.

Learning more about partial gravity environments will fill a "strategic knowledge gap" that NASA and others can leverage even if their focus is destinations other than the lunar surface.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: redliox on 11/28/2016 09:03 pm
Orion is way to heavy for a lander, even without heat shield. The structure is designed for much higher loads than a lunar lander would experience. A Dragon or even a Cygnus would be better starting points, but best to custom design a lightweight pressure vessel and add all the other bits...

A very good point; the old Apollo LEM went through a lot of chopping to get its weight down, including of glass windows which led to the tiny triangular ones built; the original LEM ascent module looked round and quite chunky but couldn't be flown.

If an Orion pressure vessel were to be a model, perhaps only in the form of a long-term, one-way surface lander chiefly for cargo; I doubt it would be particularly viable as a habitat (minimal room) hence why I only lightly make that suggestion.  I'd only see it as an option where NASA was desperate to cut corners without going full commercial (which would be the better choice between two).

A lunar/Martian module is a launch vehicle. What matters for Congress is where stuff is built and how many it employs, not what is built. So employ people to build a lander.

I'd rather the Moon be a sideshow--one where NASA throws a little bone at commercial industry in a COTS-like fashion to develop their own *cargo* landers, in support of ESA's Moon Village concept, but keeps the bulk of its money and centers focused on Mars stuff.

http://selenianboondocks.com/2016/11/random-thoughts-throwing-the-moon-a-bone/

If NASA decided to build a lunar lander, it would likely end up being a monstrosity like LSAM that cost $10B to develop and $1B per flight. I'd much rather see them give commercial industry with ideas like XEUS/DTAL getting a chance at funding.

~Jon

Read the article about "throwing-the-moon-a-bone" and agree with both your points.  NASA would probably bungle making a crewed lunar lander, much as Orion has become bloated, behind schedule, and less capable than hoped for.  A one-way cargo lander, kept straightforward and minimized, possibly could happen although I would fear someone in NASA (or a supporting Congressman) would peck and drag it in their direction regardless.

I do ponder what form a future crewed lunar lander could take; I know Boeing made 2 variations, one looking suspiciously like a (reasonably done) redux of the old LEM while the other was a MAV with lunar legs.  I highly doubt it will be internationally built; if so this would be my ranking of most-likely versus least-likely:
1) China - While not fully experienced, their slow-but-steady approach clearly eyes the Moon
2) ESA - Given they pulled off the ATVs they could manage vessels in deep space sans reentry needs, but not infinitely funded
3) Russia - Experienced but woefully under-budgeted and held up mainly by hot air
4) Japan - Very little experience, very little budget so most likely only to follow behind other nations' leads

It was a bit heart-wrenching back in the Constellation days when LSAM got the ax.  It proves that we can't simply scale-up the old Apollo scheme or assume that government-funded engineers will make the wisest choices.  Moon or Mars, we're likely to see commercialized and customized vehicles for specific jobs NASA will only have vague influence over...IF they want a job done properly that is.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/28/2016 10:40 pm
Anybody calling for 'much cheaper/better ways to go to the Moon before we go back'... It's rather like asking the ancient Chinese, Viking and other European explorers to wait until diesel powered ships and 747s were invented before heading out across the world  ::) The idea should be to take the best technology that exists now (some of it is better than Apollo era) and just get ooooonnnn with it  >:(  Endless Powerpoints, DRMs and talk wont get anyone an exploration program. Constellation was bloated - yes. It was a bit expensive and 'old school' - yes. Doesn't mean that it couldn't have been improved - nay; optimized.

But no; some folks want the magic beanstalk of cheap, fully-reusable, sci-fi spaceships first, before even attempting to go do great things. Oh, and by the way - they want it to cost zilch. Yeah - like that's gonna happen any time soon. Things will evolve - yes. They will improve - yes - costs will be cut -yes. But I see (again) a lot of Space Cadet Folk (including me?) complaining that they didn't get for Christmas exactly what they wanted the last few years, so Waaaahh!! :'(

After 'Columbia', the "Vision For Space Exploration" was supposed to refocus America's Space Industrial base and operations into spending the money more wisely than just having a few Astronauts orbit the Earth only for decades to come. But my old frustrations are echoing to me again from a tunnel through time, from the not-so-distant past. In the early and mid-2000s I witnessed and participated in long, nay endless and fruitless discussions about how it was best to do things. One guy in particular used to get virtually enraged, posting endless paragraphs about how 'capsules' were the Devil and only spaceplanes could save America's space program. He didn't even want to hear how winged spaceplanes would be useless in the deep vacuum beyond Earth orbit. "Give me spaceplanes! You are all wrong..."  ::) ::)

As Chuck Longton has said in other threads - NASA is no way, no how going to get funding for grandiose manned Mars missions with SLS and other Billion$ hardware that gets thrown away with each mission. I have to agree - so this is why the Moon makes sense right now, at this point in history. Leave Mars to Elon and his buddie$. A small Lunar Outpost or two could be done for a fraction of the cost of Mankind On Mars, but many valuable technology and engineering lessons could be learned there. And the Moon has much ground left to explore - millions of square kilometers - and much science and history still locked up in the rocks and regolith.

How to get there? SLS & Orion are useful but not essential. Lunar Sortie missions could be done with the worlds existing EELV launch fleet. A mixture of Government and Commercial space could get small numbers of people to the lunar surface. Without going into endless permutations of Design Reference missions, I could pick a back-of-the-envelope one now, using an enhanced Soyuz as the 'Command Module' and EELVs as the launchers.

LAUNCH 1: Falcon 9 expendable places 22 ton Lunar Lander into LEO.
LAUNCH 2: Falcon Heavy or Vulcan places an Earth Departure stage into LEO near the Lander. Lander docks with the stage and departs for the Moon. Stage uses remaining propellants and the Lander a portion of it's own to brake into Lunar orbit.
LAUNCH 3: Largest version of Angara A5 sends enhanced Soyuz (with extra storable prop stage) into LEO. This craft would mass about 25 tons including propellants. Second launcher - either Proton or Angara A5 - sends an EDS into orbit near Soyuz. The Soyuz and crew dock with stage and depart for the Moon - albeit on a slowish trajectory. Arriving at the Moon, they rendezvous and dock with lander, 1x crew stays in Lunar orbit, 2x crew land for 4 day Sortie mission then ascend to Soyuz for return to Earth.

Longer missions can be done if a Descent-only version of the Lander was previously sent to the landing site. Instead of ascent propellants; the second Lander has more crew consumables; oxygen and water and extra thermal and radiation shielding. This makes it a 'simple' Surface Habitat with a design stay time of 14 days. Other versions of the Lander be be for Cargo down mass only - inflatable Habitat, consumables, tools, Rover etc.

Sooooo... How does the above make it different from Constellation, or other similar CONOPS?! Granted - not awfully much. But it would bootstrap current, on-the-shelf launchers and spacecraft. And it could be done I'm solidly betting for a lot less than the development and operational cost of SLS and Orion. But it could be done if a couple Governments work together, and a Commercial Space company gets onboard to develop the Crew/Cargo/Hab Lander, which would probably be the most expensive part of the mission design. The 'Golden Spike' team guys had a lowish-cost design, But as others have said - develop the Lander for a competed and open, fixed-price contract. And this DRM is modular in the purest sense - not exactly 'Space Legos' but elements can be switched in and out as technology is improved and costs are massaged. Reusable tech and methods can be phased in - including ISRU - and you can substitute whatever suitable 20+plus ton launchers as needed. Ariane 6, H-2B, New Glenn, etc and so on. Soyuz can be swapped out for a version of Dragon or enhanced CST-100. Be launcher agnostic, be space craft agnostic, be technology agnostic...

...But no; what am I thinking?! We've got to make the technology and costs perfect first!! The way above is still far too expensive and costly. Leave it all to Elon! Maybe we can wait till ITS is flying, so we can hire one from him to set up the 'Lunar Colony'. Why do bold and daring things with bootstrapped, existing technology? Oh - I'm fully aware that some will jump on me and say "You're just hand waving away the difficulties!" But am I? Really? Yes AND No. Formidable obstacles would need to be overcome. Simple, 2-person Lunar Sortie Missions have been proposed before, by much smarter people than me (lots of those!). They've even been proposed recently. And I repeat - start simple, then evolve in the reusability, In-Situ Resource Utilization and cost savings. We can't just sit around waiting for some magic billionaire to invent everything for us and make things perfect and 'cheap'.

LOOK: Post 'Columbia' in 2003, and again in 2007/8/9 with 'Direct' and again post-Constellation with Obama, we all sat around in these forums and argued and discussed ad-infinitum the best ways to do things. We had Jim sometimes cut us down with sensible one-liners and admonishments. Most of us said in 2003 that by 2015 or 2020 or 20?? things would be better and folk would have found better and cheaper ways to do things. But it's nearly 2017 - and have we progressed all that much beyond Powepoint and CGI animations? Yes - ISS is complete, yes - we've seen Pluto and the Mars Rovers are rolling. But what of the manned space programs? Price-gouging rides on Soyuz to orbit? Commercial Crew years behind schedule? Falcon Heavy years late? Mars is too hard/expensive? The Moon is too expensive/Been-there-done-that? What have we learned? Which way is best? (RHETORICAL!!) What did the crew of 'Columbia' die for in the end? :'(

What we need is Vision. What we need is Leadership. And - yes - money. How much? Oh, don't go there... What we don't need is perfection. Perfect is the enemy of good enough. Our next destination? 2027 - where we will all probably still be talking on these forums about what's the best way to do things - and just when are things going to happen...
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: ncb1397 on 11/28/2016 10:48 pm
NASA needs to do both Mars and the Moon. You can generalize a lander for use both at the Moon and on Mars. The performance that you need for reaching orbit of Mars from the surface is approximately equal to what you need to land on the moon and reach orbit again. For instance, the conceptual hercules lander:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160006324.pdf

That system can easily be modded to also do lunar sorties. The main difference is a software-patch for "hoverslam" landings or better throttling engines.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/28/2016 10:59 pm
The mass of an aeroshell needed for Mars would be less than that needed for the propellant required for fully propulsive lunar landings. But as you say - some commonality of design could be done - 'scar' the Lunar Lander design for operations in the Martian environment. Make it's legs and chassis strong enough to survive the g-levels needed for Mars Aero entry and to stand up on the 38% percent G environment. But it's still going to be a bit more complicated than just bolting on an ejectable aeroshell to the Lunar lander for Mars duties - different engine throttling capabilities and much different propellant levels for the fully propulsive lunar lander.

Though, keeping it modular - Lunar version uses 6x propellant drop tanks and 4x engines. The Mars version? Perhaps 6x engines, 4x drop tanks and the ejectable aeroshell :)
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: redliox on 11/28/2016 11:07 pm
The mass of an aeroshell needed for Mars would be less than that needed for the propellant required for fully propulsive lunar landings.

Depends on how far the lander needs to go; the Apollo LEM managed largely because it only dealt with low orbit and the SM did all the brute work.  With Mars you can at least use the aeroshell instead of fuel to land or aerobrake.  A lunar lander, even without an aeroshell, can easily end up heavier than a Martian one; this will especially be the case for future landers because it likely will have to descend from higher orbit than LEM did, as the Orion currently can't get much lower than that.

But as you say - some commonality of design could be done - 'scar' the Lunar Lander design for operations in the Martian environment. Make it's legs and chassis strong enough to survive the g-levels needed for Mars Aero entry and to stand up on the 38% percent G environment. But it's still going to be a bit more complicated than just bolting on an ejectable aeroshell to the Lunar lander for Mars duties - different engine throttling capabilities and much different propellant levels for the fully propulsive lunar lander.

Don't hold your breath for commonality, although Boeing had some designs to integrate a lunar lander as the MAV.  In the fight to make a lunar module light to accommodate enough landing fuel it might lose the integrity to land on Mars without a redesign.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Oli on 11/28/2016 11:19 pm
That makes no sense. A lunar lander has completely different requirements.

No aeroshell, much lower loads, less thrust, different fuel (hydrolox if ISRU).

Maybe a similar cabin can be used for ascent.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/28/2016 11:27 pm
Read my post above for the major differences and different propellant tanks/engine combinations.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 11/29/2016 09:23 pm
That makes no sense. A lunar lander has completely different requirements.
[...] different fuel (hydrolox if ISRU).

The LCROSS result found plenty of carbon in the polar ice. Mainly CO, but CO₂ as well. Combined with H₂0 (also found), you've got the makings of methalox.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/29/2016 10:40 pm
Anybody calling for 'much cheaper/better ways to go to the Moon before we go back'... It's rather like asking the ancient Chinese, Viking and other European explorers to wait until diesel powered ships and 747s were invented before heading out across the world  ::)

Except they had economic reasons for exploration, we don't.  Plus, and this is just a small detail, they could easily breathe wherever they went - space is far less survivable, meaning far more money is needed to go, and far more money is needed in ROI.

Quote
The idea should be to take the best technology that exists now (some of it is better than Apollo era) and just get ooooonnnn with it  >:(

Nice thought, but that's not what NASA is currently authorized to do.  And I'm afraid you ignore the core issue - the U.S. Government does not have a problem that sending government employees to space fixes.  So be glad for the money NASA does get, but don't expect enough to actually leave LEO on a multi-decade quest.

Quote
...Constellation was bloated - yes. It was a bit expensive and 'old school' - yes. Doesn't mean that it couldn't have been improved - nay; optimized.

But no; some folks want the magic beanstalk of cheap, fully-reusable, sci-fi spaceships first, before even attempting to go do great things.

That wasn't why the Constellation program was cancelled - it was cancelled because Congress was unwilling to fund the program sufficiently.  And why was that?  Congress agreed with the finding of the Augustine Commission that the "business case" for NASA returning to the Moon was not convincing enough to merit the multi-decade investment of taxpayer money.

If you disagree with that, fine, but they didn't cancel the CxP because they thought there was better technology on the horizon (and no one outside of SpaceX knew what SpaceX would be able to do years later).

Quote
Oh, and by the way - they want it to cost zilch. Yeah - like that's gonna happen any time soon.

I think you're being theatrical here, but in fact I think "the investors" (whoever they are) want to feel there is a potential for an ROI with whatever they invest in.  Which for U.S. Taxpayers means that their lives will be made better, or enriched in some way.  I don't think anyone can state that will happen with any level of confidence.

Quote
A small Lunar Outpost or two could be done for a fraction of the cost of Mankind On Mars, but many valuable technology and engineering lessons could be learned there.

It was estimated that the CxP would have a total price tag of over $100B to return to the Moon for month-long sorties.  What you are proposing is significantly more ambitious, and CxP was killed because it cost too much.  Not sure you are proposing anything more likely to get funded.

Quote
And the Moon has much ground left to explore...

So does the Earth - which is why this is the lamest of reasons.  No one should use this excuse again.

Quote
What we need is Vision. What we need is Leadership.

No.  What we need is a definable, and measurable reason that is easy to understand by the U.S. Taxpayer.  And here we are, 40 years after the last Apollo mission to the Moon, and we're still looking for one - which means it may be decades more until we figure out why U.S. Taxpayers should fund a return to the Moon effort...
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/29/2016 11:15 pm
I'm being a bit theatrical? Yes - a bit; intentionally so. And with your considered, detailed analysis of my long post - you have fallen into the exact cliche of the old discussions from the early-to-mid 2000s that I was talking about. Namely; strongly implying that we don't know what we're doing, we don't know what we want, that there is no point, we are wasting our time, all it's all too hard - let's just stop.

No - the 'business case' is this - the Moon is a Frontier - it should be explored - nattering naysaying and negativity is wearing us all down. Period. We should be going into space; Low Earth Orbit & Beyond. It's what we should be doing as a race, not squabbling endlessly in religious and political conflicts. It's not 'lame' -it's correct. I am right.

And the Earth has been explored a lot with detailed radar from space - and on foot from humans. We don't need to actually trod and exploit every last effing inch of it - even the mostly unexplored ocean floors. Any further attempts at explanation by me to the terminally cynical and negative is almost pointless. To explain is almost besides the point. As far as Space Exploration goes two decades into the 21st Century - we are living in the 'Post-Explanation' Era.

Space - Goddammit - let's just GO already! >:(
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/29/2016 11:16 pm
We've had lots of policy that has been created by one President and Congress, and ignored and forgotten after they have gone.

It doesn't require a change of Presidents, most of the major programs fail their original intent within the same President's administration.

My point was that we've had lots of policy that has not survived the test of time - that were not politically durable.  Mainly, I think, because their ROI changed or was found to not be valuable enough after time to look into them.  That is certainly what happened with the Constellation program.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: sdsds on 11/30/2016 12:22 am
That makes no sense. A lunar lander has completely different requirements.
[...] different fuel (hydrolox if ISRU).

The LCROSS result found plenty of carbon in the polar ice. Mainly CO, but CO₂ as well. Combined with H₂0 (also found), you've got the makings of methalox.

You might do a great service by expanding on this. Perhaps in a different thread. If lunar methalox makes sense it begs for a new analysis of the Mars first hypothesis!
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/30/2016 12:47 am
Yes - whether LOX alone is made through Lunar ISRU or LOX and CH4; someone needs to do some technology demonstration missions, even unmanned ones.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Pipcard on 11/30/2016 03:46 am
That makes no sense. A lunar lander has completely different requirements.
[...] different fuel (hydrolox if ISRU).

The LCROSS result found plenty of carbon in the polar ice. Mainly CO, but CO₂ as well. Combined with H₂0 (also found), you've got the makings of methalox.

You might do a great service by expanding on this. Perhaps in a different thread. If lunar methalox makes sense it begs for a new analysis of the Mars first hypothesis!

I made a thread specifically inquiring about that (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39983.0).
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/30/2016 07:06 am
That makes no sense. A lunar lander has completely different requirements.

No aeroshell, much lower loads, less thrust, different fuel (hydrolox if ISRU).

Maybe a similar cabin can be used for ascent.

A lander has an outside and an inside.  The long and expensive pole is the inside of the vehicle. Life support and avionics are mostly inside. 80% commonality with the inside of an existing vehicle could save a lot of money.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/30/2016 09:32 am
That makes no sense. A lunar lander has completely different requirements.

No aeroshell, much lower loads, less thrust, different fuel (hydrolox if ISRU).

Maybe a similar cabin can be used for ascent.

A lander has an outside and an inside.  The long and expensive pole is the inside of the vehicle. Life support and avionics are mostly inside. 80% commonality with the inside of an existing vehicle could save a lot of money.
Ha ha! Brilliant... :)
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Svetoslav on 11/30/2016 09:42 am
I'd prefer a Lunar orbiting station, Lunar surface station, Mars mission... everything else than the asteroid redirect mission...
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 11/30/2016 10:10 am
A lander has an outside and an inside.  The long and expensive pole is the inside of the vehicle. Life support and avionics are mostly inside. 80% commonality with the inside of an existing vehicle could save a lot of money.

Not necessarily. The key factor in landing on the moon is launching and landing and launching again. That is, the mass limit of your Earth launch vehicle, the delta-v of landing on the moon, and the delta-v of returning. The rocket equation takes three bites out of you. Hence in general, you need to flow the design in that order, what does your launcher allow... etc.

But if you lock in the "return payload" mass (crew cabin) at the start by insisting on using Orion to "save money", you may merely make the overall design several times more expensive.

(In the same way to using Shuttle SRB's to "save money" seems to have specifically led to higher costs in Orion's development.)

If you look at the relative cost of developing a lander's components after you've come up with the design, the pressurised cabin might be still be the major cost (is there a reference for that, BTW?), but that's misleading if choosing the wrong cabin blows out your entire development cost by an order-of-magnitude by making everything else harder.

(Also I doubt anything that comes near Orion will save money. It contains one of NASA's special "always costs more" field generators. But the original suggestion wasn't to use Orion to save money, it was to attach a lander to the existing SLS contractor chain to give certain Congressmen a reason to support a lunar program beyond "Da Big Wocket". So by definition, it's going to be a pork-program.)

Then there's the "rockets aren't Lego" aspect: I don't like the knee-jerk "rockets aren't Lego" reaction you see a lot, I think if your systems are any good, they should be Lego. Legoing should be part of your design mentality. However, Orion is not a mature design that's been iterated through multiple operational versions. It's a bespoke design for a very single purpose. It's been through a lot of redesigns, but in a way that's anti-Lego. Hence Orion, even if it were a fairly cheap system, is likely to be particularly unsuitable for adapting into the crew cabin on a lunar lander.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/30/2016 12:19 pm
ULA think especially when comes to ACES, that rockets are like Lego. Want a lander, add landing kit. Long duration OTV, add extra insulation.  Tanker, add insulation and fuel tank. Human lander may slightly more difficult same principle, add cabin to lander. The cabin is taken from rover.
A human OTV can use same cabin with ZeroG layout.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/30/2016 02:08 pm
A lander has an outside and an inside.  The long and expensive pole is the inside of the vehicle. Life support and avionics are mostly inside. 80% commonality with the inside of an existing vehicle could save a lot of money.

Not necessarily. The key factor in landing on the moon is launching and landing and launching again. That is, the mass limit of your Earth launch vehicle, the delta-v of landing on the moon, and the delta-v of returning. The rocket equation takes three bites out of you. Hence in general, you need to flow the design in that order, what does your launcher allow... etc.

The maximum dry weight of the lunar lander is what payload the Falcon Heavy can lift to LEO in 2018. Once the lander is in LEO we can use multiple launches to ferry it and its propellant to lunar orbit.

I may be suspicious about the Falcon Heavy having a 54,400 kg payload, in the initial years, but 30 tonnes should be easy.

Quote
But if you lock in the "return payload" mass (crew cabin) at the start by insisting on using Orion to "save money", you may merely make the overall design several times more expensive.

(In the same way to using Shuttle SRB's to "save money" seems to have specifically led to higher costs in Orion's development.)

If you look at the relative cost of developing a lander's components after you've come up with the design, the pressurised cabin might be still be the major cost (is there a reference for that, BTW?), but that's misleading if choosing the wrong cabin blows out your entire development cost by an order-of-magnitude by making everything else harder.

Compare the development cost of the cargo only Dragon V1.0 and the money spent so for on passenger carrying Dragon V2.0.

Quote
(Also I doubt anything that comes near Orion will save money. It contains one of NASA's special "always costs more" field generators. But the original suggestion wasn't to use Orion to save money, it was to attach a lander to the existing SLS contractor chain to give certain Congressmen a reason to support a lunar program beyond "Da Big Wocket". So by definition, it's going to be a pork-program.)

The manned lunar lander and manned rover do not have to be compatible with the Orion. Alternatives are using the same units as Dragon V2.0 or Starliner (CST-100).

The static long term ECLSS for DSH are likely to be too heavy for a lander but may work in the static buildings of lunar and Mars bases.

I am assuming the people writing a 5-10 page lunar lander proposal would be members of the Orion team worried about their own jobs.

Quote

Then there's the "rockets aren't Lego" aspect: I don't like the knee-jerk "rockets aren't Lego" reaction you see a lot, I think if your systems are any good, they should be Lego. Legoing should be part of your design mentality. However, Orion is not a mature design that's been iterated through multiple operational versions. It's a bespoke design for a very single purpose. It's been through a lot of redesigns, but in a way that's anti-Lego. Hence Orion, even if it were a fairly cheap system, is likely to be particularly unsuitable for adapting into the crew cabin on a lunar lander.

After this time at least one of Orion's ECLSS and avionics units should have reached TRL 4-5.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: jongoff on 11/30/2016 03:21 pm
That makes no sense. A lunar lander has completely different requirements.
[...] different fuel (hydrolox if ISRU).

The LCROSS result found plenty of carbon in the polar ice. Mainly CO, but CO₂ as well. Combined with H₂0 (also found), you've got the makings of methalox.

As I was mentioning earlier in this thread, the CO and CO2 content in the lunar volatiles may not be as high as people have been saying. I spoke with Paul Spudis a few weeks ago at a conference after a talk he gave on lunar resources. He was saying that according to the more dependable sensors (the IR mass spectrometers on the LCROSS shepherding spacecraft), that the volatiles are about 95% water, with water being ~5-7.5% of the ejected material by mass. The LRO LAMP measurements revised the amount of water down, but Paul pointed out that a) interpreting Lyman Alpha spectrometer information correctly is a lot harder, and b) the more reliable IR spectrometry data was never revised down from the original numbers, and c) the mostly water with a little bit of Carbon-bearing materials data aligns better with almost all theories on where the volatiles come from.

After water, CO and CO2 are the highest concentrations, but we're still talking about single digit percents of the overall volatiles content if Paul is right. So to me at least, it suggests that Lunar ISRU optimizes for H2/O2 instead of LOX/Methane like Mars.

~Jon
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Oli on 11/30/2016 06:18 pm
So to me at least, it suggests that Lunar ISRU optimizes for H2/O2 instead of LOX/Methane like Mars.

I think that also depends on what the fuel is used for. The farther the fuel must go (delta-v wise), the better is hydrolox.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: KelvinZero on 12/01/2016 12:46 am
So to me at least, it suggests that Lunar ISRU optimizes for H2/O2 instead of LOX/Methane like Mars.
I think that also depends on what the fuel is used for. The farther the fuel must go (delta-v wise), the better is hydrolox.
Within a fairly narrow band of course. Maybe as far as Mars, except Mars favours methane? Then SEP begins to beat chemical, then other things begin to beat SEP... and then someone invents metallic hydrogen or fusion and it may be back to hydrogen again :-)
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 12/01/2016 12:20 pm
The farther the fuel must go (delta-v wise), the better is hydrolox.

Not just delta-v, but also thrust and the density of the fuel in the vehicle. Especially for a launch from a surface. And finally there's the capability of equipment for ISRU. Hydrolox is just water plus electricity, but liquifying and handling large amounts of hydrogen is harder than slightly larger amounts of methane.

But if the numbers are as Spudis believes, I'd also lean towards hydrolox. Pity, I was enjoying the commonality with Mars, it seemed like a golden coincidence. It's always annoying when reality chooses not to be elegant.

Still, before anyone commits to a technical path, we'd be stupid not to have real data from a ground assay. Followed by a real analysis of the capabilities of realistic ISRU processing equipment (it may still turn out that even 1% carbon amongst 95% water-ice is still easier to process into fuel that the hydrogen itself.)
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/01/2016 05:33 pm
For those wanting to do power calculations for LH LOX fuel production. The rough rule of thumb is 6400W/hr per kg. This is electrolysis of water and cooling of gas, doesn't cover water extraction.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: AncientU on 12/01/2016 11:58 pm
For those wanting to do power calculations for LH LOX fuel production. The rough rule of thumb is 6400W/hr per kg. This is electrolysis of water and cooling of gas, doesn't cover water extraction.

W-hrs/kg, right?
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/02/2016 01:56 am
For those wanting to do power calculations for LH LOX fuel production. The rough rule of thumb is 6400W/hr per kg. This is electrolysis of water and cooling of gas, doesn't cover water extraction.

W-hrs/kg, right?
6400watt/hours to produce 1kg of LH/LOX from 1kg water. Source was from paper about LEO fuel depot producing 500t a year.

A a sun tracking 10kw panel on lander at south pole with 80% sunlight should be enough power for 10t per year.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 12/02/2016 02:13 am
The rough rule of thumb is 6400W/hr per kg.
W-hrs/kg, right?
6400watt/hours

The unit is watt-hours, not watts per hour.

Watts are already a "rate-of-flow" unit (joules/second), W/hr would be a unit of accelerating power use.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/02/2016 09:45 pm
That makes no sense. A lunar lander has completely different requirements.

No aeroshell, much lower loads, less thrust, different fuel (hydrolox if ISRU).

Maybe a similar cabin can be used for ascent.

It really isn't that hard to come up with a concept that works for both:

(https://s17.postimg.org/5kzcxdo3z/Screenshot_2016_12_01_at_10_03_59_AM.png)
(https://s18.postimg.org/mvk5quoll/Screenshot_2016_11_30_at_10_09_54_PM.png)

Just instead of limiting yourself to low-altitude Mars destinations with heavy aerobraking, limit yourself to high altitude Mars destinations that have practically no atmosphere and do full propulsive EDL.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/03/2016 02:40 am
That makes no sense. A lunar lander has completely different requirements.

No aeroshell, much lower loads, less thrust, different fuel (hydrolox if ISRU).

Maybe a similar cabin can be used for ascent.

It really isn't that hard to come up with a concept that works for both:

(https://s17.postimg.org/5kzcxdo3z/Screenshot_2016_12_01_at_10_03_59_AM.png)
(https://s18.postimg.org/mvk5quoll/Screenshot_2016_11_30_at_10_09_54_PM.png)

Just instead of limiting yourself to low-altitude Mars destinations with heavy aerobraking, limit yourself to high altitude Mars destinations that have practically no atmosphere and do full propulsive EDL.
You don't HAVE to do heavy aerobraking even for low altitude destinations, it's just REALLY DUMB not to do it.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Phil Stooke on 12/03/2016 02:54 am
"...limit yourself to high altitude Mars destinations that have practically no..."

... features or resources of interest...
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: sdsds on 12/03/2016 04:04 am
Oh so now it's clear. Just getting to the Martian surface isn't good enough. We need to get someplace interesting on the Martian surface! LOL

Seriously though even for the Moon (note the clever tie-in to the thread topic) the "requirement" for global surface access was a key driver in the Constellation architecture. It was part of what put the steroids in the Apollo!

(Also serious kudos to ncb1397 for presenting a lander design powered by Aestus II engines. They would be a great addition to the international collection of propulsion options.)
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/03/2016 04:53 am
Everythings seems to pointing to a return to moon. The question is how will a lander be developed if NASA is told to come up with lander. We now have quite few new space companies capable of developing a human lander for lot less than $10sB that would be case for cost plus. Here is the like contenders, Boeing, LM, ULA/Masten, SpaceX and Blue, maybe Astrobotics with a partner. Boeing and LM could block ULA but they be shooting themselves in foot as ULA/Masten Xeus is probably strongest contender.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: GWH on 12/03/2016 05:29 am
The question is how will a lander be developed if NASA is told to come up with lander....... ULA/Masten Xeus is probably strongest contender.
IMO ACES/Xeus is really the model of all that's needed. A refuelable, reuseable upper stage capable of landing with cargo satisfies the requirements while being able to share the burden of its cost with the payload launcher.
The ITS is this (on a mich larger scale) and i think if NASA opened up a COTS style development program sharing costs with launch providers we could probably see multiple solutions for reusable upper stages  capable of landing on the lunar (or martian) surface when supported by in orbit refueling and utilising existing or in development reusable boosters.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 12/03/2016 12:56 pm
IMO ACES/Xeus is really the model of all that's needed. A refuelable, reuseable upper stage capable of landing with cargo satisfies the requirements while being able to share the burden of its cost with the payload launcher.
[...] i think if NASA opened up a COTS style development program sharing costs with launch providers we could probably see multiple solutions for reusable upper stages capable of landing on the lunar (or martian) surface when supported by in orbit refueling and utilising existing or in development reusable boosters.

The COTS model seems ideal for this.

But then, if it were up to me, I'd rebuild the whole agency around COTS-like developments, basic in-house tech development, and science.

If a capability hasn't been developed to the point where it can be COTSed, it just means you need to go back a step and build up that capability via enabling R&D and a series of lesser COTS developments.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Warren Platts on 12/03/2016 03:22 pm
Everythings seems to pointing to a return to moon. The question is how will a lander be developed if NASA is told to come up with lander. We now have quite few new space companies capable of developing a human lander for lot less than $10sB that would be case for cost plus. Here is the like contenders, Boeing, LM, ULA/Masten, SpaceX and Blue, maybe Astrobotics with a partner. Boeing and LM could block ULA but they be shooting themselves in foot as ULA/Masten Xeus is probably strongest contender.

Don't forget about Grumman. They have already done a preliminary design for a modest 2-person lander for the Golden Spike Company.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Warren Platts on 12/03/2016 03:30 pm
The farther the fuel must go (delta-v wise), the better is hydrolox.

Not just delta-v, but also thrust and the density of the fuel in the vehicle. Especially for a launch from a surface. And finally there's the capability of equipment for ISRU. Hydrolox is just water plus electricity, but liquifying and handling large amounts of hydrogen is harder than slightly larger amounts of methane.

But if the numbers are as Spudis believes, I'd also lean towards hydrolox. Pity, I was enjoying the commonality with Mars, it seemed like a golden coincidence. It's always annoying when reality chooses not to be elegant.

Still, before anyone commits to a technical path, we'd be stupid not to have real data from a ground assay. Followed by a real analysis of the capabilities of realistic ISRU processing equipment (it may still turn out that even 1% carbon amongst 95% water-ice is still easier to process into fuel that the hydrogen itself.)

I have yet to run into a clear explanation as to why CH4/LO2 is thought to be the superior option for Mars, because you've still got obtain water to get the hydrogen. Given that you're getting water anyways, then why go to the trouble, expense, and mass necessary to make methane?

It's not that we don't know how to handle LH2. We've got decades of experience dealing with it. In fact, we have more experience dealing with LH2 than we do LCH4, at least in aerospace applications. Also, once you have LH2, you get your LO2 cooling for free.

LCH4 has one advantage IMHO: tankage. But I don't see why that should be the deciding factor.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Oli on 12/03/2016 04:06 pm
I have yet to run into a clear explanation as to why CH4/LO2 is thought to be the superior option for Mars, because you've still got obtain water to get the hydrogen. Given that you're getting water anyways, then why go to the trouble, expense, and mass necessary to make methane?

If water is easy to mine (like on Earth) I agree it makes no sense.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Warren Platts on 12/03/2016 04:20 pm
I have yet to run into a clear explanation as to why CH4/LO2 is thought to be the superior option for Mars, because you've still got obtain water to get the hydrogen. Given that you're getting water anyways, then why go to the trouble, expense, and mass necessary to make methane?

If water is easy to mine (like on Earth) I agree it makes no sense.

And that's the other thing... Whether you're looking at Martian buried glaciers or lunar permanently shaded regions (PSRs), it's going to be very difficult, even to get enough for a few ascent module launches. To get enough to jumpstart a whole space economy is going to be quite the grand undertaking....
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Oli on 12/03/2016 04:41 pm
I have yet to run into a clear explanation as to why CH4/LO2 is thought to be the superior option for Mars, because you've still got obtain water to get the hydrogen. Given that you're getting water anyways, then why go to the trouble, expense, and mass necessary to make methane?

If water is easy to mine (like on Earth) I agree it makes no sense.

And that's the other thing... Whether you're looking at Martian buried glaciers or lunar permanently shaded regions (PSRs), it's going to be very difficult, even to get enough for a few ascent module launches. To get enough to jumpstart a whole space economy is going to be quite the grand undertaking....

I think water can be extracted from Martian soil. But you're actually making an argument for methalox, at least on Mars where CO2 is abundant.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/03/2016 06:46 pm
Any pilot plant producing LH will be fuelling small cargo landers. To make most of ISRU somebody will need to develop a small LH/LOX lander, this lander will also need to avoid boil off for a few days over earth-lunar trip.

Need something like a mini ACES.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/03/2016 07:05 pm
That makes no sense. A lunar lander has completely different requirements.

No aeroshell, much lower loads, less thrust, different fuel (hydrolox if ISRU).

Maybe a similar cabin can be used for ascent.

It really isn't that hard to come up with a concept that works for both:

(https://s17.postimg.org/5kzcxdo3z/Screenshot_2016_12_01_at_10_03_59_AM.png)
(https://s18.postimg.org/mvk5quoll/Screenshot_2016_11_30_at_10_09_54_PM.png)

Just instead of limiting yourself to low-altitude Mars destinations with heavy aerobraking, limit yourself to high altitude Mars destinations that have practically no atmosphere and do full propulsive EDL.
You don't HAVE to do heavy aerobraking even for low altitude destinations, it's just REALLY DUMB not to do it.

Solar system bodies with atmosphere's are the minority, so if you want to build a vehicle that allows you to explore the surfaces of the solar system, you wouldn't optimize for aerobraking, but you would optimize for propulsive delta-v and so things like dedicated heat-shields are probably out. Even without dedicated aerobraking equipment, you could do some aerobraking to increase payload with any vehicle. The vehicle listed above probably could reach anywhere on Mars with a decent payload, but it would at least take wind tunnel testing to try to figure out how much aerobraking delta-v you could get without overheating vehicle that wouldn't have an ablative heat shield. Modern heat-shield technology isn't as reusable as rocket engines though. Heat shields are pretty much all ablative while rocket nozzles have pretty much all moved on from ablative technologies. If you want to optimize for re-use, either invent a regeneratively cooled heat shield or go with propulsive EDL.

Solar system bodies with atmospheres: Sun, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Titan(2/3s you would never want to land on)

Solar system bodies without atmospheres: Mercury, Moon, Phobos, Deimos, Ceres, Europa, Enceledus, Ganymede, Callisto, Pluto,Charon, Triton and everything else not listed above.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Warren Platts on 12/03/2016 07:22 pm
I have yet to run into a clear explanation as to why CH4/LO2 is thought to be the superior option for Mars, because you've still got obtain water to get the hydrogen. Given that you're getting water anyways, then why go to the trouble, expense, and mass necessary to make methane?

If water is easy to mine (like on Earth) I agree it makes no sense.

And that's the other thing... Whether you're looking at Martian buried glaciers or lunar permanently shaded regions (PSRs), it's going to be very difficult, even to get enough for a few ascent module launches. To get enough to jumpstart a whole space economy is going to be quite the grand undertaking....

I think water can be extracted from Martian soil. But you're actually making an argument for methalox, at least on Mars where CO2 is abundant.

Why? Because of stoichiometry?

To make most of ISRU somebody will need to develop a small LH/LOX lander, this lander will also need to avoid boil off for a few days over earth-lunar trip.

Need something like a mini ACES.

You mean like Centaur?  ;D

Quote from: ncb
if you want to build a vehicle that allows you to explore the surfaces of the solar system, you wouldn't optimize for aerobraking, but you would optimize for propulsive delta-v and so things like dedicated heat-shields are probably out. Even without dedicated aerobraking equipment, you could do some aerobraking to increase payload with any vehicle. The vehicle listed above probably could reach anywhere on Mars with a decent payload, but it would at least take wind tunnel testing to try to figure out how much aerobraking delta-v you could get without overheating vehicle that wouldn't have an ablative heat shield.

I like that philosophy. There's no reason a beefed up lunar lander couldn't work on Mars. Prolly want to substitute titanium instead of aluminum for the skin, however.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Pipcard on 12/03/2016 08:24 pm
I thought the people who preferred methane over hydrogen did it because "it was easier to handle," especially for long term storage (less boil-off).

The biggest problem with this is that hydrogen is less useful than the methane/natural gas that it's usually derived from. Hydrogen fuel cells aren't a very promising technology anymore and there aren't a lot of other uses. Even with rockets methane has been chosen over hydrogen by SpaceX and Blue Origin.

Hydrogen is just extremely hard to handle by comparison. It embrittles metals and escapes easily from containment.

Methane is much easier to handle and there's a vast global infrastructure for it already. If there's a need for fuel cells, they can be made to run off methane.

and storage systems and engines for liquid hydrogen are claimed to be "more expensive":

And you are correct, the ISP [for methane] is lower than pure hydrogen. But there's practical considerations that reduce hydrogen's advantage by a surprising amount. Hydrogen is expensive, not just getting it but handling it safely, storing it, etc. Engines that use it are complex and expensive. Its density is extremely low, so the stage you need to use it becomes extremely large.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Oli on 12/03/2016 08:47 pm
I have yet to run into a clear explanation as to why CH4/LO2 is thought to be the superior option for Mars, because you've still got obtain water to get the hydrogen. Given that you're getting water anyways, then why go to the trouble, expense, and mass necessary to make methane?

If water is easy to mine (like on Earth) I agree it makes no sense.

And that's the other thing... Whether you're looking at Martian buried glaciers or lunar permanently shaded regions (PSRs), it's going to be very difficult, even to get enough for a few ascent module launches. To get enough to jumpstart a whole space economy is going to be quite the grand undertaking....

I think water can be extracted from Martian soil. But you're actually making an argument for methalox, at least on Mars where CO2 is abundant.

Why? Because of stoichiometry?

Not an expert, but take a look at the attached formula (from https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120001775.pdf).

The result is oxygen and methane at a mass ratio of 4:1. That's not an optimal mixture ratio for a methalox engine but neither is 8:1 for a hydrolox engine. So let's ignore that part for the moment.

The resulting methalox weights ~80u, while the hydrolox from electrolysis of 4 H2O weights ~72u.

Bottom line: For an equal amout of hydrolox you need more than twice the water.

(The good thing is you do not need CO2)
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: jongoff on 12/03/2016 11:00 pm
Everythings seems to pointing to a return to moon. The question is how will a lander be developed if NASA is told to come up with lander. We now have quite few new space companies capable of developing a human lander for lot less than $10sB that would be case for cost plus. Here is the like contenders, Boeing, LM, ULA/Masten, SpaceX and Blue, maybe Astrobotics with a partner. Boeing and LM could block ULA but they be shooting themselves in foot as ULA/Masten Xeus is probably strongest contender.

I really worry about NASA being tasked to build a manned lander. Flagship projects like that tend to have bad track records at NASA. I'd much rather see them start with something not as safety critical (unmanned medium/heavy cargo landers), and use lessons learned from that to feed into eventual future manned landers.

~Jon
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: jongoff on 12/03/2016 11:04 pm
I have yet to run into a clear explanation as to why CH4/LO2 is thought to be the superior option for Mars, because you've still got obtain water to get the hydrogen. Given that you're getting water anyways, then why go to the trouble, expense, and mass necessary to make methane?

If water is easy to mine (like on Earth) I agree it makes no sense.

And that's the other thing... Whether you're looking at Martian buried glaciers or lunar permanently shaded regions (PSRs), it's going to be very difficult, even to get enough for a few ascent module launches. To get enough to jumpstart a whole space economy is going to be quite the grand undertaking....

I think water can be extracted from Martian soil. But you're actually making an argument for methalox, at least on Mars where CO2 is abundant.

No, he's making an argument for his theory that suggests there's a non-zero chance of there being liquid water near the surface of a few places on the Moon. It still sounds too good to be true, but the underlying logic is solid enough I'd like to see his ground-penatrating radar mission concept fly just in case. Because it will always be easier to handle liquid water than mining cryogenic temperature ice out of lunar regolith.

~Jon
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Darkseraph on 12/03/2016 11:28 pm
A lunar lander doesn't necessarily have to be provided by NASA, it could be developed by one of NASA's international partners in much the same way that the first two Orion Service Modules are being provided by ESA. Perhaps Japan could be involved with this effort, they already have plans to land a small probe on Moon in 2019.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: eric z on 12/03/2016 11:48 pm
 I thought NASA did a pretty good job building the Lunar Module with Grumman, seemed to work pretty good!
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/03/2016 11:58 pm
I thought NASA did a pretty good job building the Lunar Module with Grumman, seemed to work pretty good!

That was literally a different NASA than what we have today.  Today's NASA, which has far more political and budgetary challenges, is taking 18 years to build an "Apollo on steroids" 4-persona spacecraft - which so far has cost $11B.

Compare that to the progress the private companies participating in the Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew programs, as well as the total program costs.

I think this past decade has shown that the U.S. aerospace industry is more than capable enough of designing and building whatever NASA needs, and if properly incentivized, for far less than if NASA were to build it on their own using typical contracting methods.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: sdsds on 12/04/2016 12:42 am
A lunar lander doesn't necessarily have to be provided by NASA, [...] Perhaps Japan could be involved with this effort

That's an excellent thought!

I hope whoever is leading NASA during 2016 to 2020 have the skills necessary to work with a potential partner like Japan to establish a mutual understanding of how NASA and JAXA et al. could work together on this. The prestige inherent in leading the development of the lunar surface access architecture would be key.

This is a perfect example of how explicit reliance on an international partner to provide one aspect of an effort can be hugely beneficial to the space agencies of both countries.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 12/04/2016 12:53 am
I've been suggesting a JAXA/ESA alliance for a Lunar Lander for sometime now. Sort of like a Lunar Soyuz/Progress idea - two very closely related vehicles that can do either crew or Cargo. Whether it is single or dual stage - I would suggest making it reusable or partially so; if it's dual Descent/Ascent stage, make the Ascent stage reusable each time. That way, the Command Module (Orion etc) could bring a tanker module and/or new Descent Stage with each mission. On a Cargo Lander, instead of an Ascent stage there could be a cargo pallet or module massing about the same as a fueled and crewed Ascent stage.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: eric z on 12/04/2016 12:55 am
 Yes Ron, or course you are right. I love the whole idea of "Apollo on Steroids", but not dragged out endlessly by the way government and "Old Space", overseen by Congress and various administrations hamstring things needlessly! I fail to see why we have to "outsource" a new lander to a different country when the original LM was one of our greatest achievements in space, same with the Service Module.
 BTW, the expression "Flags and Footprints" drives me crazy- a very demeaning cliché that doesn't respect the greatness of what was accomplished then. Let's revitalize NASA, not keep knocking it all-the-time.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 12/04/2016 01:09 am
I thought NASA did a pretty good job building the Lunar Module with Grumman, seemed to work pretty good!

That was literally a different NASA than what we have today.  Today's NASA, which has far more political and budgetary challenges, is taking 18 years to build an "Apollo on steroids" 4-persona spacecraft - which so far has cost $11B.

Compare that to the progress the private companies participating in the Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew programs, as well as the total program costs.

I think this past decade has shown that the U.S. aerospace industry is more than capable enough of designing and building whatever NASA needs, and if properly incentivized, for far less than if NASA were to build it on their own using typical contracting methods.
I know some people have trashed the idea on other threads, but the Golden Spike initiative advocated a modified Dragon Crew vehicle with an approximately 2km/s 'propulsion pallet' mounted in the 'Trunk' module for entering and leaving Lunar orbit (see attached paper). Others have wondered if a modified Lunar or 'Grey Dragon' could be created by deleting the heavy Dragon heatshield and adding either a 'Crasher' propulsion stage for descent and drop tanks to the Dragon for ascent to Lunar orbit later, or an entirely dedicated descent stage below a short trunk module, crammed full with an ascent propulsion pallet. But such a vehicle would probably be too heavy for Ascent/Descent. It might make a better one-way descent to the surface for use as a two-person surface habitat. I would suggest covering the exterior of the Dragon Lunar Hab with insulation and water tanks for radiation shielding.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 12/04/2016 01:30 am
Yes Ron, or course you are right. I love the whole idea of "Apollo on Steroids", but not dragged out endlessly by the way government and "Old Space", overseen by Congress and various administrations hamstring things needlessly! I fail to see why we have to "outsource" a new lander to a different country when the original LM was one of our greatest achievements in space, same with the Service Module.
 BTW, the expression "Flags and Footprints" drives me crazy- a very demeaning cliché that doesn't respect the greatness of what was accomplished then. Let's revitalize NASA, not keep knocking it all-the-time.
You said it, Brother! I could just hug you for saying it. 'Flags-And-Footprints' is used often as a dumb and excruciatingly irritating pejorative that belittles the achievements of Apollo - particularly the magnificent J-series 15, 16 & 17 missions. If NASA had been free to undertake Apollo Applications Lunar missions; a second LM surface Habitat could have been deployed ahead of the arriving crew. A LM Surface Shelter Hab could have been made by deleting the Ascent Stage's engines and propellant tanks and replacing them with additional oxygen and water tanks, batteries and insulation. This vehicle could have allowed the Astronauts to stay for a week. And with an added small solar array, a full stay for a two week Lunar day. But during the Lunar Midday, it would be blisteringly hot for the crews to undertake EVAs. They would have needed a new spacesuit design, or instead take a three-day shelter and rest within the LM Hab. Probably not practical or productive!

Now, the above would've been just an extension of the expensive, throw away Apollo paradigm. But something like it would have to be undertaken at first during a return to the Moon by Astronauts. But with serious planning and some modern ideas with Commercial space involvement, it could be done a lot cheaper than early 1970s methods. Make it modular, make it launcher-agnostic, make it evolvable, and above all - make a start.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/04/2016 02:28 am
I love the whole idea of "Apollo on Steroids"...

I don't, because Apollo was built to solve a Cold War era political problem, and it did.  So it makes no sense to repeat it.

Quote
I fail to see why we have to "outsource" a new lander to a different country when the original LM was one of our greatest achievements in space, same with the Service Module.

Well, OK.  But the same could be said about the Wright Brothers Flyer, or the Boeing 707, but that doesn't mean we should be flying those today.  Again, the Apollo architecture was built to solve a specific set of problems, both politically and technically, but none of those sets of problems exist today - so we don't need to duplicate what Apollo did.

Quote
BTW, the expression "Flags and Footprints" drives me crazy- a very demeaning cliché that doesn't respect the greatness of what was accomplished then.

It has nothing to do with respect, but legacy.  What did we leave behind at the end of Apollo?  Did we build a cost efficient space transportation system?  Did we leave a reusable Earth to Moon space transportation system?  Did we leave reusable ground exploration systems and living quarters on the Moon?  No, none of those.

What we left was flags and footprints.

So the meaning of that phrase, and how it's used to measure future human space efforts, is that if the effort won't leave something durable behind, something REUSABLE, then it's a one off.  It's only leaving memories, not anything useful.

Quote
Let's revitalize NASA, not keep knocking it all-the-time.

Don't confuse criticism of the system that controls what NASA does with criticism of NASA.  They are not the same.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/04/2016 08:39 am
I've been suggesting a JAXA/ESA alliance for a Lunar Lander for sometime now. Sort of like a Lunar Soyuz/Progress idea - two very closely related vehicles that can do either crew or Cargo. Whether it is single or dual stage - I would suggest making it reusable or partially so; if it's dual Descent/Ascent stage, make the Ascent stage reusable each time. That way, the Command Module (Orion etc) could bring a tanker module and/or new Descent Stage with each mission. On a Cargo Lander, instead of an Ascent stage there could be a cargo pallet or module massing about the same as a fueled and crewed Ascent stage.
While both agencies have technical capabilities to do a human lander, it wouldn't be any cheaper than NASA cost plus version to develop. Just can't see ESA or JAXA finding money to do it.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/04/2016 04:48 pm
Some of the items that are missing is a change in policy from a "COTS" program replaces a previous operating government centric one to be instead doing a "COTS" program as the initial operational program without ever having a government centric one. For a Lunar surface operations program there is an opportunity to do a multiple provider competing commercial service program that could at worst case cost the same to develop as a government centric one but ends with two or more providers.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 12/04/2016 07:29 pm
I've been suggesting a JAXA/ESA alliance for a Lunar Lander for sometime now. Sort of like a Lunar Soyuz/Progress idea - two very closely related vehicles that can do either crew or Cargo. Whether it is single or dual stage - I would suggest making it reusable or partially so; if it's dual Descent/Ascent stage, make the Ascent stage reusable each time. That way, the Command Module (Orion etc) could bring a tanker module and/or new Descent Stage with each mission. On a Cargo Lander, instead of an Ascent stage there could be a cargo pallet or module massing about the same as a fueled and crewed Ascent stage.
While both agencies have technical capabilities to do a human lander, it wouldn't be any cheaper than NASA cost plus version to develop. Just can't see ESA or JAXA finding money to do it.
NASA is probably not going to be given the billions needed to develop a Lander as good as, or better than the Apollo LM on their own with a U.S. contractor. But they might be able to at least assist in that regard. Both ESA and JAXA have shown some interest in the Moon, especially ESA lately. The idea that could also send some of their Astronauts to the Lunar surface might swing their participation more strongly. Also; they would not be supplying the Orion Command 'Mothership' and a Heavy Lifter - that of course would be the U.S. task.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 12/04/2016 07:44 pm
This vehicle could have allowed the Astronauts to stay for a week. And with an added small solar array, a full stay for a two week Lunar day. But during the Lunar Midday, it would be blisteringly hot for the crews to undertake EVAs. They would have needed a new spacesuit design, or instead take a three-day shelter and rest within the LM Hab. Probably not practical or productive!

Que? I'm not seeing the logic here. In a vacuum, there's no difference in light intensity if the sun is anywhere above the horizon. (Indeed, having the sun directly overhead would reduce heating of the suits by reducing the illuminated surface area.) It's only in an atmosphere where a low sun is cooler.

If it's heating of the surface that's the issue, then from the moment it becomes too hot, it would continue to be too hot until the sun went down. (Or at least until it go low enough, just above the horizon, that the very rocks and grains became self-shadowing.) It wouldn't just be too hot for three days around high noon.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 12/04/2016 07:45 pm
Let's revitalize NASA, not keep knocking it all-the-time.

The first step to change is admitting you have a problem.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 12/04/2016 07:59 pm
This vehicle could have allowed the Astronauts to stay for a week. And with an added small solar array, a full stay for a two week Lunar day. But during the Lunar Midday, it would be blisteringly hot for the crews to undertake EVAs. They would have needed a new spacesuit design, or instead take a three-day shelter and rest within the LM Hab. Probably not practical or productive!

Que? I'm not seeing the logic here. In a vacuum, there's no difference in light intensity if the sun is anywhere above the horizon. (Indeed, having the sun directly overhead would reduce heating of the suits by reducing the illuminated surface area.) It's only in an atmosphere where a low sun is cooler.

If it's heating of the surface that's the issue, then from the moment it becomes too hot, it would continue to be too hot until the sun went down. (Or at least until it go low enough, just above the horizon, that the very rocks and grains became self-shadowing.) It wouldn't just be too hot for three days around high noon.
More to do with how hot the surface gets near midday - not with the actual transmission from the Sun. Going by old papers that I read - including ESAS/CXP; I've heard that on the Apollo J-Series missions that by the time of the third EVA the Astronauts were turning their suit cooling up much higher. Temperatures in shadow would remain much the same though I imagine.  http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00561846
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 12/04/2016 08:01 pm
...So; more insulation on the boots, a bit better liquid-cooled undergarments and a stronger helmet sun visor and they're good to go!
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Warren Platts on 12/04/2016 08:13 pm
I have yet to run into a clear explanation as to why CH4/LO2 is thought to be the superior option for Mars, because you've still got obtain water to get the hydrogen. Given that you're getting water anyways, then why go to the trouble, expense, and mass necessary to make methane?

If water is easy to mine (like on Earth) I agree it makes no sense.

And that's the other thing... Whether you're looking at Martian buried glaciers or lunar permanently shaded regions (PSRs), it's going to be very difficult, even to get enough for a few ascent module launches. To get enough to jumpstart a whole space economy is going to be quite the grand undertaking....

I think water can be extracted from Martian soil. But you're actually making an argument for methalox, at least on Mars where CO2 is abundant.

No, he's making an argument for his theory that suggests there's a non-zero chance of there being liquid water near the surface of a few places on the Moon. It still sounds too good to be true, but the underlying logic is solid enough I'd like to see his ground-penetrating radar mission concept fly just in case. Because it will always be easier to handle liquid water than mining cryogenic temperature ice out of lunar regolith. ~Jon

Heh! Not trying to highjack the thread (That said, I've been sitting on a couple of geographical patterns that are very suggestive; wondering what I should do with them...) For the first time in a long time, NASA itself has been getting down to doing some serious engineering to figure out the nuts and bolts required for extracting a few percent H2O out of frozen dirt.

And it's probably not too much of an exaggeration to say that the strategy seems to be to design for "average" conditions in order to be assured of success. I can see the reasoning: for a manned mission to Mars (if you want to come back), some sort of ISRU rocket fuel is pretty much critical-path mandatory; but of course no mining company on Earth would employ such a strategy, so arguably they are already starting off on the wrong foot.

Which is perhaps surprising, since at practically any space conference you go to, there will be presentations discussing the "mining cycle", where one goes through a series of prospecting assessments, starting with global remote sensing, followed by more detailed in situ investigations, culminating in a detailed mining feasibility study, before committing to an actual mining operation. But when it comes to discussing the next mission, the tendency is short circuit the process, and go straight from satellite remote sensing to actual production.

And since you're bypassing all but the most preliminary prospecting steps, you're forced to design for average conditions--and thus you will miss whatever high-beta resources that are most likely out there.

For governmental scientists and engineers, this attitude is predictable. By definition, the high-beta resources are going to be non-average conditions. Hints of their existence will be found within the anomalies at the edges of the data. Hence promoting such potential resources carries with it significant personal risk to one's career, because proving the existence of the resource will be big-league expensive, and there's a big-league chance that the endeavor will turn out to be a big-league waste of money.

There is a certain difference, IMHO, between commercial geology and academic/governmental geology--the commercial geologists is much less concerned with "the truth". Take, for example, fracking. Even you think fracking is an underground catastrophe that must be stopped, there's no question--now--that it works. But who invented the process? A: it didn't come from academia, nor did it come from the USGS, nor even the big majors like Exxon, Chevron, Shell, or BP. Mainly because the conventional lore was that you cannot extract economically valuable amounts of hydrocarbons from shales and tight sands.

So instead a few guys in Wyoming and Texas with a few millions (not hundreds of millions) picked up some cheap leases, and kept trying until they made their dream a reality.

Thus I gotta say that I'm a little disappointed in that even the commercial space mining people--such as they are--seem to be taking the same approach: designing for average conditions. Thus the question is: Where is their profit margin going to come from?

Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/04/2016 08:37 pm
Actually need to think about end item customers and the supply chain through the habitat operators, transporters, storage, manufacturers, miners, and power providers. Then again is the others supplying equipment used by these entities and services that get the equipment and persons to the locations.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/04/2016 08:45 pm
This vehicle could have allowed the Astronauts to stay for a week. And with an added small solar array, a full stay for a two week Lunar day. But during the Lunar Midday, it would be blisteringly hot for the crews to undertake EVAs. They would have needed a new spacesuit design, or instead take a three-day shelter and rest within the LM Hab. Probably not practical or productive!

Que? I'm not seeing the logic here. In a vacuum, there's no difference in light intensity if the sun is anywhere above the horizon. (Indeed, having the sun directly overhead would reduce heating of the suits by reducing the illuminated surface area.) It's only in an atmosphere where a low sun is cooler.

If it's heating of the surface that's the issue, then from the moment it becomes too hot, it would continue to be too hot until the sun went down. (Or at least until it go low enough, just above the horizon, that the very rocks and grains became self-shadowing.) It wouldn't just be too hot for three days around high noon.
The poles have lot of advantages compared to equatorial locates. Temp range for quasi-permanent lit (80%) polar sites -60C to - 40C compared to equator  -150C to +120C. Plus more sunlight for power generation. There is excellent FISO podcast (april2016) on Near rectilinear halo orbits (NRO) that are a polar orbit which goes from 2000-75000km over 6-8days. Pole LLO access is 0.5days and 730m/s each way. For Orion it is 850m/s round trip to access NRO compared to 960 for DRO. Station keeping is <10m/s a year.

The 2000km flyby of a pole is also nice bonus of this orbit.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/04/2016 09:56 pm
For a Lunar surface operations program there is an opportunity to do a multiple provider competing commercial service program that could at worst case cost the same to develop as a government centric one but ends with two or more providers.

For the Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew programs there was a business assumption on the part of the providers that there could be some future business that was not from NASA.  And certainly all the service providers were hoping NASA would be a customer through at least 2024, and likely longer.

Plus, all they had to develop was the LEO spacecraft, since everyone planned on using already existing or already under development launchers.  So the relative scale of the development was both doable, and a path to profitability was thought to be possible.

Using public/private partnerships to land humans on the Moon will be significantly more challenging, especially since so much more hardware has to be developed.  And what is the long term business case for doing this?  Why should private companies take on this financial risk?

For instance, Commercial Crew providers know that there is at least one other potential customer for crew transportation services, and they can use the same vehicles they already have.  Plus the vehicles are reusable, potentially up to 10 times, so a small fleet could provide LEO services for quite a few years.

A transportation architecture that reaches to the surface of the Moon will need to be as reusable as much as possible in order to attract private industry interest, since otherwise no non-government users could afford to use their services.  But that will take an investment, and time, from NASA (maybe other space agencies too).  Which isn't a bad thing, I'm just pointing out that in order to create a sustainable presence on the Moon that it may take a lot of upfront investment to provide the foundation.

Is there political will for that big of an effort?  If the last 40 years are any indication, the answer is still no.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/04/2016 10:19 pm
For a Lunar surface operations program there is an opportunity to do a multiple provider competing commercial service program that could at worst case cost the same to develop as a government centric one but ends with two or more providers.

For the Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew programs there was a business assumption on the part of the providers that there could be some future business that was not from NASA.  And certainly all the service providers were hoping NASA would be a customer through at least 2024, and likely longer.

Plus, all they had to develop was the LEO spacecraft, since everyone planned on using already existing or already under development launchers.  So the relative scale of the development was both doable, and a path to profitability was thought to be possible.

Using public/private partnerships to land humans on the Moon will be significantly more challenging, especially since so much more hardware has to be developed.  And what is the long term business case for doing this?  Why should private companies take on this financial risk?

For instance, Commercial Crew providers know that there is at least one other potential customer for crew transportation services, and they can use the same vehicles they already have.  Plus the vehicles are reusable, potentially up to 10 times, so a small fleet could provide LEO services for quite a few years.

A transportation architecture that reaches to the surface of the Moon will need to be as reusable as much as possible in order to attract private industry interest, since otherwise no non-government users could afford to use their services.  But that will take an investment, and time, from NASA (maybe other space agencies too).  Which isn't a bad thing, I'm just pointing out that in order to create a sustainable presence on the Moon that it may take a lot of upfront investment to provide the foundation.

Is there political will for that big of an effort?  If the last 40 years are any indication, the answer is still no.
The alternate to a investment in commercial services is an equal "investment" in a gov system but with a much lower usability from the standpoint of other possible customers. A dead end. Except in the establishment of something to be replaced by commercial services.

But also like you said requires the will to make an expenditure at all for either case.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: AncientU on 12/04/2016 11:08 pm
Yes Ron, or course you are right. I love the whole idea of "Apollo on Steroids", but not dragged out endlessly by the way government and "Old Space", overseen by Congress and various administrations hamstring things needlessly! I fail to see why we have to "outsource" a new lander to a different country when the original LM was one of our greatest achievements in space, same with the Service Module.
 BTW, the expression "Flags and Footprints" drives me crazy- a very demeaning cliché that doesn't respect the greatness of what was accomplished then. Let's revitalize NASA, not keep knocking it all-the-time.
You said it, Brother! I could just hug you for saying it. 'Flags-And-Footprints' is used often as a dumb and excruciatingly irritating pejorative that belittles the achievements of Apollo - particularly the magnificent J-series 15, 16 & 17 missions.

Quote
Now, the above would've been just an extension of the expensive, throw away Apollo paradigm.

Do you ever stop to think that it might be precisely the greatness of what was accomplished then that drives some of us to be frustrated with what NASA is doing today?  Forty-four years is a long time to wait for some of that greatness -- boldness, risk-taking, technology-stretching, human-race-captivating action -- to return.

I, for one, don't want to spend decades and tens of Billions for another expensive, throw away APOLLO program, steroids or no... and then let the next couple generations wonder if it really happened.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Jim on 12/04/2016 11:17 pm

I, for one, don't want to spend decades and tens of Billions for another expensive, throw away APOLLO program, steroids or no... and then let the next couple generations wonder if it really happened.

Might be waiting longer for a reusable program to be viable
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/04/2016 11:33 pm
The alternate to a investment in commercial services is an equal "investment" in a gov system but with a much lower usability from the standpoint of other possible customers. A dead end. Except in the establishment of something to be replaced by commercial services.

But also like you said requires the will to make an expenditure at all for either case.

First there has to be a desire on the part of the U.S. Government to return to the Moon.  When that happens (if it ever does) we'll better understand what the ultimate goal is.

For instance, I've argued that a potential goal would be for a President to state that the U.S. was going to extend it's sphere of influence out into space, with the first step being the creation of a reusable transportation system to the region of the Moon.  This would be both a public/private venture, as well as international one - which should spread the risk.  The U.S. Government's role would be similar to the role it took with the funding of the First Transcontinental Railroad, but in this case the goal is to use this new transportation system as part of an effort to return to the Moon, or even to support efforts beyond Earth orbit.

With a reusable space transportation system in place, getting down to the Moon's surface is a much smaller effort, as is supporting operations there.

BUT, if SpaceX is able to build their ITS, then a less expensive alternative would be to just purchase one or more ITS from SpaceX, or lease services from them.  Why build when you can just buy?

First there has to be a desire on the part of the U.S. Government to have a long term goal beyond LEO...
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 12/04/2016 11:34 pm
Yes - better is the enemy of 'good enough'.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: AncientU on 12/04/2016 11:42 pm

I, for one, don't want to spend decades and tens of Billions for another expensive, throw away APOLLO program, steroids or no... and then let the next couple generations wonder if it really happened.

Might be waiting longer for a reusable program to be viable

Exactly what I mean.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/05/2016 01:02 pm
Some of the items that are missing is a change in policy from a "COTS" program replaces a previous operating government centric one to be instead doing a "COTS" program as the initial operational program without ever having a government centric one. For a Lunar surface operations program there is an opportunity to do a multiple provider competing commercial service program that could at worst case cost the same to develop as a government centric one but ends with two or more providers.

Through Lunar CATALYST and the RFI on Small Lunar Payloads NASA has been giving moral support to the development of small cargo lunar landers. To make money the lander manufactures would have to sell tickets to the Moon. Possible customers are:

a. The US Government - NASA and NSF
b. US laboratories, possibly attached to universities
c. US companies
d. Other countries' Governments
e. Other countries' laboratories
f. Non-US companies.

The X-Prize suggests that there is a bit of a market but unless some market research is conducted we will not discover how big the market is. Market research is normally commissioned by private sector companies but a government agency could.

Frequently many people do not believe in something new until they have seen it. This increases the commercial risk for the lander manufacturers.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: muomega0 on 12/05/2016 01:56 pm
I, for one, don't want to spend decades and tens of Billions for another expensive, throw away APOLLO program, steroids or no... and then let the next couple generations wonder if it really happened.
Might be waiting longer for a reusable program to be viable
there are a few key developments that provide significant cost savings.  but like carbon production sometimes it takes 100 years to provide a product that is commercially viable....

I have yet to run into a clear explanation as to why CH4/LO2 is thought to be the superior option for Mars, because you've still got obtain water to get the hydrogen. Given that you're getting water anyways, then why go to the trouble, expense, and mass necessary to make methane?

If water is easy to mine (like on Earth) I agree it makes no sense.

And that's the other thing... Whether you're looking at Martian buried glaciers or lunar permanently shaded regions (PSRs), it's going to be very difficult, even to get enough for a few ascent module launches. To get enough to jumpstart a whole space economy is going to be quite the grand undertaking....

I think water can be extracted from Martian soil. But you're actually making an argument for methalox, at least on Mars where CO2 is abundant.

No, he's making an argument for his theory that suggests there's a non-zero chance of there being liquid water near the surface of a few places on the Moon. It still sounds too good to be true, but the underlying logic is solid enough I'd like to see his ground-penetrating radar mission concept fly just in case. Because it will always be easier to handle liquid water than mining cryogenic temperature ice out of lunar regolith. ~Jon

.... the "mining cycle", where one goes through a series of prospecting assessments, starting with global remote sensing, followed by more detailed in situ investigations, culminating in a detailed mining feasibility study, before committing to an actual mining operation.

For governmental scientists and engineers, this attitude is predictable....proving the existence of the resource will be big-league expensive, and there's a big-league chance that the endeavor will turn out to be a big-league waste of money.

There is a certain difference, IMHO, between commercial geology and academic/governmental geology--the commercial geologists is much less concerned with "the truth". Take, for example, fracking. Even you think fracking is an underground catastrophe that must be stopped, there's no question--now--that it works. But who invented the process? A: it didn't come from academia, nor did it come from the USGS, nor even the big majors like Exxon, Chevron, Shell, or BP. Mainly because the conventional lore was that you cannot extract economically valuable amounts of hydrocarbons from shales and tight sands.

So instead a few guys in Wyoming and Texas with a few millions (not hundreds of millions) picked up some cheap leases, and kept trying until they made their dream a reality.

Thus the question is: Where is their profit margin going to come from?
Fracking has a history going back to the civil war (http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/The-Real-History-Of-Fracking.html) but you will likely not hear the details of all the key experiments to get the last 1/3 of the carbon out of the earth, since it took higher prices to turn a profit since it cost about 1M in chemicals--which have to added with diminishing returns--annually to extract the product.    Lost in the cost analysis is that nothing is set aside for the environment and denial is best position to limit liability.

The return to the moon abandons the long duration deep space transportation system with the goal of reuse.
Without reuse, its unlikely that large quantities of propellant will be in demand, which hurts the business case.

The return to the moon abandons long term crew health issues during the long duration journeys.

Worse, the return to moon ISRU produces propellant in a gravity well 400 Mkm away from "To Mars", where its needed for the crews return, assuming that fast trips will be required, not to mention pushing multiple science platforms faster to the edges of the solar system.

Simply look at the Space Grand Challenges--NASA requires numerous technologies in an economical architecture including efficiency gains in the programs implemented.

Since all of the resources came from asteroids which are closer to the destinations with no gravity wells that help enable the goal of reuse for long duration deep space trips, while the moon provides the wrong GCR and ug environment, not to mention a lunar focus means to few programs for multiple billions, its difficult to see reasons for returning to the moon first.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Warren Platts on 12/05/2016 03:02 pm
Possible customers are:

a. The US Government - NASA and NSF
b. US laboratories, possibly attached to universities
c. US companies
d. Other countries' Governments
e. Other countries' laboratories
f. Non-US companies.

The X-Prize suggests that there is a bit of a market

Here's a link to an article that was just headlined on the drudgereport.com: Holidays on the moon will be possible in a DECADE - but a ticket will cost you £8000 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/science/holidays-moon-possible-decade-ticket-9394296)

lol! This is going to be MoonEx. There's about 3 zeros missing in those estimates, but speaking of market research, I must say the comments to that article make for sad reading.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Warren Platts on 12/05/2016 03:32 pm
The return to the moon abandons the long duration deep space transportation system with the goal of reuse.

The return to the moon abandons long term crew health issues during the long duration journeys.

Worse, the return to moon ISRU produces propellant in a gravity well 400 Mkm away from "To Mars", where its needed for the crews return, assuming that fast trips will be required

the moon provides the wrong GCR and ug environment

These are all non sequiturs. The ULA at least is looking hard at reusable space tugs (Centaur/ACES), and are very interested in lunar ISRU produced propellant (if it can be purchased for ~$500/kg)--in which case it would be cheap enough to be used for boosting satellites from LEO to GEO.

Also, if you want fast Mars trips, a reusable single stage MTV that was topped off at L2 with lunar produced fuel could get to Mars in maybe half the Hohmann transfer time.

And all the human guinea pig experiments you want to do could be done at an L2 space station.


Quote
Since all of the resources came from asteroids which are closer to the destinations with no gravity wells that help enable the goal of reuse for long duration deep space trips, while , not to mention a lunar focus means to few programs for multiple billions, its difficult to see reasons for returning to the moon first.

The problem with asteroids from an economic geology perspective is that they are too primitive to have concentrated any interesting mineral resources much (with the possible exception of PGMs in metallic asteroids--and even there, it's quite possible that the Moon could have far superior deposits (http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2014-0338)). Especially if it's water you're after, since both the Moon and Mars could have concentrated ice deposits and maybe even drillable liquid water. With NEOs (since they are well within the solar system's "frost line") you're going to be definitely designing for average conditions, in a weightless environment. And while there are a few NEOs out there with low delta v requirements, the launch windows are sporadic (entailing long lead times between prospecting missions and actual production missions), and the delta t's can be horrendous (entailing low throughput through your transportation system).
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/06/2016 07:34 pm
I thought NASA did a pretty good job building the Lunar Module with Grumman, seemed to work pretty good!

That was literally a different NASA than what we have today.  Today's NASA, which has far more political and budgetary challenges, is taking 18 years to build an "Apollo on steroids" 4-persona spacecraft - which so far has cost $11B.

Compare that to the progress the private companies participating in the Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew programs, as well as the total program costs.

I think this past decade has shown that the U.S. aerospace industry is more than capable enough of designing and building whatever NASA needs, and if properly incentivized, for far less than if NASA were to build it on their own using typical contracting methods.

The Mars landers of NASA today work just fine. And Commercial Cargo currently has a 12% payload loss rate, which is nothing that you want to replicate in a manned system.

And there was nothing inherently throw-away about Apollo. We chose to throw it away chasing the re-usability dream which incidentally is what people are suggesting we repeat with SLS/Orion.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/09/2016 08:44 pm
The Mars landers of NASA today work just fine.

Sure, for payloads that mass no more than 900 kg.

But NASA is not sending humans to the surface of Mars using the skycrane method since it won't work for human-sized vehicles.  NASA has no direct experience in large vehicle retro-entry, which is why they have been so interested in what SpaceX is doing - and SpaceX is doing retro-entry as a pathfinder to landing on Mars for their own HSF needs.

Quote
And Commercial Cargo currently has a 12% payload loss rate, which is nothing that you want to replicate in a manned system.

We lost 3 crew with Apollo, and almost 3 more, and we lost 14 crew with the Shuttle program.  So I'm not sure what your point is.

Quote
And there was nothing inherently throw-away about Apollo.

What?  The entire system was never intended to be recovered and reflown, so I'm not sure how you can say that.

Quote
We chose to throw it away chasing the re-usability dream which incidentally is what people are suggesting we repeat with SLS/Orion.

The goal of the Apollo program was political, to show the world the U.S. was superior to the USSR, and reusability was never a consideration.  So again, where are you getting this idea from?

As to the SLS and Orion MPCV, reusability was not mandated by Congress when they told NASA to build both of them, so reusability is not a possibility.

As for the Moon, we can return to the Moon using existing commercial launchers, as both NASA, ULA and others have said.  But since it's been the cost of returning to the Moon, not the technology that has been the reason why we haven't returned, using expendable transportation systems don't solve the basic problem holding us back from returning.  Cost.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/12/2016 09:30 pm
The Mars landers of NASA today work just fine.

Sure, for payloads that mass no more than 900 kg.

But NASA is not sending humans to the surface of Mars using the skycrane method since it won't work for human-sized vehicles.  NASA has no direct experience in large vehicle retro-entry, which is why they have been so interested in what SpaceX is doing - and SpaceX is doing retro-entry as a pathfinder to landing on Mars for their own HSF needs.

The payload of the LM(Lunar Module ascent stage) was only ~5x the curiosity rover mass fully fueled. The Launch mass of MSL was ~4000 kg while the launch mass of the LM was ~15,000 kg (so a scaling factor ~3.75). Offloading propellant through ISRU or ground refueling and the actual landed mass that you would need in one landing for humans may be even lower.  So, human scale for landing on planetary surfaces isn't necessarily that much bigger than MSL. Certainly, around 1,000 kg-2000 kg would be enough for the descent portion, but of course sizing is constrained by ascent.


And Commercial Cargo currently has a 12% payload loss rate, which is nothing that you want to replicate in a manned system.

We lost 3 crew with Apollo, and almost 3 more, and we lost 14 crew with the Shuttle program.  So I'm not sure what your point is.

Shuttle had 2 failures out of 135 launch/entries. For CRS to match that record, the next 118 missions will have to be completed without a loss of vehicle. Or to put it another way, if Shuttle had the same failure rate that commercial cargo has had, it would have meant ~95 fatalities.


And there was nothing inherently throw-away about Apollo.

What?  The entire system was never intended to be recovered and reflown, so I'm not sure how you can say that.

I think I was more responding to AncientU who referred to Apollo as "throw away" (i.e. we built the heavy lift infrastructure and cislunar transportation and then scrapped it). Comment had nothing to do with if the vehicles themselves were re-usable, but the infrastructure, vehicle designs and workforce was reusable and could have been modified for other goals (even a LEO space station, Hubble, Magellan, Ulysses, Galileo, Compton, etc.)

We chose to throw it away chasing the re-usability dream which incidentally is what people are suggesting we repeat with SLS/Orion.

The goal of the Apollo program was political, to show the world the U.S. was superior to the USSR, and reusability was never a consideration.  So again, where are you getting this idea from?

As to the SLS and Orion MPCV, reusability was not mandated by Congress when they told NASA to build both of them, so reusability is not a possibility.

As for the Moon, we can return to the Moon using existing commercial launchers, as both NASA, ULA and others have said.  But since it's been the cost of returning to the Moon, not the technology that has been the reason why we haven't returned, using expendable transportation systems don't solve the basic problem holding us back from returning.  Cost.

Apollo was actually rather cheap. Cheaper than Shuttle and cheaper than the ISS will end up being. So, no, the problem wasn't that the HSF budget was smaller than the required resources.

As far as the political part. The world was some ultra-competitive excel or die struggle during the cold war and now it is different? Doesn't seem that different to me.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/12/2016 10:02 pm
The payload of the LM(Lunar Module ascent stage) was only ~5x the curiosity rover mass fully fueled.

I was confused why you were talking about Mars landers when landers for our Moon will be far less complex - because of no atmosphere on our Moon.

And as to size, I would agree that we can build lunar landers of any size.  Not that NASA needs a massive lander, but just that technology-wise we have far less constraints than landing on planets with atmospheres.

Quote
Shuttle had 2 failures out of 135 launch/entries. For CRS to match that record, the next 118 missions will have to be completed without a loss of vehicle. Or to put it another way, if Shuttle had the same failure rate that commercial cargo has had, it would have meant ~95 fatalities.

Since the Dragon Crew vehicle has an LAS, and the Shuttle didn't, it's very likely that no future SpaceX launcher failure will result in a loss of crew.  But my main point was that NASA in the past did not have a zero tolerance for failure, and if you look at their Commercial Crew specs they still don't.

Quote
As far as the political part. The world was some ultra-competitive excel or die struggle during the cold war and now it is different? Doesn't seem that different to me.

Then apparently you didn't live during that time - I did.  The threat of global nuclear annihilation was constant back in the 60's, and no one really understood how to treat nuclear weapons.

THAT was the context in which the Apollo program was born, as part of the effort of "winning over" nations of the world to the side of the U.S.  So it was a major political effort during a time of major global conflict using many proxy wars.

Today we have relative peace around the world, as the chart in this article shows (https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace-after-1945/) (chart OT for NSF).

Back to the topic at hand, and with the hindsight of history to guide us, the major programs NASA has been tasked to implement have had political objectives at their core:

- Apollo - winning the Cold War over the USSR
- Shuttle - using the Apollo workforce to continue our nations lead in aerospace
- ISS - employ out of work Russian scientists so that they won't build nuclear bombs for terrorists

So what political goal would returning to the Moon support?  And it doesn't have to be war or global conflict related, just that it has to be a clearly defined goal that elected members of Congress can defend to their constituents (i.e. I support this spending, so re-elect me even though you may not get a direct benefit of the spending).
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/20/2016 09:30 pm
The payload of the LM(Lunar Module ascent stage) was only ~5x the curiosity rover mass fully fueled.

I was confused why you were talking about Mars landers when landers for our Moon will be far less complex - because of no atmosphere on our Moon.

I always questioned this assumption. Sure, supersonic atmospheric entry and supersonic atmospheric retro-propulsion introduces all kinds of problems in the design of a lander, but why not do the following:

1.)zero out the horizontal/vertical velocity at 25 km altitude. At 25 km altitude, that is roughly the same atmospheric density as 60 km above the earth's surface(not exactly above the Karman line but very thin - ~1/10,000 earth surface atmospheric density).
2.)if you just dropped from this point and the ground below you was 8 km altitude, you would fall 17 km under 3.711 m/s gravity and hit the ground in ~96 seconds at a vertical velocity of ~356 m/s with no atmospheric drag. That is the equivalent to Mach 1.04, but with atmospheric drag, you wouldn't even hit Mach 1. Of course, you would lose whatever of that 356 m/s that atmospheric drag didn't dissipate in gravity loses because you would have to fire to zero that out at ground level. But 356 m/s is a pretty trivial affair. Just as a point of reference, ISS orbital velocity is ~7600 m/s, so ~4.5% of that.

In my opinion, propulsive EDL and ascent on Mars is completely doable(total delta-v is less than earth to LEO) and supersonic entry and supersonic retro-propulsion will lead to all kinds of compromises in terms of design that will mean a whole new system will be required for doing anything else efficiently(whether that is in-space maneuvers or landing on anything that isn't Mars).
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: guckyfan on 12/20/2016 09:38 pm
1.)zero out the horizontal/vertical velocity at 25 km altitude.

How do you propose to do that?
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/20/2016 09:49 pm
1.)zero out the horizontal/vertical velocity at 25 km altitude.

How do you propose to do that?

Same way you would land if Mars was 25 km thicker and had no atmosphere.

edit: but obviously you wouldn't zero out velocity at that altitude. It does allow for easy calculation of the maximum gravity loses though to show feasibility of gentle sub-sonic entry.

edit 2: The Titan II GLV is roughly the performance you would require for propulsive landing and ascent on Mars as delta-v is about the same between Mars up and down and Earth to LEO. Additionally, that had a multi-passenger spacecraft on the top. A Titan II GLV fully fueled weighs about 154,200 kg and so is out of the range of launch on the SLS Block II, but it had a pretty bad isp(258 sec/316 sec). With a slightly lower mass crew module on top(more crew but no re-entry ability and 1 day life support vs 4), better isp hypergol engine and more efficient structure/better materials and you could probably get the the mass under 100 mT and capable of being orbited with an SLS Block 1B. The stack would be more like ~12 meters tall and 5 meters in diameter vs the Titan II GLV 33 meters tall and 3 meters diameter.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: KelvinZero on 12/21/2016 01:45 am
I was confused why you were talking about Mars landers when landers for our Moon will be far less complex - because of no atmosphere on our Moon.
I always questioned this assumption. Sure, supersonic atmospheric entry and supersonic atmospheric retro-propulsion introduces all kinds of problems in the design of a lander, but why not do the following:
It is not an assumption that Mars is harder to land on. That is well established by the fact that about 2 out of 3 missions ended up as billion dollar craters  :)
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/mars_challenges.html

If you have thought of a simple argument that proves it is not that hard you might want to keep quiet about it to avoid being lynched by a bloodthirsty mob of respectable scientists.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/21/2016 03:02 am
I always questioned this assumption. Sure, supersonic atmospheric entry and supersonic atmospheric retro-propulsion introduces all kinds of problems in the design of a lander, but why not do the following:

1.)zero out the horizontal/vertical velocity at 25 km altitude.

You'd have to use a lot of fuel to do that, so that's your tradeoff.  Especially if you mandate that every kg of mass you want on the surface of Mars has to use this method.  So using the Mars atmosphere reduces the amount of fuel that you need to bring along with you (or ship ahead).

Quote
In my opinion, propulsive EDL and ascent on Mars is completely doable(total delta-v is less than earth to LEO) and supersonic entry and supersonic retro-propulsion will lead to all kinds of compromises in terms of design that will mean a whole new system will be required for doing anything else efficiently(whether that is in-space maneuvers or landing on anything that isn't Mars).

Of course if you perfect being able to land on Mars and Earth using retropropulsion, then those same vehicles can obviously land on an airless world too - which is what Musk has stated.  So whoever wants to use one for going to the Moon would be able use one (and Musk might even sell to them).

But otherwise it's a question of money as to what method is used, and Musk has decided what he wants to use...
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 12/21/2016 03:17 am
Adapt this plan for the EELV launch fleet, with some modern tweaks. Using hypergolics instead of LH2/LOX will save development money, but LOX/CH4 would give more capability:

http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/ELA.html

http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/z/zela2.gif

Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: redliox on 12/21/2016 03:53 am
Adapt this plan for the EELV launch fleet, with some modern tweaks. Using hypergolics instead of LH2/LOX will save development money, but LOX/CH4 would give more capability:

http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/ELA.html

http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/z/zela2.gif

Ah I remember this from an issue of Astronomy.  Cute idea of improvising with (then) modern rocketry and the shuttle, but it couldn't work between the major budget limitations and the shuttle's confining cargo hold.  The FLO concept was overall better and not unlike what could be done with SLS:

http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/FLO.html (http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/FLO.html)

I don't think old plans from the 1990s will be a prelude of how we might return.  All we can be assured of is that it'll be longer than 50 years since our last visit until a new visit to the Moon.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 12/21/2016 04:19 am
Even though it's from the 1990s, I still think it's better than super-sizing the 1960s concepts that Constellation was looking at doing. The General Dynamics 'Early Lunar Return' concept could be adapted for Atlas V, Delta IV-H, Vulcan and Ariane 6. Keep the crew to 2x Astronauts, use hypergolics or LOX/CH4, and make the vehicle capable of being configured as two versions - crew or cargo. Sort of like a 'Lunar Soyuz/Progress'. The cargo version of course only carries enough propellant for descent; enabling 4 or maybe even 5 tons of downmass. A Cargo Lander that has a Hab module on it's back instead of the Crew Return capsule could carry down oxygen and potable water instead of descent propellant. The crew lands separately in their Descent/Ascent vehicle and stay for a full lunar day.

If other Cargo Landers bring down a Solar Power/Life Support module, crews could stay much longer. In fact, if there were overlapping crew rotations where 2x other Astronauts landed nearby there would be a period of 4 people staying at a basic 'Lunar Outpost'. Also, having another vehicle would offer rescue capability to take all 4 Astronauts back to Earth in a pinch; albeit with no lunar samples etc.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Phil Stooke on 12/21/2016 05:06 am
"It is not an assumption that Mars is harder to land on. That is well established by the fact that about 2 out of 3 missions ended up as billion dollar craters"

Let's add it up...

successful:

Mars 3  (didn't do much but not a crater)
Viking 1
Viking 2
Pathfinder
Beagle 2  (did nothing but apparently it landed, not a crater)
Spirit
Opportunity
Phoenix
Curiosity

Failures:

Mars 2
Mars 6
Mars Polar lander
DS2 (2 penetrators)
Schiaparelli

Did I miss anything?  So we have 6 clearly failed landings and 9 successful landers, even if two didn't do much.  At any rate the stats are much better than they are often stated to be.

How does the Moon stack up:

Success:

Luna 9
Luna 13
Luna 16
Luna 17
Luna 20
Luna 21
Luna 23 (toppled over, failed to operate, but not a crater)
Luna 24

Surveyor 1
Surveyor 3
Surveyor 5
Surveyor 6
Surveyor 7

Apollo 11
Apollo 12
Apollo 14
Apollo 15
Apollo 16
Apollo 17

Chang'E 3


Failures:

Luna 5
Luna 7
Luna 8
Luna 15
Luna 18

Surveyor 2
Surveyor 4


So we have 20 successes and 7 failures (I am not counting Luna 2 and the Rangers and Apollo SIVBs which were intended to crash).  So the Moon does look better, but still Mars is not as bad as the quote suggests.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/21/2016 09:16 pm
The US has a better record landing robotic probes on Mars than the Moon. The Moon is conceptually easier but requires more delta-v/propellant and thus harder in many ways.

Don't let Skycrane fool you. That was engineers showing off. :)
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: sdsds on 12/22/2016 03:57 am
The Moon is conceptually easier

No hypersonic retro propulsion.
Lol.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: KelvinZero on 12/22/2016 04:31 am
"It is not an assumption that Mars is harder to land on. That is well established by the fact that about 2 out of 3 missions ended up as billion dollar craters"

So we have 20 successes and 7 failures (I am not counting Luna 2 and the Rangers and Apollo SIVBs which were intended to crash).  So the Moon does look better, but still Mars is not as bad as the quote suggests.
I can think of two potentially misleading things with those statistics:

Firstly, experience. Robotic missions were in their infancy when a lot of those lunar missions took place. The crashes on Mars were after all those lessons.

Secondly a lot of those missions were Russian ones. If you are going to compare apples with apples, you should compare Russian successes to the moon with Russian successes to Mars.

Admittedly I started the bad statistics. It was just a cute statistic to quote and not really a reliable way to quantify the difficulty, because we generally decide on the rate of failure we will accept first, then price the mission to deliver at least that success rate, and then decide if we will bother going.

google it on line and Im sure anyone will find article after article from robotic mission designers going on about how hard mars is. I don't think I have ever seen any robotic mission designer discuss a moon landing and talk up it's difficulty compared to mars.

I accept the general arguments that the delta-v can be lower to Mars, saving money, and in the end may possibly allow a full-on colony effort to Mars to end up cheaper for the same safety. That is a different conversation though. Im very confident that non-armchair mission designers would pretty much always tell you that mars landings are technically much harder than moon landings.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Phil Stooke on 12/22/2016 05:34 am
I'm sure everyone agrees that Mars is hard.  I only wanted to show that the oft-quoted statistics about 2/3 of landings failing are false.  You can sort of make them work if you count launch failures (in which context the points about Soviet vs US missions, or early vs recent missions, make sense - they don't apply if you only look at actual landing attempts as I did).  The real lesson from my lists is that we are actually pretty darn good at landing things on the Moon and Mars.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/22/2016 01:06 pm
The Moon is conceptually easier

No hypersonic retro propulsion.
Lol.
...turns out super/hypersonic retro is not actually that hard, see SpaceX doing it basically every launch now. Again, it sounds hard and nobody had done it before.

Sometimes it just takes /trying/ something rather than just /talking/ about it.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: redliox on 12/22/2016 08:36 pm
The Moon is conceptually easier

No hypersonic retro propulsion.
Lol.
...turns out super/hypersonic retro is not actually that hard, see SpaceX doing it basically every launch now. Again, it sounds hard and nobody had done it before.

Sometimes it just takes /trying/ something rather than just /talking/ about it.

Practice makes perfect sums up the gist of it.  You could say the problem is engineers are naturally panicky when it involves multi-million-dollar rockets...that sometimes explode on the the slightest impact.  Robotbeat is probably right in that retro rocketry is probably simpler that engineers think.

If nothing else, it's the environment that's in question.  The Moon is airless which is the most predictable to work with.  Mars is an "imperfect vacuum" by Earthly standards, so odds are most of retro's hazards just involve surviving the entry and timing firing the rockets right.  And, here on Earth, both SpaceX and Blue Origin have proven it isn't impossible to land with retropropulsion, as did the Delta Clipper back in the 1990s.

If we can do it on Earth, we can do it on Mars.  You just have to make sure your fire the rockets at a better time than the Schiaparelli did.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Zed_Noir on 12/23/2016 03:59 am
The Moon is conceptually easier

No hypersonic retro propulsion.
Lol.
...turns out super/hypersonic retro is not actually that hard, see SpaceX doing it basically every launch now. Again, it sounds hard and nobody had done it before.

Sometimes it just takes /trying/ something rather than just /talking/ about it.
....
If nothing else, it's the environment that's in question.  The Moon is airless which is the most predictable to work with.  Mars is an "imperfect vacuum" by Earthly standards, so odds are most of retro's hazards just involve surviving the entry and timing firing the rockets right.  And, here on Earth, both SpaceX and Blue Origin have proven it isn't impossible to land with retropropulsion, as did the Delta Clipper back in the 1990s.
.....

Ahem. Only SpaceX have done a hypersonic retropropulsion return of a vehicle from a orbital launch. IIRC the DC-X never get above 3140m altitude. And the Blue Origin New Sheppard vehicle  stack have basically very little horizontal velocity or movement.

edit to fix quotes
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: sdsds on 12/23/2016 06:14 am
Sometimes it just takes /trying/ something rather than just /talking/ about it.

Totally agree. SpaceX deserves tons of credit for "just trying" this approach. The really killer aspect of it was that they were just trying it with an already expended asset. They understood that the cost of failure was low.

I wish there were something similarly clever that would work for lunar vicinity operations rather than sub-orbital operations!
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/24/2016 05:46 pm
Just to flesh out ideas on how Moon and Mars don't have to be in conflict with each other. And you can do both using assets and technology that NASA already has or is over half-way through the development pipeline.

(https://s23.postimg.org/iivfzf8d7/image.png)

(https://s23.postimg.org/f69hgfiln/image.png)

(https://s30.postimg.org/4phivuuf5/image.png)

(https://s27.postimg.org/9s5dkknz7/image.png)

(https://s29.postimg.org/emxezgmiv/image.png)

(https://s29.postimg.org/mx6ymqws7/image.png)

(https://s28.postimg.org/3nju1iyfh/image.png)

(https://s24.postimg.org/czwe74h6d/image.png)

(https://s27.postimg.org/8rvjnu79v/image.png)

(https://s28.postimg.org/u30onijdp/image.png)

(https://s27.postimg.org/txa3lhwc3/image.png)

(https://s28.postimg.org/5na33tyr1/image.png)

(https://s24.postimg.org/5xc30n6ad/image.png)

(https://s27.postimg.org/c2mw5du2r/image.png)

mods: I used a photo from one of your articles for the picture of RS-25 engines on slide 12...feel free to delete that slide if you want to. Just wanted to show that a lot of the stuff we need(about 50%) is real existing working hardware that exists today in physical reality(not powerpoint).
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/24/2016 06:06 pm
I always questioned this assumption. Sure, supersonic atmospheric entry and supersonic atmospheric retro-propulsion introduces all kinds of problems in the design of a lander, but why not do the following:

1.)zero out the horizontal/vertical velocity at 25 km altitude.

You'd have to use a lot of fuel to do that, so that's your tradeoff.  Especially if you mandate that every kg of mass you want on the surface of Mars has to use this method.  So using the Mars atmosphere reduces the amount of fuel that you need to bring along with you (or ship ahead).

Quote
In my opinion, propulsive EDL and ascent on Mars is completely doable(total delta-v is less than earth to LEO) and supersonic entry and supersonic retro-propulsion will lead to all kinds of compromises in terms of design that will mean a whole new system will be required for doing anything else efficiently(whether that is in-space maneuvers or landing on anything that isn't Mars).

Of course if you perfect being able to land on Mars and Earth using retropropulsion, then those same vehicles can obviously land on an airless world too - which is what Musk has stated.  So whoever wants to use one for going to the Moon would be able use one (and Musk might even sell to them).

But otherwise it's a question of money as to what method is used, and Musk has decided what he wants to use...

Landing a vehicle designed for aerodynamic entry on the moon wastes fuel/payload. Stripping the heatshield and aeroshell out of it adds payload pound for pound. It is the same situation as using a lander optimized for airless landing in an thin atmosphere. What tips the balance is that most surfaces in the solar system are either not survivable or not covered in an atmosphere. Saturn and Jupiter have too much atmosphere while Moon, Pluto, Ceres have too little atmosphere. There are very few surfaces that are in the goldilocks zone where a vehicle optimised to transport cargo to a surface using aerobraking can land with that method and humans/vehicles can survive on the surface. The only "goldilocks" bodies are Mars, Earth and Titan while the number of bodies in total is vast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Solar_System_objects_by_size.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/24/2016 06:29 pm
Landing a vehicle designed for aerodynamic entry on the moon wastes fuel/payload.

Designing, building, testing and operating only one vehicle is far less costly than having to do that with two designs.  Being less efficient with fuel is an acceptable tradeoff, especially when you operate your own fuel depot system.

Quote
Stripping the heatshield and aeroshell out of it adds payload pound for pound.

The proposed SpaceX ITS is planned to be able to land almost 1,000,000 lb of cargo on the surface of Mars, I'd say that should meet the needs of any lunar activity for quite a while, even if it still has to carry a heatshield.

And normally you only optimize transportation systems once you understand your needs, and early on when we finally do return to the Moon we'll need general transports more than specific-use ones.  And you can waste a lot of money trying to optimize before you know what you're optimizing for.

Quote
What tips the balance is that most surfaces in the solar system are either not survivable or not covered in an atmosphere.

This discussion is only about NASA returning to our Moon.  What SpaceX may or may not do beyond our Moon is OT.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/24/2016 06:36 pm
This discussion is only about NASA returning to our Moon.  What SpaceX may or may not do beyond our Moon is OT.

I think you mean NASA, not SpaceX? Anyways, I think if a Mars optimized lander architecture is more of a dead-end than a Moon optimized lander architecture, it merits being considered in the "stay with Mars or switch to the Moon" debate.

Designing, building, testing and operating only one vehicle is far less costly than having to do that with two designs.  Being less efficient with fuel is an acceptable tradeoff, especially when you operate your own fuel depot system.

Which is exactly why any lander that NASA develops shouldn't be optimized for one location. You don't want to build something for each destination.

The proposed SpaceX ITS is planned to be able to land almost 1,000,000 lb of cargo on the surface of Mars, I'd say that should meet the needs of any lunar activity for quite a while, even if it still has to carry a heatshield.

The ITS has borderline fantasy specs. The tanker ship doesn't just have single-stage-to-orbit...it is single-stage-to-GTO. At minimum, it is operating on razer-thin margins on a finicky construction material with no abort capability.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/24/2016 07:35 pm
Just to flesh out ideas on how Moon and Mars don't have to be in conflict with each other.

Your slide deck is like every other hardware-oriented slide deck - it ignores the most important question.  Why should the U.S. Taxpayers fund NASA to go back to the Moon?

The reason we haven't returned to the Moon is not because of a lack of hardware concepts or ideas, nor the technical ability.

What we have lacked is the national need.  Identify that, get everyone to buy into it, and the hardware part will take care of itself...
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/24/2016 08:05 pm
Just to flesh out ideas on how Moon and Mars don't have to be in conflict with each other.

Your slide deck is like every other hardware-oriented slide deck - it ignores the most important question.  Why should the U.S. Taxpayers fund NASA to go back to the Moon?

The reason we haven't returned to the Moon is not because of a lack of hardware concepts or ideas, nor the technical ability.

What we have lacked is the national need.  Identify that, get everyone to buy into it, and the hardware part will take care of itself...

So, not only does "everyone" have to agree on what it is we are going to do, the motivation has to be the same as well? In some perfect utopian/orwellian idealistic society, that may be possible, but it is an impossible standard to achieve.

Does everyone agree on the F-35 program? And not only do they all agree that f-35 should continue, the reasons why it will continue are all the same? Person A doesn't support it because of jobs in his districts, person B doesn't support it because of fear of China/Russia, person C doesn't support it because the CEO of Lockheed Martin is considered a personal friend? That is not the case. Bernie Sanders and the congressman in this letter(https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3144751-10-4-2016-Letter-to-Conference.html#document/p1 (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3144751-10-4-2016-Letter-to-Conference.html#document/p1)) probably have very different reasons to support it.

Really it could actually only come down to a handful of people. Take the Europa mission. Hardly anybody in the government wanted it but some scientists in the decadal survey placed it on a priority list. It really came down to one person, Rep. John Culberson, whether it happened or not. Same thing with Apollo. It was one person: Kennedy. Or STS: Nixon. Nixon might have approved STS because they could steal soviet satellites while other people supported it for scientific applications.

Anyways, a Moon program doesn't require a constitutional amendment that needs anything like 3/4s of the states. Really all you need is simple majorities in a few committees and a president that isn't completely hostile to the idea.

The fact is, you can get hawks and doves to support human space flight in general and human space exploration specifically. Doves can support it as a model of cooperation of an international coalition of peaceful coexisting governments. Hawks can support it to maintain the high ground over the Chinese/Russians. They don't need the same reason.

edit: Most of the debate is on destinations and missions, not whether we will do human space flight or not. That is why you should build a completely destination agnostic approach. That way, a change in destination doesn't require some massive decade long engineering effort to accomplish. The flexible path is a good one. The systems that NASA is working on today have multiple flight profiles and possible utilization schemes.

Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/24/2016 09:51 pm
So, not only does "everyone" have to agree on what it is we are going to do, the motivation has to be the same as well? In some perfect utopian/orwellian idealistic society, that may be possible, but it is an impossible standard to achieve.

Everyone in the funding loop.  Even the public was not enamored with the Apollo program until just before it succeeded, but the political need was known to the politicians, and they gave it a tremendous amount of funding because of the perceived need.

Quote
Does everyone agree on the F-35 program?

The F-35 was originally funded because it was going to solve a national need.  It was always going to be a massive program, and I would wager no one is surprised that it has had problems.  But it is still going to be solving a national need, which in this case is defense of our nation.

What is the need that sending government employees to the Moon solves (or Mars for that matter too)?  Apparently nothing bad happened during the past 45 years since we left the Moon, so waiting another 45 shouldn't be a problem, right?

Quote
Really it could actually only come down to a handful of people.

NASA is not going anywhere beyond LEO without a significant increase to it's budget, and I see that you recognize that too.  Significant budget increases require significant political discussions, and not just with a few people in Congress.

I think the SLS and Orion programs have made people forget how hard normal programs are to get funded, since the SLS and Orion were funded, essentially, as a subset of the Constellation program as it was getting cancelled.  So no new funding was required for NASA, just a shuffling of funds.  And that was done by a few Senators.  But otherwise a new major program will cause discussion and debate in Congress.

Quote
Take the Europa mission. Hardly anybody in the government wanted it but some scientists in the decadal survey placed it on a priority list. It really came down to one person, Rep. John Culberson, whether it happened or not.

It may seem that way to you, but without a sponsor in the Senate, and support from the Appropriations committees, it wouldn't have happened even if Culberson wanted it.  The Europa mission is one of the NASA "Flagship Program" missions, which Congress has been supporting, so all Culberson did was move it along as others have done.  And if he stopped it, well they it would have been pushed out to some undefined future date.  Not a big deal, right?

Quote
Anyways, a Moon program doesn't require a constitutional amendment that needs anything like 3/4s of the states. Really all you need is simple majorities in a few committees and a president that isn't completely hostile to the idea.

Not when you are talking about spending $Billions more on NASA for decades to come.  There are fights in Congress over far less funding all the time.

Quote
The fact is, you can get hawks and doves to support human space flight in general and human space exploration specifically. Doves can support it as a model of cooperation of an international coalition of peaceful coexisting governments. Hawks can support it to maintain the high ground over the Chinese/Russians. They don't need the same reason.

No one in our military buys into the idea of the Moon being "the high ground", and there is little appetite with Republicans today to do international partnerships - especially not with the incoming Trump administration.

Quote
edit: Most of the debate is on destinations and missions, not whether we will do human space flight or not. That is why you should build a completely destination agnostic approach. That way, a change in destination doesn't require some massive decade long engineering effort to accomplish. The flexible path is a good one.

I agree.

Quote
The systems that NASA is working on today have multiple flight profiles and possible utilization schemes.

I disagree.  The SLS is too expensive to use, and the Orion is limited to the region of our Moon and too expensive to use too.  Plus both are NASA-only assets, which means the private sector won't use them, nor would possible international partners.  Which is why they are actually a liability for NASA, not assets.  IMHO.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/24/2016 10:02 pm
I disagree.  The SLS is too expensive to use, and the Orion is limited to the region of our Moon and too expensive to use too.  Plus both are NASA-only assets, which means the private sector won't use them, nor would possible international partners.  Which is why they are actually a liability for NASA, not assets.  IMHO.

I disagree that SLS and Orion are NASA-only assets. The private sector use of the ISS is an example of that, even though NASA operates the vehicle, commercial use is not precluded. Also, I seem to remember a member of the Saudi Royal family riding on STS, and so not even space tourism would be out of the question. As far as operational cost of these programs, it seems you have information that others don't. What is the operational cost of SLS and Orion?
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/24/2016 11:20 pm
I disagree that SLS and Orion are NASA-only assets.

Certainly there is no law saying other departments or agencies of the U.S. Government can't use the SLS, or that the private sector couldn't buy a launch or two.

But for all practical purposes there is no other USG department or agency that plans to use the SLS, and the only private sector entities that would need the capabilities the SLS provides are planning on building their own space transportation systems.  So by process of elimination there are no other potential users for the SLS.

Quote
The private sector use of the ISS is an example of that, even though NASA operates the vehicle, commercial use is not precluded.

Commercial use is one of the planned goals of the ISS.  And the key word here is "planned", whereas the SLS has no real forecasted need that it satisfies, and it was definitely not built with the private sector as a potential customer.

Quote
Also, I seem to remember a member of the Saudi Royal family riding on STS, and so not even space tourism would be out of the question.

Everyone that flew on the Shuttle flew for free, or as part of a barter agreement with other nations.  Justification for free flights included standard political type stuff, which I would imagine included the Saudi citizen.

Quote
As far as operational cost of these programs, it seems you have information that others don't. What is the operational cost of SLS and Orion?

No one in the public knows for sure, and NASA is even keeping Congress in the dark.  But we have lots of recent analogies that can be applied, such as Shuttle program costs that are comparable, and the fact that both the SLS and Orion are 100% expendable vehicles.  As someone that has a background in product cost rollups, this is not hard stuff to estimate.  YMMV
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: gbaikie on 12/25/2016 04:10 am
So, not only does "everyone" have to agree on what it is we are going to do, the motivation has to be the same as well? In some perfect utopian/orwellian idealistic society, that may be possible, but it is an impossible standard to achieve.

Everyone in the funding loop.  Even the public was not enamored with the Apollo program until just before it succeeded, but the political need was known to the politicians, and they gave it a tremendous amount of funding because of the perceived need.

Quote
Does everyone agree on the F-35 program?

The F-35 was originally funded because it was going to solve a national need.  It was always going to be a massive program, and I would wager no one is surprised that it has had problems.  But it is still going to be solving a national need, which in this case is defense of our nation.

What is the need that sending government employees to the Moon solves (or Mars for that matter too)?  Apparently nothing bad happened during the past 45 years since we left the Moon, so waiting another 45 shouldn't be a problem, right?

F-35 was fifth generation fighter jet.
Roughly, F-35 is same reason you get new car models each year.

There is no need to send governmental employees to the Moon.
There are reasons to explore the Moon and reasons to explore Mars.
Since time after Apollo we have had the Shuttle and ISS program.
The Shuttle program is over, and ISS is planned to end.
And one could ask what is next?
Really the same kind of question in regard to F-35  program
One reason [not only reason] the shuttle program ended was because "we" wanted to do something other
than just stay in LEO.
One could argue that we can redo the Shuttle and continue ISS for decades more.
One could also argue that "we" tried to do the LEO thing and it didn't have much upside to it.
But it seems we will not redo Shuttle and ISS will be terminated with 10 years or so.
So it's not as if NASA not being doing stuff for 45 years. And one could ask should NASA continue to exist- or should NASA actually try to explore the space beyond LEO.
A purpose of Shuttle program was to lower cost of access to LEO. A purpose of ISS was to prepare for manned mission beyond LEO and see if there could be commercial applications of micro-gravity and the vacuum of LEO.
One could say that ISS has degraded to being something to do with foreign policy/international relations- or at least that is benefit commonly mentioned which is said important which is associated with ISS, rather than other things which may be being accomplished with ISS program.

So exploring the Moon doesn't "have to" have crew, but it makes sense to use crew in order to explore the Moon.
There are many things which could be done with the Moon in the future, but a near terms question is does the Moon have minable water. If it does, then one can do many things on the Moon.
In terms of Mars, people might live on Mars in the future, and NASA should explore Mars to determine if such possibility is viable.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/25/2016 09:27 pm
Quote
The private sector use of the ISS is an example of that, even though NASA operates the vehicle, commercial use is not precluded.

Commercial use is one of the planned goals of the ISS.  And the key word here is "planned", whereas the SLS has no real forecasted need that it satisfies, and it was definitely not built with the private sector as a potential customer.

No, commercial use of the ISS is a fact today. Just as an example, the movie "A Beautiful Planet" was filmed on the ISS, and grossed at least 9 million wordwide in theaters. Sure, that is only .3% of the the roughly 3 billion per year that ISS costs to operate, but it is also only one example. Cubesats deployed from ISS is another example and Urthecast registered 41.1 million in revenue in 2015. Certainly, break-even by any metric is far off but that goes without saying.

Quote
As far as operational cost of these programs, it seems you have information that others don't. What is the operational cost of SLS and Orion?

No one in the public knows for sure, and NASA is even keeping Congress in the dark.  But we have lots of recent analogies that can be applied, such as Shuttle program costs that are comparable, and the fact that both the SLS and Orion are 100% expendable vehicles.  As someone that has a background in product cost rollups, this is not hard stuff to estimate.  YMMV

NASA isn't hiding anything. They don't know what the costs will be just as they didn't know what the costs of STS would be. And Orion isn't 100% expendable.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Oli on 12/25/2016 09:56 pm
Just to flesh out ideas on how Moon and Mars don't have to be in conflict with each other. And you can do both using assets and technology that NASA already has or is over half-way through the development pipeline.

1.5MW is not sufficient for crew transfer given that kind of mass.

Or what are the SEP specs?
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Phil Stooke on 12/25/2016 11:37 pm
"What is the operational cost of SLS and Orion?"

"No one in the public knows for sure, and NASA is even keeping Congress in the dark."

As stated just above, NASA is not hiding the cost, they don't know it yet.  The unit cost of a launch is closely related to the frequency of launch, which is to a great extent controlled by Congress. 
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/25/2016 11:42 pm
F-35 was fifth generation fighter jet.
Roughly, F-35 is same reason you get new car models each year.

That supports building a next generation space station to replace the ISS, but the SLS is not replacing any capability NASA already had - the Shuttle could only put into LEO the same payload that existing commercial launchers can, both in size and weight.  So if anything that supports the claim that the private sector has replaced the Shuttle.

Quote
One could argue that we can redo the Shuttle and continue ISS for decades more.
One could also argue that "we" tried to do the LEO thing and it didn't have much upside to it.

The mission of the ISS is to provide a foothold in space for humanity, and to help humanity figure out how to survive in space.  And we have learned a lot.  But we haven't learned enough yet, and it is certainly an open question whether we'll have enough time to figure out the missing pieces before the end of the ISS (whenever that is).

Quote
So exploring the Moon doesn't "have to" have crew, but it makes sense to use crew in order to explore the Moon.

I agree from the standpoint that at some point the cost of getting to the Moon, and doing things on the Moon, will be low enough that sending humans to the Moon will be affordable.  But from a cost standpoint we're not there yet.

For instance, I would advocate that "we" (humanity, or some subset of it) needs to invest in creating a reusable transportation system to the region of the Moon first.  Why reusable?  Because from the cost estimates I've seen NASA would spend too much of it's budget going to the Moon if it had to only use the SLS and Orion.  Plus, we are missing everything else that is needed to sustain humans on the Moon, and that will take time to develop (and lots of money).

So from a cost standpoint NASA, and the rest of the world, is not yet ready to afford going beyond LEO.  Elon Musk thinks that they may have solved that problem, but he's doing for his own needs (i.e. colonizing Mars), and it's not proven out yet.

Quote
There are many things which could be done with the Moon in the future, but a near terms question is does the Moon have minable water. If it does, then one can do many things on the Moon.

NASA is not a mineral extraction and processing agency, so I would let the private sector figure this out.  If the U.S. Government wants to be a customer, great, but otherwise there is no demand to merit funding this yet.  And while it could be argued that funding such an operation would be like funding the Transcontinental Railroad, I would argue that from a cost standpoint that we are still too far out from having discounted fuel be enough of an incentive for human expansion out into space.

Remember in 2013 when at a House hearing, Thomas Young (former EVP of Lockheed Martin) was asked how long it would take NASA to put a human on Mars with it's current budget.  His response was "Never."

NASA's budget hasn't changed significantly since then, and going to our Moon is not that much easier, so his testimony helps to validate my estimates.

As I've said many times, we've had the ability to return to the Moon since 1972, we just haven't had the interest in spending the money to go back.  Convince Congress we should go back and it will happen...
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/26/2016 12:03 am
As stated just above, NASA is not hiding the cost, they don't know it yet.  The unit cost of a launch is closely related to the frequency of launch, which is to a great extent controlled by Congress.

My career has been in manufacturing operations, which includes doing product costing.  The SLS is not that complicated a product, so I know that NASA knows how much the SLS costs.

As to the frequency of launch, at the current funding levels that has already been determined:

"Boeing has Michoud set up to stamp out enough stages for one SLS a year — two at most with the factory’s current manufacturing capabilities, and then only if NASA pours more money and personnel into the facility. (http://spacenews.com/an-interview-with-boeings-outgoing-sls-program-manager/)"

And that matches NASA's mandated launch rate of no-less-than once per year for a safe flight cadence.

So initially at least, once they get out of testing and into operational mode, the flight rate is once per year.  That provides one end of the price range.

And you can see from that article quote that NASA has already taken into account the contingency that NASA will be asked to increase the SLS flight rate, so the factory could, with the current manufacturing capabilities, be increased to two per year.  I would expect Orbital ATK would be able to support that for the SRM's, and we know the launch pad can support that rate.

The final missing piece is how much Congress will allow NASA to buy in advance in order to lock in lower prices.  For instance, during the Shuttle program NASA was allowed to buy years worth of material, which is really the only way to run a transportation system.

Another example is that NASA has asked Aerojet Rocketdyne to restart production of the RS-25 engine (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/01/nasa-defends-restart-rs-25-production/), and NASA would have the cost data for that too.

NASA knows enough to provide Congress, and the public, with good estimates of what the SLS costs.  There is no question about that.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: vapour_nudge on 12/26/2016 12:20 am
I still think NASA will choose to go back to the Moon in the next decade and do many other things with SLS. But, not because it is easy, because it is hard
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/26/2016 04:47 pm
Returning to the Moon requires that the US gov will (Congress willingness to budget) intersects with the NASA cost projection of a return to the Moon.

Currently, the will is too low and the costs are too high. The level of will is unlikely to change. This leaves changing the cost to fit the level of will. A COTS like Public/Private partnerships could do it, but not a full NASA cost+ directed program. What this basically means is that while SLS/Orion exist there will only be sporadic Lunar missions probably of only limited robotic probes to the surface. SLS/Orion is sucking up all the gov will. We saw this with the budget conflicts of SLS/Orion and Commercial Crew. Because overlaps were perceived the budget will went to  SLS.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/28/2016 09:04 pm
Just to flesh out ideas on how Moon and Mars don't have to be in conflict with each other. And you can do both using assets and technology that NASA already has or is over half-way through the development pipeline.

1.5MW is not sufficient for crew transfer given that kind of mass.

Or what are the SEP specs?

These were the specs that I was working off of:
fuel - 35,000 kg Xenon
solar power - 1500 MW @ 1 AU
engine power - 1375 MW
engine thrust - 23 N
isp - ~9500 seconds
Mars- ~50% power
Earth- 100% power

Which would yield approximate maneuver times of the manned interplanetary leg of:
-LEO to EML-1 - 7000 m/s (SEP ~30 months)...unmanned
-EML-1 to TMI - 650 m/s (chemical, PL stage 1), 200 m/s (SEP ~1 month)
-TMI to HMO - 600 m/s (chemical, PL stage 1), 600 m/s (SEP ~3 months)
-HMO to TEI -140 m/s (chemical, ITV main engine, PL stage 2), 1350 m/s(SEP ~5 months )
-TEI to earth/moon capture - 1300 m/s (SEP ~3 months)

It is a bit sluggish at Mars(5 months for TEI). If you look at slide 7 that I updated on the slide deck, that is a potential upgrade path but it uses TRL 6 150 W/kg solar panels vs TRL 9 80 W/kg. That would give you 80% SEP thrust at Mars. Otherwise, to save chemical fuel for TEI, you might look at aerobraking in other maneuvers with the solar array or a second tug that does the TMI burn(which adds a SHLV launch).
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Oli on 12/29/2016 03:00 am
Just to flesh out ideas on how Moon and Mars don't have to be in conflict with each other. And you can do both using assets and technology that NASA already has or is over half-way through the development pipeline.

1.5MW is not sufficient for crew transfer given that kind of mass.

Or what are the SEP specs?

These were the specs that I was working off of:
fuel - 35,000 kg Xenon
solar power - 1500 MW @ 1 AU
engine power - 1375 MW
engine thrust - 23 N
isp - ~9500 seconds
Mars- ~50% power
Earth- 100% power

Which would yield approximate maneuver times of the manned interplanetary leg of:
-LEO to EML-1 - 7000 m/s (SEP ~30 months)...unmanned
-EML-1 to TMI - 650 m/s (chemical, PL stage 1), 200 m/s (SEP ~1 month)
-TMI to HMO - 600 m/s (chemical, PL stage 1), 600 m/s (SEP ~3 months)
-HMO to TEI -140 m/s (chemical, ITV main engine, PL stage 2), 1350 m/s(SEP ~5 months )
-TEI to earth/moon capture - 1300 m/s (SEP ~3 months)

It is a bit sluggish at Mars(5 months for TEI). If you look at slide 7 that I updated on the slide deck, that is a potential upgrade path but it uses TRL 6 150 W/kg solar panels vs TRL 9 80 W/kg. That would give you 80% SEP thrust at Mars. Otherwise, to save chemical fuel for TEI, you might look at aerobraking in other maneuvers with the solar array or a second tug that does the TMI burn(which adds a SHLV launch).

Ah, so it's a hybrid?

600m/s + 650m/s = 1.25km/s.

A huge amount of fuel is needed for that, given the first vehicle is roughly 105t+104t+16t at departure. Does it come from the lander? If yes how to land?
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/29/2016 03:03 am
I don't think NASA should, but it probably will. If a lander gets built. Which is really the only big thing we need now.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/04/2017 03:59 pm
Returning to the Moon requires that the US gov will (Congress willingness to budget) intersects with the NASA cost projection of a return to the Moon.

Currently, the will is too low and the costs are too high. The level of will is unlikely to change. This leaves changing the cost to fit the level of will. A COTS like Public/Private partnerships could do it, but not a full NASA cost+ directed program. What this basically means is that while SLS/Orion exist there will only be sporadic Lunar missions probably of only limited robotic probes to the surface. SLS/Orion is sucking up all the gov will. We saw this with the budget conflicts of SLS/Orion and Commercial Crew. Because overlaps were perceived the budget will went to  SLS.

I think the argument is different than the will of congress and cost projections.  I think the argument is, whether NASA is doing something tangible or just designing paper rockets and spacecraft that don't fly.

Congress has jobs in their districts to protect, most American's and world public think NASA does great amazing things, China and Europe are open about want to go to the moon.

One SLS flight every 3-4 years is not sustainable, either the vehicle goes or flies more often.

I think the Moon is the only logical choice as a destination for the next several decades at least.  It's close for both travel and communication times, it's a stable platform, it has mineral resources that can provide oxygen, metals, water and protection. 

Finally there is a point of pride.  Does America, does Trump, want to see China or Europe walking around the moon while America pontificates here on earth?

Trump, no matter what one thinks of him, seems to like action.  He likes things happening or getting built and I'd bet he doesn't accept the status quo on prices and schedules. 

I think it's very likely that the Moon becomes NASA's stated goal very soon.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: clongton on 01/04/2017 10:19 pm
Returning to the Moon requires that the US gov will (Congress willingness to budget) intersects with the NASA cost projection of a return to the Moon.

Currently, the will is too low and the costs are too high. The level of will is unlikely to change. This leaves changing the cost to fit the level of will. A COTS like Public/Private partnerships could do it, but not a full NASA cost+ directed program. What this basically means is that while SLS/Orion exist there will only be sporadic Lunar missions probably of only limited robotic probes to the surface. SLS/Orion is sucking up all the gov will. We saw this with the budget conflicts of SLS/Orion and Commercial Crew. Because overlaps were perceived the budget will went to  SLS.

I think the argument is different than the will of congress and cost projections.  I think the argument is, whether NASA is doing something tangible or just designing paper rockets and spacecraft that don't fly.

Congress has jobs in their districts to protect, most American's and world public think NASA does great amazing things, China and Europe are open about want to go to the moon.

One SLS flight every 3-4 years is not sustainable, either the vehicle goes or flies more often.

I think the Moon is the only logical choice as a destination for the next several decades at least.  It's close for both travel and communication times, it's a stable platform, it has mineral resources that can provide oxygen, metals, water and protection. 

Finally there is a point of pride.  Does America, does Trump, want to see China or Europe walking around the moon while America pontificates here on earth?

Trump, no matter what one thinks of him, seems to like action.  He likes things happening or getting built and I'd bet he doesn't accept the status quo on prices and schedules. 

I think it's very likely that the Moon becomes NASA's stated goal very soon.

I have *always* been a "moon-first" guy.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/05/2017 01:33 am
Problem with Moon-first is it will inevitably push off Mars instead of being a springboard (as proponents claim) if it becomes the Agency's priority.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/05/2017 01:47 am
Why can't we do both? NASA can shoot the Moon and SpaceX can shoot for Mars...
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/05/2017 02:06 am
Why can't we do both? NASA can shoot the Moon and SpaceX can shoot for Mars...

Because SpaceX is going to be funded by NASA, in the same way that ISS Cargo and Crew are funding the development of F9 and Dragon.

SpaceX's plans are going to cost so much more and take much longer than anyone thinks.

Going to Mars is a pretty big deal.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: jongoff on 01/05/2017 02:22 am
Problem with Moon-first is it will inevitably push off Mars instead of being a springboard (as proponents claim) if it becomes the Agency's priority.

More to the point, whatever is NASA's priority is going to milked by Congress for all the pork possible. I'm a pretty strong advocate of lunar development, but I'd rather see NASA HSF keep its focus on Mars, while throwing lunar advocates a bone in the form of a Lunar Cargo COTS. Think of that as "hedging your bet". The main bet is a direct to Mars focus, but the hedge is throwing enough money at lunar cargo to enable people to investigate lunar ISRU (and if Europe actually funds Moon Village, Lunar COTS can be the NASA contribution, much like ATV/HTV is ESA/JAXA's contribution to ISS).

I've probably already made this point, but I'm still worried that a NASA focused solely on the Moon is just going to devolve back into Griffin-era NASA, with not enough money to do a useful lunar program "the NASA way", but with it being their focus so trying to do that anyway (and gutting everything else in the process).

~Jon
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/05/2017 03:09 am
Why can't we do both? NASA can shoot the Moon and SpaceX can shoot for Mars...

Because SpaceX is going to be funded by NASA, in the same way that ISS Cargo and Crew are funding the development of F9 and Dragon.

SpaceX's plans are going to cost so much more and take much longer than anyone thinks.

Going to Mars is a pretty big deal.
Well, lots think SpaceX will go bankrupt and never reach Mars, so I wouldn't say "anyone." :)
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 01/05/2017 03:24 am
More to the point, whatever is NASA's priority is going to milked by Congress for all the pork possible. I'm a pretty strong advocate of lunar development, but I'd rather see NASA HSF keep its focus on Mars, while throwing lunar advocates a bone in the form of a Lunar Cargo COTS.

The point of COTS and later CC was to provide lower-cost services for a major program (ISS).

If NASA was going to the moon, I could see a COTS model being used for second-tier activities while the major missions (humans and habitats) are flown by the Pork Express. But if NASA is going to Mars, what major program is Lunar-COTS supporting?

You did suggest...

if Europe actually funds Moon Village, Lunar COTS can be the NASA contribution, much like ATV/HTV is ESA/JAXA's contribution to ISS).

But I don't see Congress supporting a NASA program where the US is a minor player.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/05/2017 07:56 am
I doubt Trump will want to spend money on another Constellation, especially as they won't be landing anybody in his term.

Robotic missions using XPrize landers and rovers could be done in next few years and not cost billions.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Svetoslav on 01/05/2017 08:00 am
To put it simply: Yes, NASA should refocus on returning to the Moon. A meaningful human spaceflight exploration program in the current geopolitical climate would have to be international. Russia and ESA are both interested in the Moon. NASA should be included, too, and the construction of an outpost in Lunar orbit should be a priority.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Proponent on 01/05/2017 10:06 am
... whatever is NASA's priority is going to milked by Congress for all the pork possible.

Milked for pork?  Though I agree with the statement, I cringe at the mixed metaphor! :)
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 01/05/2017 10:31 am
To put it simply: Yes, NASA should refocus on returning to the Moon. A meaningful human spaceflight exploration program in the current geopolitical climate would have to be international. Russia and ESA are both interested in the Moon. NASA should be included, too, and the construction of an outpost in Lunar orbit should be a priority.
Agreed. The short term goal should be a Salyut-analog in high Lunar orbit - not an ISS scale venture - and eventually on the Lunar surface; one or even two 'Surface Salyuts' or even a 'Mini-Mir'. By that, I mean not grandiose $150 billion dollar Moonbase taking 15 years to build. But man-tended, semi-permanent stations where extended operational experience can be gained, life support systems and recycling technology in a low-G environment and solutions for managing deep space radiation concerns, dust mitigation and medical issues - all within just a few days travel from Earth. And the crews would get to do geophysical sciences, geology and Astronomy, too in partnership with robots.

Phase in ISRU technologies and multi-mode power systems. Build on the operational and Commercial Space legacy of ISS - and with operational experience on the Lunar surface for a decade or so, become worthy of 'putting on the Big Boy pants' that will be needed for Mars. Decades of Earth Orbital and more Cislunar operational experience will make mankind almost ready for operations in high Martian orbit or near/at the Martian Moons. Maturity and experience gained on the Lunar surface and related operations will make mankind almost ready for Mars. Apollo needed Mercury, Gemini and the Surveyor programs accomplished first. Cislunar and Lunar surface operations can be the 'Gemini' needed before Mars. Say I'm over-simplifying things if you like, but...
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: clongton on 01/05/2017 11:52 am
Moon First for one basic reason: getting experience in developing, deploying, maintaining, fixing, upgrading and operating ISRU on a massive scale. Anything we do on Mars that is bigger than boots and flags is going to require ISRU on a massive scale. And anyone who believes we can do that with first generation untested in the real world ISRU prototypes is simply not being honest with themselves. Yes, ISRU on the lunar surface will be fundamentally different than ISRU on Mars, but what we learn and develop on the moon will be lessons-learned that are worth their weight in gold for Martian ISRU plants. We need to learn how to do full production scale ISRU. The best way to do that is somewhere only 3 days away, not 6 to 9 months away. We will need to start with ISRU know-how that has been thoroughly tested, proven and certified, not arrive with untested, will probably work equipment.

I am fascinated by SpaceX's Mars plans, but to date I have seen nothing from them that indicates to me that they have any idea what it is going to take to actually survive there. Going to Mars is not like the analog 3-month missions to an Artic island where you can get airlifted out in a matter of hours. Figuring out how to survive on a planet that is doing its level best to kill you by any means possible is imperative to do before you go there. So far SpaceX has shown no indication that genuine research on that is happening. And once you've succeeded in landing there is not the time to start.

All of that is going to take a huge sum of money. SpaceX does not have that much money. So yes, as the groundbreaker agency, NASA should go back to the moon for the specific purpose of perfecting all the many different ISRU techniques and devices that will be needed to survive on an alien world - any alien world. That will take a LOT of groundbreaking research and groundbreaking research is what NASA is really, really good at.

The one common denominator between the Moon and Mars is that both places will kill you in a heartbeat for the slightest misstep. There are no safe havens on either world. There is no margin for error. Boy Scout camp in pressurized and heated tents will not suffice. We need to learn how to do this - in a place we can get away from quickly if needed.

We have an awesome laboratory only 3 days away that is fundamentally perfect for these types of experiments. We need to use the Moon as our laboratory. We need to have a NASA research station on the lunar surface where ideas can be tested, run in an alien environment for months at a time to make sure they work, where the next great idea generated by that running experiment can be turned into equipment and tested. So what if it takes a little longer to get to Mars because of it? So What? It will still be there. It's not going anywhere. Don't be so impatient. Be smart. Take the time to do it right.

Too many people just don't seem to understand the scale of what it is going to take to survive on Mars. Getting there safely in a pretty spaceship is the really easy part.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: guckyfan on 01/05/2017 12:19 pm
Too many people just don't seem to understand the scale of what it is going to take to survive on Mars. Getting there safely in a pretty spaceship is the really easy part.

Too many people just don't seem to understand what it means to have an ITS scale spaceship to throw resources on the task. No more from me as this seems OT in this thread.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/05/2017 12:30 pm
Why can't we do both? NASA can shoot the Moon and SpaceX can shoot for Mars...

Because SpaceX is going to be funded by NASA, in the same way that ISS Cargo and Crew are funding the development of F9 and Dragon.

SpaceX's plans are going to cost so much more and take much longer than anyone thinks.

Going to Mars is a pretty big deal.
"Going to Mars is a pretty big deal"... Obvious... The sole reason the private corporation SpaceX exists is for "Elon's Mars dream...
NASA, a federal agency is a multifaceted-multitask insitution directed by the executive/legislative branches to do as instructed by the elected...
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: muomega0 on 01/05/2017 09:18 pm
Find asteroids to get to Mars (http://www.nature.com/news/human-spaceflight-find-asteroids-to-get-to-mars-1.16216)  8)                          Lunar..no thanks.

Moon First for one basic reason: getting experience in developing, deploying, maintaining, fixing, upgrading and operating ISRU on a massive scale.
1) The lunar ISRU fallacy --'Nothing' Nothin' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFxzohbXLSo)-- is that all the resources came from asteroids, which is where, after surveys, ISRU on a massive scale offers the most potential --propellant is needed near Mars, the surface of Mars, and beyond, not in a dusty gravity well.

Rather than looking for a needle in a haystack in a great big dust bowl, extract resources from their asteroid source 'in-situ'.

2) Propellant/deep space tech demos and missions can be launch much cheaper than all the lunar infrastructure and the MW+ power required (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40346.msg1539267#msg1539267)

3) The ISRU equipment is pretty much independent of its destination.  One does not need lunar nearby to develop ISRU (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32060.msg1288413#msg1288413)...  Tech maturation can occur on the (Earth's) ground.. much cheaper too.  The SLS programs *promises* that the ISRU flight demo will be funded as soon as Orion is certified.... ::) No really, promise!

But what if your LV (SLS/Altas/Delta/Vulan v0) has limited reuse ability from the ground and cost more than other reuseable LVs?

Propose a business of staging expendable Vulcan with solids and Aces and Zeus to L1 and mining propellant from the lunar surface as proposed in Cislunar 1000 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38938.msg1495059#msg1495059)

Even better, build a plan of LV apartheid that only includes SLS and perhaps ULA for inspace refueling (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41649.msg1623253#msg1623253) with an excessive amount of LV capacity and no $ for payloads.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 01/05/2017 09:24 pm
NASA going to Mars with SLS and a whole bunch of not-yet-invented or built modules, spacecraft, launchpads and technologies is going to require a major ramp up in funding for development and implementation. Since another $5 billion (optimist) to $10 billion (pessimist) per year will be needed by NASA to do all this - do not hold your breath. That is the core issue of people's skepticism about NASA's 'Voyage To Mars' memes and near-propaganda. We were all warned of this during the last Augustine Commission - and back then, the primary goal was still 'only' the Moon, not Mars.

The Moon - for these and other points brought up by Chuck and others - could be accomplished with or without SLS for only a relatively small increase in NASA's budget. But Orion would probably have to be retained at this point because to scrap it and start again almost from scratch would waste more billions and more years. It could launch on other rockets but Landers and other vehicles and equipment still need to be developed. Bringing in Europe, Japan and other International partners would be sensible - even if the enormous SLS funds could be directly converted to developing Lunar modules and equipment.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 01/05/2017 09:44 pm
In partial reply to muomega0: I too have always been skeptical about using the Moon to fuel other deeper space missions such as to Mars from Lunar LOX/LH2. I'd always thought, or advocated, that Lunar ISRU was for use on the Lunar surface by the crews for general living or for vehicles to ascend from the Lunar surface. I'd always wondered if cutting out the 'middle man' delta-v of launching expensively produced and ascended propellants from the Lunar surface could be done instead by having pure water launched from Earth by reusable vehicles and creating cryogenic LOX/LH2 with solar-powered H20 splitter/cryocooler depot facilities.

A L.E.O. water/propellant depot can have it's equipment manufactured prefab on Earth and launched to L.E.O. or any Lagrange point, DRO, halo orbit or eventually; asteroid/cometary bodies. Setting up very large scale ISRU on the Lunar surface will cost a great deal of money. But a much smaller set for use by the crews and their vehicles for ascent needs, need not be massive and therefore scaled-up expensively.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Lar on 01/05/2017 11:15 pm
see also

https://www.facebook.com/jurvetson/posts/10158035904590611

commercial moon settlement for 5B USD. All in. Not dependent on NASA

Probably not the right place for this, will try to find a better one.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: savuporo on 01/05/2017 11:25 pm
see also

https://www.facebook.com/jurvetson/posts/10158035904590611

commercial moon settlement for 5B USD. All in. Not dependent on NASA

Probably not the right place for this, will try to find a better one.

Quote
Cost drivers include: SpaceX every-day-low-prices posted online for planning, abundant water (especially at the poles, for life support and hydrolyzation into fuel), areas of near-continuous sunlight (for PV) and shade (for thermal management), 3D-printing of structures for ISRU (in situ resource utilization), inflatable habitats, a rail gun to send water to LEO, and various other advances in commercial space price points.

Also, Sasquatch, Loch Ness monster, and other mythical figures would surely pitch in. None of this stuff is something that is demonstrated to exist, function, or be attainable, today. From here to there its a much longer road than 5 billion dollars will get you.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 01/06/2017 12:02 am
True, but a lot more plausible than Mars One. A commercial space entity along 'similar' lines to Mars One should be prototyping Lunar Habitats starting with 4 or 6 people, then eventually expanding to a dozen or more individuals once life support, recycling and ISRU is - well, I can't say perfected - advanced to a useful level. Evacuation/rescue/repair/resupply to and from Earth is a lot more plausible than from Mars. We also need to find out more about living in low G environments. And what sort of crew could live in these prototype 'settlements'? Retirement-age Astronauts and Engineers, willing to commit to long term and maybe even permanent Lunar habitation?
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/06/2017 12:27 am
A note: Mars One is feasible, trivial even, if Musk succeeds in his goals for SpaceX.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Lar on 01/06/2017 12:47 am
A note: Mars One is feasible, trivial even, if Musk succeeds in his goals for SpaceX.

Except for the money part :)
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: KelvinZero on 01/06/2017 01:03 am
I doubt Trump will want to spend money on another Constellation, especially as they won't be landing anybody in his term.
Robotic missions using XPrize landers and rovers could be done in next few years and not cost billions.
I think we could do so much with only a 1 ton/year mission. NASA could just sponsor the transport in a COTS-like manner and not even pay anything for the payload. Instead they use the prestige as a prize. Have a whole robotic colony of little projects that work together. General purpose rovers, solar power, setting up a local network, ISRU experiments, planetary science and prospecting.

I think you could do something like that for $100m/year. So many people are so focused on getting boots on the ground but to me the magic happens when you start landing infrastructure, which is pretty much anything landed next to something previous and building on it.

That single one ton lander capability could even eventually land people. All it would do is carry a couple of people in space suits. Refueling would already be proven on the surface. Supplies and redundancy and the ability to last months if something goes wrong would already be there. A long flight history would be there. I would trust this far more than an Altair style lander that is far to expensive to fly more than once before sending crew, and then can't do anymore than a two week sortie because all the budget for infrastructure or any actual point in being there was long ago eaten up by the launcher, somehow then stretched to cover the command module, somehow then stretched to cover the lander. Absolutely nothing left to spend on actual reasons to be there.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: clongton on 01/06/2017 01:28 am
... I'd always thought, or advocated, that Lunar ISRU was for use on the Lunar surface by the crews for general living ...

That was where I was going. We need to learn how to use ISRU to provide for all our needs on whatever alien body we happen to be on. Not *just* propellant, but as many of the material needs that mining and ore processing can possibly create. In Situ Resource Development (ISRU) isn't just about combining some easily available elements to create other elements. It's *Resource Development*. Think of all the things we mine on earth and what we create with the processed and refined ores. THAT is exactly the same thing we will have to do on all the alien worlds we attempt to reach. Understanding how to adapt those earth-bound processes to work efficiently on alien worlds in a totally different environment is what ISRU research is all about. And NASA is the only agency capable of undertaking that scale of research. And the moon is the only place alien enough to make the research be truly authentic yet close enough to keep us out of trouble.

We will need miners on the moon. But what tools will they need? Shovels? No we need trucks, ore diggers, elevators, slides, smelters, etc, etc. We need to mine iron, copper, thorium, tin, nickel, cobalt, chromium, titanium, manganese, etc; all the metals that make for an industrialized society. They are all there on the moon, every one of them. We need to figure out how to make cement from the rigoleth. We need to be able to make glass,  bricks and blocks for building, rebar, steel beams and copper wiring. We need factories to turn ore into products. Not for export back to earth, but to use on the moon. Everything that we need to live on the moon permanently without support from earth is there, on the moon. And we need to learn how to do that, not so much to colonize the moon, but to gain the knowhow to be able to colonize other worlds.

This is not nuts. This is what we will have to become very, very good at if we are ever going to stand a snowball's chance in hell of surviving on any other alien world, such as Mars or Titan, or any of the Jovan or Saturnian moons. This is a huge undertaking and Mars is way too far away to try to figure it out there.

NASA needs to go back to the moon, dig in and start working.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/06/2017 03:03 am
A note: Mars One is feasible, trivial even, if Musk succeeds in his goals for SpaceX.

Except for the money part :)
How's that? Half a dozen people are $1.5 million. That's trivial for a reality TV show budget. :)
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: RocketmanUS on 01/06/2017 03:15 am
see also

https://www.facebook.com/jurvetson/posts/10158035904590611

commercial moon settlement for 5B USD. All in. Not dependent on NASA

Probably not the right place for this, will try to find a better one.
I looked in to F9 expendable for Lunar. About 9 to 10 launches for two Apollo sized LEM, that could deliver about 10,000 lb payload to Lunar surface.

Two LEM truck version
One EDS
Up to eight tankers.

About $62M each launch
LEM's each could be around $110M, estimated on Dragon cargo and Dragon 2
Tankers and EDS could be as much as $20M each, estimated on past SpaceX cost for upper stage
Total $1.02B

For crew add in ascent stage and Lunar crew Dragon ( 4 crew ) instead of one of the LEM's. Could need one or more tanker launches for return propellants for Dragon capsule.

So it could be possible for a base with a crew of eight for a little over $5B. Would need added flights for more supplies at additional cost.

This would need to be started and run by commercial. Leave the Mars exploration type missions to NASA, commercial could land on Mars later and might supply the hardware in the first place to NASA.

Edit:
EDS is hypergolic propellants.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: GWH on 01/06/2017 04:35 am
Thats just with Falcon 9 and first flight pricing.  Ideal program would only be using pre-flown cores by expending hardware when needed for extra performance.   Of course FH would offer triple performance for approx twice the price (since full capcity price isnt posted?

IMO the best possbile scenario would be a reused Raptor upper stage that is "expended" by landing cargo... but that's getting off topic.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/06/2017 08:41 am
Start small, robotic exploration missions to survey ice deposits. Small robotic water mining operation. Once enough water is stockpiled establish LH LOX plant which would refuel robotic landers. The lander becomes reusable enabling more equipment to be landed at lower cost. At 50-100t a year a partially manned base could be established.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: jongoff on 01/06/2017 02:50 pm
... whatever is NASA's priority is going to milked by Congress for all the pork possible.

Milked for pork?  Though I agree with the statement, I cringe at the mixed metaphor! :)

I'm a master at butchered and then mixed metaphors. I prefer mine both shaken and stirred.

~Jon
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: daveklingler on 01/06/2017 02:58 pm
This is a pretty flawed poll.  There isn't a choice for "no".  I want to stick with asteroids, but there's no bubble for me to check.

As a matter of fact, the topic is "Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?".

The poll question is "Should NASA ditch asteroids and Mars to help lead the strong international interest for Lunar missions?"

And the OP begins with what the incoming administration is most likely to do.  So what is the subject of this thread, and of the poll?
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Kansan52 on 01/06/2017 04:09 pm
Caterpillar can provide some of the heavy lifting:

http://www.caterpillar.com/en/news/caterpillarNews/innovation/nasa-caterpillar-collaboration-for-technology-advancement.html
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: muomega0 on 01/06/2017 05:50 pm
This is a pretty flawed poll.  There isn't a choice for "no".  I want to stick with asteroids, but there's no bubble for me to check.
 So what is the subject of this thread, and of the poll?
Well it is similar to false dichotomies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma) ...

the point of the poll is quite simple:  to sell the USG a program that sole sources decades of funding and to discover who supports the idea.   In this case its, *once again* about 'mooning first' since SLS/Orion was designed for the moon after failing to close the 2009 gap and meet their Dec 31, 2016 operational deadline (https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649377main_PL_111-267.pdf), but no one in their right mind would take Orion to Mars like Apollo.  SLS/Orion can *only* go to the orbit of the moon, since they cannot land there, all at the low low cost of 3B/yr for decades, in direct contrast to the VSE: common elements that can be reused.

the beauty of asteroids first is that it creates

  a) flight rate for smaller LVs
  b) many many different kinds of payloads at relatively low costs
  c) many many different types of missions in a flexible path forward
  c1) Provides demonstrated reliability of the deep space transportation network unlike mooning
  c2) avoids gravity wells to reduce energy and IMLEO, but is still higher than 'mooning'
  d) it actually steps up to Space Grand Challenges and VSE reuse
  e) it reduces the cost per program-- "mooning" mushrooms to 6B+/yr very inefficient..
  f)  enables more destinations by reducing the $/kg and hopefully providing the required technology
  g) complements science and those missions *if* in a common configuration provide demonstrated reliability
  h) numerous complex DRMs
  I) synergies with DOD
  j)  many many others....  not just many... ;D   It may even create markets and a plus up!

And all of the hardware can be eventually directed to lunar for a few sorties, etc...unless some benefit can be found.... Oh well back to reality TV.

here were a few reasons 'not to moon' in case you missed it     20 days capacity...seriously?

Find asteroids to get to Mars (http://www.nature.com/news/human-spaceflight-find-asteroids-to-get-to-mars-1.16216)  8)                          Lunar..no thanks.

Moon First for one basic reason: getting experience in developing, deploying, maintaining, fixing, upgrading and operating ISRU on a massive scale.
1) The lunar ISRU fallacy -- 'Nothin'-- is that all the resources came from asteroids-find them 'InSitu'
2) Propellant/deep space tech demos and missions can be launch much cheaper without the lunar infrastructure and the MW+ power required (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40346.msg1539267#msg1539267)
3) The ISRU equipment is pretty much independent of its destination.   One does not need lunar nearby to develop ISRU (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32060.msg1288413#msg1288413)

But what if your LV (SLS/Altas/Delta/Vulan v0) has limited reuse ability from the ground and cost more than other reuseable LVs?

Propose a business of staging expendable Vulcan with solids and Aces and Zeus to L1 and mining propellant from the lunar surface as proposed in Cislunar 1000 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38938.msg1495059#msg1495059)

Even better, build a plan of LV apartheid that only includes SLS and perhaps ULA for inspace refueling (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41649.msg1623253#msg1623253) with an excessive amount of LV capacity and no $ for payloads.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: TakeOff on 01/08/2017 07:22 pm
It worries me that about half here believe in international cooperation!
Int. coop. means very much more expensive missions, since multiple sets of special interests will loot the budget. Very long delays since it is impossible for foreign bureaucracies to communicate and the opportunities for sabotaging the mission for extortions purposes multiplies. And most likely an int. coop. will suddenly be canceled because someone occupies a peninsula or some other unforeseen high risk event completely unrelated to the technological and political risks within one nation.

The list of space missions that failed because they were int. coops. is long. Off the top of my head in recent years are the JAXA centrifuge Accommodation Module for the ISS, the NASA/ESA Europa moon mission, the NASA/ESA Exomars mission and now the delay of the NASA/ESA service module to the Orion.

Wanting a Lunar mission to be international is to not want it happen at all. It would be very much cheaper, faster and safer for NASA to do it themselves.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: savuporo on 01/08/2017 07:45 pm
It worries me that about half here believe in international cooperation!

International space station is up there and works. It wouldn't exist without international cooperation.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: TakeOff on 01/08/2017 08:03 pm
It worries me that about half here believe in international cooperation!

International space station is up there and works. It wouldn't exist without international cooperation.
Russia had their own space station a decade earlier. And the ISS was nearly canceled because, voila, someone occupied a peninsula, although only one of the two countries involved was part in the ISS. The costs of the ISS are exorbitant (note the pun) and the crewing of it is rotated between nations rather than determined by rational recruitment. It exists because the US sacrificed a large share of its shuttle missions to build and maintain it. Since years now there's a big fear of the dependence on Russian launchers for crews.

A US national space station Freedom would've been much cheaper and better and would not have been threatened because of random unrelated things happening in Eurasia. The most successful and ambitious space programs were those of the US and Russia nationally during the space race in the 1960s-70s.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/08/2017 08:28 pm
It worries me that about half here believe in international cooperation!

International space station is up there and works. It wouldn't exist without international cooperation.
Russia had their own space station a decade earlier.

And not only was it nearing it's end-of-life, but Russia couldn't afford to direct replace it.

Quote
And the ISS was nearly canceled because, voila, someone occupied a peninsula, although only one of the two countries involved was part in the ISS.

I assume you are alluding to Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014?  The ISS was never in danger of being defunded because sanctions were focused on the profit side of Russia's illegal actions, not in areas like science where we both benefit.

Quote
The costs of the ISS are exorbitant (note the pun) and the crewing of it is rotated between nations rather than determined by rational recruitment.

These are your complaints, not the complaints of those that are paying for the ISS.

Quote
It exists because the US sacrificed a large share of its shuttle missions to build and maintain it.

One of the prime reasons for the Shuttle was to build and support a space station in LEO, so saying the U.S. "sacrificed' Shuttle missions ignores that fact.  Plus why is it a sacrifice when the U.S. needed it to build a station they wanted?  Absurd logic.

Quote
Since years now there's a big fear of the dependence on Russian launchers for crews.

At the time ISS construction started the U.S. had committed to relying on Russia for keeping crews at the ISS (i.e. lifeboat service), and Bush43 was aware of that choice when he cancelled the Crew Return Vehicle program.  And that wasn't really a problem until Putin started wanting to play the bad guy on the international stage, so the lesson here is that you should always have redundancy in critical systems - which we will have with Commercial Crew, and already have with Commercial Cargo.

Quote
A US national space station Freedom would've been much cheaper and better and would not have been threatened because of random unrelated things happening in Eurasia.

You have failed to show where costs savings would have occurred with a U.S. only station, or where cost increases have occurred because the ISS has many partners.

Especially nowadays, I don't think as many people are persuaded by unsupported allegations, so if you want people to buy into your theories you should provide supporting facts.

As to NASA's future plans, we have the ISS and it is producing results, so ending it prematurely would cripple any future plans we have for long-term human missions in space, since the ISS is the only place in the universe where we can find and solve problems related to living and working in space.

My $0.02
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Kansan52 on 01/09/2017 03:44 pm
There is also the aspect about how you define the 'cooperation'. Station Freedom to Station Alpha to ISS is littered with politics.

International welfare and carrot versus stick diplomacy had Russia invited to the program. They had a partially completed MIR II. We helped the finish and adapting of MIR II to become elements of the ISS core.

The idea was Russians working on Russian high tech projects helped keep those same skilled people from working with Nation States that might use that against us. Money we spent to aid in that effort was considered less expensive than reacting to perceived dangers caused by not expanding the International part of ISS to include Russia.

The result may or may not have had the benefits of reducing Nuclear Proliferation but it did save ISS after Columbia. The Russians stepped up and kept the station going. Russia's extra work kept the station staffed and safe.

So ISS tells a story of how 'international cooperation' can work, maybe the way it was originally intended and as seen in keeping it running waiting for the ISS RTF (Return To Flight). Now it may be keeping the partners talking in times of stress.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/09/2017 04:24 pm
That part of ISS was highly successful. It's too bad we didn't do more such aid for post-Soviet Russia in the 1990s, we may not have a tyrant in power there and geopolitical frictions like we have today. There really needed to be a post-Cold-War Marshall Plan. (And you could say the same thing about the Rust Belt and Appalachia, especially after the 2008 recession.) Anyway.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Patchouli on 01/09/2017 05:37 pm
There is also the aspect about how you define the 'cooperation'. Station Freedom to Station Alpha to ISS is littered with politics.

International welfare and carrot versus stick diplomacy had Russia invited to the program. They had a partially completed MIR II. We helped the finish and adapting of MIR II to become elements of the ISS core.

The idea was Russians working on Russian high tech projects helped keep those same skilled people from working with Nation States that might use that against us. Money we spent to aid in that effort was considered less expensive than reacting to perceived dangers caused by not expanding the International part of ISS to include Russia.

The result may or may not have had the benefits of reducing Nuclear Proliferation but it did save ISS after Columbia. The Russians stepped up and kept the station going. Russia's extra work kept the station staffed and safe.

So ISS tells a story of how 'international cooperation' can work, maybe the way it was originally intended and as seen in keeping it running waiting for the ISS RTF (Return To Flight). Now it may be keeping the partners talking in times of stress.

If NASA was better funded they could have had the HL-20 flying as well which could have filled in and may have even allowed them to ground the shuttle when problems became evident before an accident happened.


Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/13/2017 02:11 pm
That part of ISS was highly successful. It's too bad we didn't do more such aid for post-Soviet Russia in the 1990s, we may not have a tyrant in power there and geopolitical frictions like we have today. There really needed to be a post-Cold-War Marshall Plan. (And you could say the same thing about the Rust Belt and Appalachia, especially after the 2008 recession.) Anyway.

Russia has always been that way. If anything, the tyrant would just have more money and a bigger military, and ours would be smaller.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/13/2017 02:13 pm
Just to flesh out ideas on how Moon and Mars don't have to be in conflict with each other. And you can do both using assets and technology that NASA already has or is over half-way through the development pipeline.

1.5MW is not sufficient for crew transfer given that kind of mass.

Or what are the SEP specs?

These were the specs that I was working off of:
fuel - 35,000 kg Xenon
solar power - 1500 MW @ 1 AU
engine power - 1375 MW
engine thrust - 23 N
isp - ~9500 seconds
Mars- ~50% power
Earth- 100% power

Which would yield approximate maneuver times of the manned interplanetary leg of:
-LEO to EML-1 - 7000 m/s (SEP ~30 months)...unmanned
-EML-1 to TMI - 650 m/s (chemical, PL stage 1), 200 m/s (SEP ~1 month)
-TMI to HMO - 600 m/s (chemical, PL stage 1), 600 m/s (SEP ~3 months)
-HMO to TEI -140 m/s (chemical, ITV main engine, PL stage 2), 1350 m/s(SEP ~5 months )
-TEI to earth/moon capture - 1300 m/s (SEP ~3 months)

It is a bit sluggish at Mars(5 months for TEI). If you look at slide 7 that I updated on the slide deck, that is a potential upgrade path but it uses TRL 6 150 W/kg solar panels vs TRL 9 80 W/kg. That would give you 80% SEP thrust at Mars. Otherwise, to save chemical fuel for TEI, you might look at aerobraking in other maneuvers with the solar array or a second tug that does the TMI burn(which adds a SHLV launch).

Ah, so it's a hybrid?

600m/s + 650m/s = 1.25km/s.

A huge amount of fuel is needed for that, given the first vehicle is roughly 105t+104t+16t at departure. Does it come from the lander? If yes how to land?

A Mars mission would be 2+ landers although at least one would just be in space only.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: RocketmanUS on 03/06/2017 01:31 am
Can we have our cake and eat it too?

F9 with new methane US and reusable tanker.
SX horizontal Lunar lander ( LCH4/LOX ), block I ~ 1,000 lb cargo to Lunar surface, Block II in-space refueling and crew cab.
This could help test out in-space refueling with propellant that ITS would use for Mars.
( Also could increase F9/FH payload to GTO or escape with in=space refueling. )
Tanker could be use as a temporary depot.
Tanker and US are on piece.
If Dragon 2 with FH is successful with their two passenger Lunar mission then Dragon 2 could be used with a modified version of this new US to send crew into LLO.
Note: FH would be a benefit but not needed with in-space refueling.

SX with ITS to Mars ( 1st mission ) by end of 2023

ULA could do the same with Vulcan/ACES with a horizontal Lunar lander with LH2/LOX and Orion launched on Vulcan.

This could be the goto Mars but on a new plan. NASA to seed both companies for Lunar. Later commercial could take over and NASA focus on Mars. If ITS is ready then use ITS. If ITS is not looking like it would be ready by end of 2021 then NASA to look to ULA and others. Use ULA's new in-space propellant transfer and depot and develop a lander/ascender for Mars. Could see crew on Mars by no later than 2030.

Fund both SX and ULA for the new hardware to the first few new Lunar exploration missions. Add in a Lunar base later if Congress wanted one ( experiment to see if people can live off world before sending crew to possibly colonize Mars ).

I originally voted Mars first but on a new plan. This could be the new plan but includes the moon, At least getting crew back to the moon were commercial could take over. This could get some of the needed hardware for both companies to send crew to Mars and be a benefit ( lower cost, reuse, and in-space refueling ) to launching other payloads to space.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: gospacex on 03/06/2017 04:48 pm
I think the Moon is the only logical choice as a destination for the next several decades at least.  It's close for both travel and communication times, it's a stable platform, it has mineral resources that can provide oxygen, metals, water and protection.

OTOH it lacks carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, chlorine and other volatiles. Hydrogen availability is questionable.

You need carbon and hydrogen to produce any sort of plastics, oils, paints, solvents. Many of them also require nitrogen and/or sulfur. Fertilizers need nitrogen. Chlorine is widely used in industry.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 03/07/2017 08:18 pm
Can we have our cake and eat it too?
Fund both SX and ULA for the new hardware to the first few new Lunar exploration missions.

Jon Goff speculated about combining SpaceX/ULA architecture. Sx carries the monkeys in Dragon, ULA launches the lunar lander (XEUS) and ACES TLI/TEI-booster.

http://selenianboondocks.com/2017/02/random-thoughts... (http://selenianboondocks.com/2017/02/random-thoughts-first-pass-analysis-of-a-white-dragonxeus-lunar-sortie-mission)

Functionally "single-bidder" by FAR standards -- since each contractor is exclusively supplying a discrete component -- while actually funding both systems to increase launcher availability for other missions.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 03/07/2017 08:27 pm
I think the Moon is the only logical choice as a destination for the next several decades at least.  [...] it has mineral resources that can provide oxygen, metals, water and protection.
OTOH it lacks carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, chlorine and other volatiles. Hydrogen availability is questionable.
You need carbon and hydrogen to produce any sort of plastics, oils, paints, solvents. Many of them also require nitrogen and/or sulfur. Fertilizers need nitrogen. Chlorine is widely used in industry.

WMB was speaking in terms of a few decades. It will take a long time before there's enough industry on the moon (or anywhere else) to convert basic hydrocarbons (CO₂, methane, etc) into the full range of complex plastics, paints, solvents, etc, necessary to compete with specialised materials sent from Earth. Bulk commodities alone -- oxygen, water, hydrolox-prop, bulk nickel-iron (from MM-dust), Lunacrete, etc -- represent enough work for decades of development. Highly processed materials, pressure-grade steel, structural aluminium, clear glass, etc, will take even longer.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Bynaus on 03/07/2017 08:47 pm
I think the Moon is the only logical choice as a destination for the next several decades at least.  It's close for both travel and communication times, it's a stable platform, it has mineral resources that can provide oxygen, metals, water and protection.

OTOH it lacks carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, chlorine and other volatiles. Hydrogen availability is questionable.

You need carbon and hydrogen to produce any sort of plastics, oils, paints, solvents. Many of them also require nitrogen and/or sulfur. Fertilizers need nitrogen. Chlorine is widely used in industry.

I think you might find all that in the polar crater deposits - even hydrogen, mostly bound in water. These polar craters are really cold, colder than the surface of Pluto, and even if the volatiles are intermixed with some dirt, it should be easier to get them there than to bring them in from the Earth or somewhere else. Plus, not having any atmosphere, you can expect to find every element which is found in the solar wind (i.e., almost every element) implanted into the regolith layer (hence all the discussion about He-3 on the moon - which is misguided in my view - even though He is one of the most volatile elements).
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/07/2017 09:21 pm
WMB was speaking in terms of a few decades. It will take a long time before there's enough industry on the moon (or anywhere else) to convert basic hydrocarbons (CO₂, methane, etc) into the full range of complex plastics, paints, solvents, etc, necessary to compete with specialised materials sent from Earth. Bulk commodities alone -- oxygen, water, hydrolox-prop, bulk nickel-iron (from MM-dust), Lunacrete, etc -- represent enough work for decades of development. Highly processed materials, pressure-grade steel, structural aluminium, clear glass, etc, will take even longer.

Just because we can find building materials doesn't mean we have all we need to set up shop on the Moon.

Sure it's close, but absent living at the poles you have to endure two weeks of either full sun or no sun, and there is no atmosphere to moderate temperatures.

Which brings us back around to asking WHY NASA should refocus on returning to the Moon?

As far as what NASA does well, which is cutting-edge technology development, we've already conquered the Moon.  Returning is a matter of dusting off the Apollo blueprints and updating them for modern technology, but otherwise it's a pretty low bar to go back.

And what need does the U.S. Government have in returning to the Moon?  What does that solve?

At least the journey to Mars holds the possibility that we'll find life there, and Mars is the most Earth-like planet that is close-by.  Yet even all those positives doesn't mean the U.S. Government should increase NASA's budget in order to send government employees there anytime soon.

So it's not so much where we go that is important, but the WHY and WHEN.  Answer those and the WHERE will be obvious.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: gospacex on 03/07/2017 09:52 pm
I think the Moon is the only logical choice as a destination for the next several decades at least.  [...] it has mineral resources that can provide oxygen, metals, water and protection.
OTOH it lacks carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, chlorine and other volatiles. Hydrogen availability is questionable.
You need carbon and hydrogen to produce any sort of plastics, oils, paints, solvents. Many of them also require nitrogen and/or sulfur. Fertilizers need nitrogen. Chlorine is widely used in industry.

WMB was speaking in terms of a few decades. It will take a long time before there's enough industry on the moon (or anywhere else) to convert basic hydrocarbons (CO₂, methane, etc) into the full range of complex plastics, paints, solvents, etc

So, the answer for future Moon colonists "why the hell did we build a colony on a body where a lot of essential materials simply can't be made from local materials?" will be "we did not realize that future will occur"? I thought after Y2000 problem we learned that lesson.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: gospacex on 03/07/2017 09:55 pm
I think the Moon is the only logical choice as a destination for the next several decades at least.  It's close for both travel and communication times, it's a stable platform, it has mineral resources that can provide oxygen, metals, water and protection.

OTOH it lacks carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, chlorine and other volatiles. Hydrogen availability is questionable.

You need carbon and hydrogen to produce any sort of plastics, oils, paints, solvents. Many of them also require nitrogen and/or sulfur. Fertilizers need nitrogen. Chlorine is widely used in industry.

I think you might find all that in the polar crater deposits - even hydrogen, mostly bound in water. These polar craters are really cold, colder than the surface of Pluto, and even if the volatiles are intermixed with some dirt, it should be easier to get them there than to bring them in from the Earth or somewhere else.

I propose that we should check this before we commit to Moon colonization effort. Because what if polar deposits are _not_ as good as we hope?
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: RocketmanUS on 03/08/2017 04:33 am
Can we have our cake and eat it too?
Fund both SX and ULA for the new hardware to the first few new Lunar exploration missions.

Jon Goff speculated about combining SpaceX/ULA architecture. Sx carries the monkeys in Dragon, ULA launches the lunar lander (XEUS) and ACES TLI/TEI-booster.

http://selenianboondocks.com/2017/02/random-thoughts... (http://selenianboondocks.com/2017/02/random-thoughts-first-pass-analysis-of-a-white-dragonxeus-lunar-sortie-mission)

Functionally "single-bidder" by FAR standards -- since each contractor is exclusively supplying a discrete component -- while actually funding both systems to increase launcher availability for other missions.
Both SX and ULA to have tankers, so both develop in-space propellant transfer. Both use LOX, ULA uses LH2 and SX uses LCH4 for fuel. That was to seed both companies.

Masten Space Systems could develop a block I LH2/LOX horizontal lander and SX could develop a block I LCH4/LOX horizontal lander. Block I takes it's self from LEO to Lunar surface with about 1,000 lb of cargo ( small version of Athlete ). Later once SX and ULA have tankers block II could land more mass or crew. SX with new LCH4/LOX US could take Dragon to LLO and Earth return. ULA's new Vulcan/ACES could send Orion to LLO and Earth return.

We don't need to put all or eggs in on basket, diversify. In=space refueling is what both companies would need for a future Mars Mission, so this would also seed for Mars.

Block I landers don't need in-space fueling, so they could be developed first and get a rover ( small version of Athlete ) on the moon soon.

I rather have two companies that could possible be ready for commercial missions to the moon. If one companies launcher is grounder for a time the other could still provide rides to Lunar. If the lander or capsule of one company is grounded the other company could supply. This is not just a return to the moon but possible commercial use of the moon. We need more than one supplier. One delivering the lander and the other the capsule does not give a back up or choice for possible future commercial customers. And SX has two east coast launch sites for F9 to handle multiple launches in a short period of time. Once DIVH is retired it might be possible for ULA to add another pad for Vulcan if they have the flight rate for it in the future.

So moon could be first while developing needed tech for Mars and still have crew on Mars by 2030.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Bynaus on 03/08/2017 04:49 am
I think the Moon is the only logical choice as a destination for the next several decades at least.  It's close for both travel and communication times, it's a stable platform, it has mineral resources that can provide oxygen, metals, water and protection.

OTOH it lacks carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, chlorine and other volatiles. Hydrogen availability is questionable.

You need carbon and hydrogen to produce any sort of plastics, oils, paints, solvents. Many of them also require nitrogen and/or sulfur. Fertilizers need nitrogen. Chlorine is widely used in industry.

I think you might find all that in the polar crater deposits - even hydrogen, mostly bound in water. These polar craters are really cold, colder than the surface of Pluto, and even if the volatiles are intermixed with some dirt, it should be easier to get them there than to bring them in from the Earth or somewhere else.

I propose that we should check this before we commit to Moon colonization effort. Because what if polar deposits are _not_ as good as we hope?

It has been tested. From Clementine through LCROSS. You can always test more, of course, but it is clear that there is plebty of volatiles at the poles. Plus, like I said, you have the regolith which can be baked for volatiles.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 03/08/2017 09:48 am
Just because we can find building materials doesn't mean we have all we need to set up shop on the Moon.
Sure it's close, but absent living at the poles

I took that to be the standing assumption these day. What else is there?

Which brings us back around to asking WHY NASA should refocus on returning to the Moon?

It will be useful, or it won't.

If it's not useful, it's a people on the moon for the sake of having a People On The Moon. Which will survive only as long as that is a shiny-new-thing, plus a little longer due to corporate-lobbyist-driven political inertia. And then it will end, leaving nothing of significance or value. Apollo on sleeping pills.

At least the journey to Mars holds the possibility that we'll find life there

And if we send humans to look for that life, we'll never know whether it's genuinely Martian, or just a contamination. Sending humans is a terrible, terrible way to do that kind of search.

But even if that wasn't the case, unless the price of launching and operating humans in space plummets, it will always be cheaper to send machines.

(Which is why NASA's sole HSF goal should be lowering the price of accessing and operating in space. Do that and any other goal just dropped out. Nothing else in HSF matters, anything else is merely pushing that goal further away.)

and Mars is the most Earth-like planet that is close-by.

Not enough to waste meaningful amounts of treasure on.

So it's not so much where we go that is important, but the WHY and WHEN.  Answer those and the WHERE will be obvious.

Lower the cost of getting humans in space, and the cost of operating once there, and it doesn't matter why people want to do things, or where they go to do them. It will just happen, even if the reasons are stupid. Over time, the stupid things fail, and the smart things will be self-sustaining, enabling yet more things. And you don't have to pick winners in advance, you don't have to be able to tell the stupid from the smart, you just lower the price to the point that people can waste their own money doing stupid things in space and see what accidentally turns out to be smart.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 03/08/2017 09:55 am
WMB was speaking in terms of a few decades. It will take a long time before there's enough industry on the moon (or anywhere else) to convert basic hydrocarbons (CO₂, methane, etc) into the full range of complex plastics, paints, solvents, etc
So, the answer for future Moon colonists "why the hell did we build a colony on a body where a lot of essential materials simply can't be made from local materials?" will be "we did not realize that future will occur"? I thought after Y2000 problem we learned that lesson.

Look at the number of processing steps required for a single type of plastic, paint, solvent, etc, from even the higher hydrocarbons. Then add the steps necessary to get to that beginning complex hydrocarbon from simple volatiles like CO₂ and water. Then multiply by all the hydrocarbon based chemicals the base/habitat/colony would need, which seem to all require their own independent and unique industrial path.

It will be a many, many decades before there's enough demand in the colony to justify local production of those kinds of materials, even if they had crude oil pooling around their feet. And by the time there is that scale of settlement, they'll have decades of waste plastic and other hydrocarbons; which will serve as the seed-stock for reprocessing. That buys you another few decades.

By the time the local industry is actually ready to process raw volatiles (such as CO₂ or methane) into advanced materials (such as plastics), it's so far in the future that there's no way to know what developments have been spawned by the other resources made available from the moon. (Fuel, for example.)

There might be a thriving trade with settlements out in the carbonaceous asteroids. (Or alternatively, there might be enough debris from C-type impactors on the moon itself, just as there's elemental metal from M-type impactors.) Or it might turn out that there's enough carbon monoxide mixed with the polar water, essentially a waste product of the fuel/air/water production, to be transitioned into feedstock for processing (perhaps initially as methane for fuel).

Or rapid development outwards in the solar system might have bypassed the early lunar settlements entirely. They may be abandoned. Or reduced to a few heavily supported scientific outposts.

It's so far in the future that we have no way of knowing which direction things will go. Getting hysterical over it today is pointless.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 03/08/2017 10:01 am
I propose that we should check this before we commit to Moon colonization effort. Because what if polar deposits are _not_ as good as we hope?
It has been tested. From Clementine through LCROSS.

The data from Clementine was apparently pretty low grade, the two main instruments on LCROSS reportedly contradicted each other.

It's clear there's water ice. Lots of water ice. It's less clear what else is in there. Ground-truths are necessary before you even consider designing systems to extract even just the water.

That said, it should be scientifically useful. Potentially a chronologically sorted record of hundreds of millions of years of impacts by comets and wet-asteroids. Neatly delineated by thin layers of dust from dry-asteroid impacts. Hence, physically-sorted isotopic samples from countless impactors. A priceless scientific boon.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Bynaus on 03/08/2017 10:22 am
I propose that we should check this before we commit to Moon colonization effort. Because what if polar deposits are _not_ as good as we hope?
It has been tested. From Clementine through LCROSS.

The data from Clementine was apparently pretty low grade, the two main instruments on LCROSS reportedly contradicted each other.

It's clear there's water ice. Lots of water ice. It's less clear what else is in there. Ground-truths are necessary before you even consider designing systems to extract even just the water.

That said, it should be scientifically useful. Potentially a chronologically sorted record of hundreds of millions of years of impacts by comets and wet-asteroids. Neatly delineated by thin layers of dust from dry-asteroid impacts. Hence, physically-sorted isotopic samples from countless impactors. A priceless scientific boon.

Still, if you condense the water, its relatively straightforward you will condense the more volatile stuff as well - but I agree, you can always do better by doing a more thorough investigation.

I have been thinking along the same terms, but I am not sure it will be chronologically sorted - you also have gardening by impacts at the poles which might well destroy and mix the top-layer of the deposits as it forms, and the dust from dry asteroid impacts will not easily find its way to the poles (and if it does, it will likely be strongly diluted by regolith dust ejected by the same impact). However, it might be that volatiles in lunar caves will provide some stratigraphy - protected from impacts, yet very cold, they could be the perfect archives of lunar history (unless the surrounding rock is too warm - so caves near the poles perhaps?). I always wanted to try to model that but never found the time to do it.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: clongton on 03/10/2017 06:53 pm
What would we do on the moon? Think L-O-N-G  T-E-R-M.

I would suggest that the eventual goal would be a functioning interplanetary exploration center and shipyard, where interplanetary spacecraft are built, launched, recovered, refurbished, restocked, re-crewed and launched again. Absence of the deep earth gravity well will eventually enable far more efficient spacecraft designs that what we can build on earth, work real hard to put tiny pieces of it into LEO and then assemble in zero-g. Fighting only only 1/6 g it shouldn't be much problem to outfit engines strong enough to lift the vehicles into LLO before mission departure.

This is, of course, a long term vision, but one that I believe, if you think long term, is practical.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 03/11/2017 03:44 am
[polar ice, because "science!"]
but I agree, you can always do better by doing a more thorough investigation.

I don't think it's just a matter of better. I doubt you could design ISRU equipment without a detailed understanding of the material. I mean, bake a kg and collect a gram, sure. But nothing at the efficiency required for realistic production rates. Too many unknowns.

I am not sure it will be chronologically sorted - you also have gardening by impacts at the poles which might well destroy and mix the top-layer of the deposits as it forms

I agree. Hence "potentially". The saving grace is that micrometeorites are limited in their impact depth (a la Newton's rule of penetration depth), and larger impacts are randomly uneven. Micrometeorites probably won't mix a full layer depth, larger impacts will leave sections intact, and different sections will overlap, allowing a continuous column to be recreated.

Potentially.

(I'm really curious how far back this could go. How stable is the moon's long term axial alignment? Could this go back billions of years?)

and the dust from dry asteroid impacts will not easily find its way to the poles (and if it does, it will likely be strongly diluted by regolith dust ejected by the same impact).

I didn't mean that the dry impacts have usefully layering of each impact. What I meant was that the small amounts of dust kicked up from large impacts, which settle out everywhere on the moon, will serve to delineate the much rarer volatile-rich impacts (especially comets) from each other. Ie, thick layers of the rare comet impacts separated by thin layers from the much more common dry impacts.

You see this in deposit stratigraphy on Earth in, say, lakes. A broad winter layer (lots of run-off sediment) each season, separated by a thin layer of the summer dust blowing over the lake itself. Produces a nice neat, thin, boundary line between winter layers.

(Not sure if I've explained my reasoning any better.)

However, it might be that volatiles in lunar caves will provide some stratigraphy - protected from impacts, yet very cold, they could be the perfect archives of lunar history (unless the surrounding rock is too warm - so caves near the poles perhaps?). I always wanted to try to model that but never found the time to do it.

If you do, please do Mars lava-tubes as well. I've wondered whether they will serve as water-ice traps, analogous to the polar caps, but occurring in more accessible parts of Mars.

(Anything underground tends to maintain a more constant temperature which will be is the average of the surface temperate. The average temperature of equatorial Mars is usually given as -55℃, which is above the boiling point of CO₂. Hence you might see water freeze out, but not CO₂, creating a nice concentrated resource for settlers.)
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 03/11/2017 04:03 am
I would suggest that the eventual goal would be a functioning interplanetary exploration center and shipyard, where interplanetary spacecraft are built, launched, recovered, refurbished, restocked, re-crewed and launched again.

If there was an industry on the moon, created for some other reason, I can imagine a ship-building industry getting established, but why would operational ships return to the moon for restocking and recrewing?

You don't dry-dock a ship for routine maintenance, hell even fairly significant maintenance is done at ordinary wharfs. And you sure as hell don't dry-dock just to swap out crew and take on supplies.

Fighting only only 1/6 g it shouldn't be much problem to outfit engines strong enough to lift the vehicles into LLO before mission departure.

It's not the "strength" of the engines (well, not just that), it's the fuel. Only chemical engines can land on the moon, and they are very wasteful. At over 2km/s to land, another 2km/s to take off again, even hydrolox engines burn a lot of fuel.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: AncientU on 03/12/2017 12:02 am
Refits of in-space vessels should be done at EML-1 (or maybe EML-2).  Easily accessed from Earth, Moon, interplanetary, minimal energy to maintain position, top of gravity well for departure (w/ Oberth burn advantages).  In-spac ship assembly could also be done here -- avoids ships having to be structurally strong enough (and small enough) to depart Lunar surface as well as eliminating the delta-v penalty discussed above.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: clongton on 03/12/2017 11:11 am
Refits of in-space vessels should be done at EML-1 (or maybe EML-2).  Easily accessed from Earth, Moon, interplanetary, minimal energy to maintain position, top of gravity well for departure (w/ Oberth burn advantages).  In-spac ship assembly could also be done here -- avoids ships having to be structurally strong enough (and small enough) to depart Lunar surface as well as eliminating the delta-v penalty discussed above.

Yes, minor refits and normal maintenance could be done at EML-1/2 but mind you that would require a large facility orbiting the Lagrange point. That's a big deal. Why have a surface base and a big orbiting shipyard? Being structurally strong enough to to depart the lunar surface is a good thing. Even the Apollo LM's did that so that's not a big deal. The only reason we do on-orbit assembly is because we can't lift enough mass in a single lift to build it on the ground. That would not be the case in lunar gravity. What could we put in LEO if our engines were 6 times as powerful as they are now and only had to go 43% the altitude (98 km vs 250 km) and only 22% the velocity (5,800 k/h vs 27,360 k/h) to orbit? That's the lift advantage the lunar surface offers. Think big AncientU, think big.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/12/2017 01:02 pm
Refits of in-space vessels should be done at EML-1 (or maybe EML-2).  Easily accessed from Earth, Moon, interplanetary, minimal energy to maintain position, top of gravity well for departure (w/ Oberth burn advantages).  In-spac ship assembly could also be done here -- avoids ships having to be structurally strong enough (and small enough) to depart Lunar surface as well as eliminating the delta-v penalty discussed above.

Yes, minor refits and normal maintenance could be done at EML-1/2 but mind you that would require a large facility orbiting the Lagrange point. That's a big deal. Why have a surface base and a big orbiting shipyard? Being structurally strong enough to to depart the lunar surface is a good thing. Even the Apollo LM's did that so that's not a big deal. The only reason we do on-orbit assembly is because we can't lift enough mass in a single lift to build it on the ground. That would not be the case in lunar gravity. What could we put in LEO if our engines were 6 times as powerful as they are now and only had to go 43% the altitude (98 km vs 250 km) and only 22% the velocity (5,800 k/h vs 27,360 k/h) to orbit? That's the lift advantage the lunar surface offers. Think big AncientU, think big.
EML1 is better location for constructing large space assets. Not constrained by gavity,  LV and Lander requirements. Have moon or asteriods provide processed materials and simple but heavy parts with earth providing high tech parts.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: quanthasaquality on 03/12/2017 01:18 pm
What would we do on the moon? Think L-O-N-G  T-E-R-M.

I would suggest that the eventual goal would be a functioning interplanetary exploration center and shipyard, where interplanetary spacecraft are built, launched, recovered, refurbished, restocked, re-crewed and launched again. Absence of the deep earth gravity well will eventually enable far more efficient spacecraft designs that what we can build on earth, work real hard to put tiny pieces of it into LEO and then assemble in zero-g. Fighting only only 1/6 g it shouldn't be much problem to outfit engines strong enough to lift the vehicles into LLO before mission departure.

This is, of course, a long term vision, but one that I believe, if you think long term, is practical.

Well, since you've raised the issue.

I think lunar material should be mined, and artillery 'shells' should be manufactured on the moon. A giant cannon will fire the shell on a suborbital trajectory. Drones in low lunar orbit, will intercept the 'shells', and accelerate it up to low lunar orbit velocity. I don't know if the cannon will be a railgun, light gas gun, or liquid propellant combustion. battleship cannons would get ~800 m/s. AA autocannons get around ~1,100 m/s. Tank sabot rounds can get around ~1,500 m/s. The Paris Gun got ~1,600 m/s. HARP once got over ~2,000 m/s. I guess there are tradeoffs on barrel longevity, payload size, etc. Low Lunar orbit is ~1,800 m/s. I will assume ~1,100 m/s is the low end velocity with reasonable barrel life. Hydrogen will be brought from earth, to produce silane and oxygen rocket fuel.

shipyards should be built in low lunar orbit. I can see ship size of tens of thousands of tons... I anticipate the desired delta v to be enough to do a gravity assist swing by of Venus to reach Jupiter, Saturn, or beyond. Yes, that is going to need lots of silane. 2000? 3000? m/s from LLO to Venus gravity assist flyby. I imagine it will be a nuclear power station with food grow room. I imagine it will be like the Nimitz class aircraft carriers.

All that silicon dioxide rocket exhaust should be shot at the moon, lest it trash up lunar orbit.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: AncientU on 03/12/2017 03:53 pm
Refits of in-space vessels should be done at EML-1 (or maybe EML-2).  Easily accessed from Earth, Moon, interplanetary, minimal energy to maintain position, top of gravity well for departure (w/ Oberth burn advantages).  In-spac ship assembly could also be done here -- avoids ships having to be structurally strong enough (and small enough) to depart Lunar surface as well as eliminating the delta-v penalty discussed above.

Yes, minor refits and normal maintenance could be done at EML-1/2 but mind you that would require a large facility orbiting the Lagrange point. That's a big deal. Why have a surface base and a big orbiting shipyard? Being structurally strong enough to to depart the lunar surface is a good thing. Even the Apollo LM's did that so that's not a big deal. The only reason we do on-orbit assembly is because we can't lift enough mass in a single lift to build it on the ground. That would not be the case in lunar gravity. What could we put in LEO if our engines were 6 times as powerful as they are now and only had to go 43% the altitude (98 km vs 250 km) and only 22% the velocity (5,800 k/h vs 27,360 k/h) to orbit? That's the lift advantage the lunar surface offers. Think big AncientU, think big.

Factories for spaceships on the Moon make sense, but assembling them at EML-1 will be necessary -- since my spaceships are thousands (then, after a bit of practice, millions) of tonnes and never 'land.'  Our biggest engines would be kept quite busy.

All have artificial gravity and are meant for long duration space travel -- Solar System first.
One day... starships, O'Neill cylinders.

Note: the 'large facility orbiting the Lagrange point' would be one of many construction shacks.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: AncientU on 04/05/2017 03:19 pm
Moon first is consensus of space agency leads:

Quote
COLORADO SPRINGS — With NASA’s long-term strategy for human missions to Mars in flux, heads of several space agencies said they supported initial missions to the moon as a key step before going to Mars.

During an April 4 panel session during the 33rd Space Symposium that featured representatives from 15 agencies, many expressed support for going to Mars only after building up experience at the moon first.

“We think that the moon is also a very important step. Mars is not the ultimate goal,” said Jan Woerner, director general of the European Space Agency. “The moon is an intermediate step to go to Mars, but the moon can also offer some special opportunities.”

Woerner, as he has done in recent years, promoted his vision for a “Moon Village,” a lunar facility that would include contributions from various countries and companies. “Moon Village is part of our overall strategy,” he said.

http://spacenews.com/space-agency-heads-see-the-moon-on-the-path-to-mars/
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Star One on 04/05/2017 03:34 pm
Moon first is consensus of space agency leads:

Quote
COLORADO SPRINGS — With NASA’s long-term strategy for human missions to Mars in flux, heads of several space agencies said they supported initial missions to the moon as a key step before going to Mars.

During an April 4 panel session during the 33rd Space Symposium that featured representatives from 15 agencies, many expressed support for going to Mars only after building up experience at the moon first.

“We think that the moon is also a very important step. Mars is not the ultimate goal,” said Jan Woerner, director general of the European Space Agency. “The moon is an intermediate step to go to Mars, but the moon can also offer some special opportunities.”

Woerner, as he has done in recent years, promoted his vision for a “Moon Village,” a lunar facility that would include contributions from various countries and companies. “Moon Village is part of our overall strategy,” he said.

http://spacenews.com/space-agency-heads-see-the-moon-on-the-path-to-mars/

If only they'd come to this conclusion five years ago.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: redliox on 04/05/2017 03:39 pm
Moon first is consensus of space agency leads:

Quote
COLORADO SPRINGS — With NASA’s long-term strategy for human missions to Mars in flux, heads of several space agencies said they supported initial missions to the moon as a key step before going to Mars.

During an April 4 panel session during the 33rd Space Symposium that featured representatives from 15 agencies, many expressed support for going to Mars only after building up experience at the moon first.

“We think that the moon is also a very important step. Mars is not the ultimate goal,” said Jan Woerner, director general of the European Space Agency. “The moon is an intermediate step to go to Mars, but the moon can also offer some special opportunities.”

Woerner, as he has done in recent years, promoted his vision for a “Moon Village,” a lunar facility that would include contributions from various countries and companies. “Moon Village is part of our overall strategy,” he said.

http://spacenews.com/space-agency-heads-see-the-moon-on-the-path-to-mars/

Surprisingly the head of the Italian space agency disagreed and suggested going straight for Mars.  Zubrin would be proud.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/17/2017 09:31 am
A couple of podcast with moon focus

I don't think NASA will be landing humans or building lunar bases anytime soon, at least until DSG is operational. But robotic exploration and pilot ISRU plants are likely with commercial backing in early 2020s.

http://www.thespaceshow.com/recent-shows
13july Dr Mike Griffin
Would like to see lunar base along with focusing on ISRU especially oxygen extraction for fuel and life support. While being primary government lead/funded wants commercial involvement eg coms, power, cargo providers, ISRU


https://www.tmro.tv/2017/06/05/paving-way-moon-orbit-10-20/

CEO of WayPaver Foundation Michael Mealling joins us to talk about what they are doing to remove obstacles in the way of lunar exploration and settlement.


Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 06/23/2017 02:26 am
Moon first is consensus of space agency leads:

Quote
COLORADO SPRINGS — With NASA’s long-term strategy for human missions to Mars in flux, heads of several space agencies said they supported initial missions to the moon as a key step before going to Mars.

During an April 4 panel session during the 33rd Space Symposium that featured representatives from 15 agencies, many expressed support for going to Mars only after building up experience at the moon first.

“We think that the moon is also a very important step. Mars is not the ultimate goal,” said Jan Woerner, director general of the European Space Agency. “The moon is an intermediate step to go to Mars, but the moon can also offer some special opportunities.”

Woerner, as he has done in recent years, promoted his vision for a “Moon Village,” a lunar facility that would include contributions from various countries and companies. “Moon Village is part of our overall strategy,” he said.

http://spacenews.com/space-agency-heads-see-the-moon-on-the-path-to-mars/

Surprisingly the head of the Italian space agency disagreed and suggested going straight for Mars.  Zubrin would be proud.
Yeah... But with no Leadership and Money - no bucks equals No Buck Rogers... :'(
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: DougSpace on 07/16/2017 05:31 pm
Answer to the original question...

The US should adopt a policy of "Lunar COTS" at 7% of NASA's budget for a lunar program involving full-sized landers (e.g. Masten Xeus & ULA ACES-DTAL).  It should also fund the delopement of ice-harvesting telerobots and a large, flat-roofed, inflatable, surface habitat.  The IS should then urge other countries to fund their own companies to develop dissimilar, redundant components of the transportation, ice-harvesting, and habitation systems.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/16/2017 05:42 pm
Answer to the original question...

The US should adopt a policy of "Lunar COTS" at 7% of NASA's budget for a lunar program involving full-sized landers (e.g. Masten Xeus & ULA ACES-DTAL).

That is the "how" to get something done, but not the "why". Why should the U.S. Government do that?

Does it satisfy a political need, and if so what?

Does it satisfy a national security need, and if so what?

Is it part of our nations continuing (but declining under Trump) desire to fund "science" because we know it has long-term payoffs? And if so, what is the rationale?

We in the space community are good at thinking up solutions, but we don't lack solutions, we lack a compelling reason for the U.S. Government to spend taxpayer money on doing this. What is the reason Congress will want to spend money on this, for decades to come?
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/16/2017 07:46 pm
NASA fund lunar exploration and maybe small harvesting demo  but after that it should be purely commercial venture. If NASA wants to purchase lunar fuel or water and have delivered to set destination eg DSG all better.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: giulioprisco on 08/22/2017 02:33 pm
I think yes, it should. There are many reason, but an important one is that, while there's no solid business case for Mars at this moment, there are solid business cases for returning to and start exploiting the Moon with reasonable funding and reasonable expectations of return. NASA (and other public space agencies) can't do everything but should encourage private industry to step in.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/22/2017 03:34 pm
I think yes, it should. There are many reason, but an important one is that, while there's no solid business case for Mars at this moment, there are solid business cases for returning to and start exploiting the Moon with reasonable funding and reasonable expectations of return. NASA (and other public space agencies) can't do everything but should encourage private industry to step in.
As in most other business cases like what you are referencing is that they are all dependent on NASA being the anchor customer. And that the business cases all make assumptions as to how big that buy in by NASA will be. They could be right and they could be wrong ($0 funding).

The future is not as dim as I seem to paint it, because those that do get started will find some commercial customers. While the gov customer sales may not increase the commercial customer market will grow once the service/product is established and offers a less expensive path to achieving the customers goals. It is that getting established part that seemingly takes decades in this government controlled activities environment.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: jpo234 on 10/05/2017 01:29 pm
 It’s official: Trump administration turns NASA back toward the Moon (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/its-official-trump-administration-turns-nasa-back-toward-the-moon/?amp=1)

Mike Pence: America Will Return to the Moon—and Go Beyond (https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-will-return-to-the-moonand-go-beyond-1507158341)
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: RocketmanUS on 10/05/2017 07:50 pm
It’s official: Trump administration turns NASA back toward the Moon (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/its-official-trump-administration-turns-nasa-back-toward-the-moon/?amp=1)

Mike Pence: America Will Return to the Moon—and Go Beyond (https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-will-return-to-the-moonand-go-beyond-1507158341)
If BFR is ready by 2022 then NASA should send cargo by commercial , crew one or two years later. Then cargo to Mars by 2024 and crew by 2030.
A little late for CxP timing for Lunar but could be back on track for crew for Mars.

If NASA pays SX for BFS landing on Lunar then SX could possible then afford to send BFS to Mars. It is a matter of how much NASA would pay. Even if NASA payed $500M for each landing that would be cheaper than SLS with NASA Lunar lander. A bargain for NASA and good enough that that would pay for the BFS and the sortie to Lunar and a trip to Mars.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/06/2017 12:43 am
It’s official: Trump administration turns NASA back toward the Moon (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/its-official-trump-administration-turns-nasa-back-toward-the-moon/?amp=1)

Mike Pence: America Will Return to the Moon—and Go Beyond (https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-will-return-to-the-moonand-go-beyond-1507158341)
If BFR is ready by 2022 then NASA should send cargo by commercial , crew one or two years later. Then cargo to Mars by 2024 and crew by 2030.
A little late for CxP timing for Lunar but could be back on track for crew for Mars.

If NASA pays SX for BFS landing on Lunar then SX could possible then afford to send BFS to Mars. It is a matter of how much NASA would pay. Even if NASA payed $500M for each landing that would be cheaper than SLS with NASA Lunar lander. A bargain for NASA and good enough that that would pay for the BFS and the sortie to Lunar and a trip to Mars.

In the unlikely event that SX is close to their BFR in service timeline to land a couple of BFS on Mars in 2022. Which means the BFR system will be flying in the 2020 to 2021 period. The temptation for the current POTUS to have boots on the Moon with a ride from SX will be too great.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: catdlr on 10/06/2017 04:54 am
Vice President Pence Calls for Human Missions to Moon, Mars at National Space Council

NASA
Published on Oct 5, 2017


Vice President Mike Pence called for returning U.S. astronauts to the Moon and eventual missions to Mars during the first meeting of the National Space Council, held on October 5 at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum’s Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, outside Washington. Chaired by the Vice President, the council meeting brought together representatives from all aspects and sectors of the national space enterprise, for the first time in a quarter-century. NASA’s Acting Administrator, Robert Lightfoot was among the participants.

https://youtu.be/5FERa2oxWhQ?t=001

https://youtu.be/5FERa2oxWhQ
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: AncientU on 10/06/2017 05:01 pm
It’s official: Trump administration turns NASA back toward the Moon (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/its-official-trump-administration-turns-nasa-back-toward-the-moon/?amp=1)

Mike Pence: America Will Return to the Moon—and Go Beyond (https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-will-return-to-the-moonand-go-beyond-1507158341)
If BFR is ready by 2022 then NASA should send cargo by commercial , crew one or two years later. Then cargo to Mars by 2024 and crew by 2030.
A little late for CxP timing for Lunar but could be back on track for crew for Mars.

If NASA pays SX for BFS landing on Lunar then SX could possible then afford to send BFS to Mars. It is a matter of how much NASA would pay. Even if NASA payed $500M for each landing that would be cheaper than SLS with NASA Lunar lander. A bargain for NASA and good enough that that would pay for the BFS and the sortie to Lunar and a trip to Mars.

Are you implying NASA will develop a way to land crew on the Moon by 2023-2024, since this is the earliest SLS/Orion could carry crew on EM-2?  Same question about Mars 6 years later? 

IMO, if/when BFS lands cargo on the Moon, the crewed flights on BFS will only be 6-12 months behind.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/06/2017 06:33 pm
It’s official: Trump administration turns NASA back toward the Moon (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/its-official-trump-administration-turns-nasa-back-toward-the-moon/?amp=1)

Mike Pence: America Will Return to the Moon—and Go Beyond (https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-will-return-to-the-moonand-go-beyond-1507158341)
If BFR is ready by 2022 then NASA should send cargo by commercial , crew one or two years later. Then cargo to Mars by 2024 and crew by 2030.
A little late for CxP timing for Lunar but could be back on track for crew for Mars.

If NASA pays SX for BFS landing on Lunar then SX could possible then afford to send BFS to Mars. It is a matter of how much NASA would pay. Even if NASA payed $500M for each landing that would be cheaper than SLS with NASA Lunar lander. A bargain for NASA and good enough that that would pay for the BFS and the sortie to Lunar and a trip to Mars.

Are you implying NASA will develop a way to land crew on the Moon by 2023-2024, since this is the earliest SLS/Orion could carry crew on EM-2?  Same question about Mars 6 years later? 

IMO, if/when BFS lands cargo on the Moon, the crewed flights on BFS will only be 6-12 months behind.

2024 is when ULA hopes to fly the ACES upper stage to the Vulcan launch vehicle. With a modification kit from Masten this becomes the XEUS lunar lander. The dates fit nicely.

Edit:oops wrong decade should have written 2024 not 2014
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: the_other_Doug on 10/07/2017 01:27 pm
It’s official: Trump administration turns NASA back toward the Moon (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/its-official-trump-administration-turns-nasa-back-toward-the-moon/?amp=1)

Mike Pence: America Will Return to the Moon—and Go Beyond (https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-will-return-to-the-moonand-go-beyond-1507158341)
If BFR is ready by 2022 then NASA should send cargo by commercial , crew one or two years later. Then cargo to Mars by 2024 and crew by 2030.
A little late for CxP timing for Lunar but could be back on track for crew for Mars.

If NASA pays SX for BFS landing on Lunar then SX could possible then afford to send BFS to Mars. It is a matter of how much NASA would pay. Even if NASA payed $500M for each landing that would be cheaper than SLS with NASA Lunar lander. A bargain for NASA and good enough that that would pay for the BFS and the sortie to Lunar and a trip to Mars.

Are you implying NASA will develop a way to land crew on the Moon by 2023-2024, since this is the earliest SLS/Orion could carry crew on EM-2?  Same question about Mars 6 years later? 

IMO, if/when BFS lands cargo on the Moon, the crewed flights on BFS will only be 6-12 months behind.

2014 is when ULA hopes to fly the ACES upper stage to the Vulcan launch vehicle. With a modification kit from Masten this becomes the XEUS lunar lander. The dates fit nicely.

I do believe you meant 2024... otherwise, you're managing a great feat, posting from five years ago and projecting an event we know never happened... ;)
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: AncientU on 10/08/2017 12:54 am
It’s official: Trump administration turns NASA back toward the Moon (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/its-official-trump-administration-turns-nasa-back-toward-the-moon/?amp=1)

Mike Pence: America Will Return to the Moon—and Go Beyond (https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-will-return-to-the-moonand-go-beyond-1507158341)
If BFR is ready by 2022 then NASA should send cargo by commercial , crew one or two years later. Then cargo to Mars by 2024 and crew by 2030.
A little late for CxP timing for Lunar but could be back on track for crew for Mars.

If NASA pays SX for BFS landing on Lunar then SX could possible then afford to send BFS to Mars. It is a matter of how much NASA would pay. Even if NASA payed $500M for each landing that would be cheaper than SLS with NASA Lunar lander. A bargain for NASA and good enough that that would pay for the BFS and the sortie to Lunar and a trip to Mars.

Are you implying NASA will develop a way to land crew on the Moon by 2023-2024, since this is the earliest SLS/Orion could carry crew on EM-2?  Same question about Mars 6 years later? 

IMO, if/when BFS lands cargo on the Moon, the crewed flights on BFS will only be 6-12 months behind.

2014 is when ULA hopes to fly the ACES upper stage to the Vulcan launch vehicle. With a modification kit from Masten this becomes the XEUS lunar lander. The dates fit nicely.

ULA, Blue, SpaceX and possibly others could have a lander by 2024... I'm just asking RocketmanUS who he is saying will be carrying crew to the Lunar surface in 2023-2024?  NASA? Private company? Which one?
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/08/2017 01:30 am
"Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?"  In a word - yes. Although it would be a hard bump in the road to get funding for a Lander - it would be easier to get that and a fixed number of SLS/Orion launches per year than all the stuff needed for Mars: the chemical and SEP propulsion stages, Descent/Hab/Ascent modules, Hab modules for travelling to and fro from Mars.

if a launch cadence of 3x SLS per year could be achieved - two manned and 1x Cargo - then you could have 2x longish duration manned missions to the surface per annum (much longer than the 3 day Apollo paradigm, anyway). Or devising a Commercial solution for cargo transport to the Moon could allow 3x crewed missions per year. But probably only if the Lunar Lander could be partially or fully reusable. Aiming for a reusability factor of 5x manned missions for each Lander would certainly reduce the need to transport fresh landers out to Luna at costly, fixed intervals.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/08/2017 01:40 am
It’s official: Trump administration turns NASA back toward the Moon (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/its-official-trump-administration-turns-nasa-back-toward-the-moon/?amp=1)

Mike Pence: America Will Return to the Moon—and Go Beyond (https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-will-return-to-the-moonand-go-beyond-1507158341)
If BFR is ready by 2022 then NASA should send cargo by commercial , crew one or two years later. Then cargo to Mars by 2024 and crew by 2030.
A little late for CxP timing for Lunar but could be back on track for crew for Mars.

If NASA pays SX for BFS landing on Lunar then SX could possible then afford to send BFS to Mars. It is a matter of how much NASA would pay. Even if NASA payed $500M for each landing that would be cheaper than SLS with NASA Lunar lander. A bargain for NASA and good enough that that would pay for the BFS and the sortie to Lunar and a trip to Mars.

Are you implying NASA will develop a way to land crew on the Moon by 2023-2024, since this is the earliest SLS/Orion could carry crew on EM-2?  Same question about Mars 6 years later? 

IMO, if/when BFS lands cargo on the Moon, the crewed flights on BFS will only be 6-12 months behind.

2014 is when ULA hopes to fly the ACES upper stage to the Vulcan launch vehicle. With a modification kit from Masten this becomes the XEUS lunar lander. The dates fit nicely.

ULA, Blue, SpaceX and possibly others could have a lander by 2024... I'm just asking RocketmanUS who he is saying will be carrying crew to the Lunar surface in 2023-2024?  NASA? Private company? Which one?
There is a good, relatively recent thread around here that several of us discussed Commercial solutions for manned, Lunar Landers. One idea discussed at length was tasking SpaceX to design a 'Grey Dragon' that could land crews of 2 for 5-to-7 day long 'Sortie' missions. A modified Dragon 2 that obviously had no heavy heatshield or parachutes; but increased propellant load for the Dracos and using a 'Crasher Stage' in the Trunk for most of the descent delta v. Because it would be in a vacuum; the ship could have 'bulging', extra conformal propellant tanks for most of the Ascent propellant load. Of course; a Cargo, descent-only version could be devised later for longer stays. All of the 'Grey Dragons' would have a deployable solar panel for power - able to be jettisoned just before Ascent.

The above is just a quick summary of the long discussions held previously! Hope you didn't mind...
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: savuporo on 10/08/2017 01:46 am
These NASA destination changes start to be a bit like Tugg Speedman's Scorcher movies. You know there's a new one coming at a regular interval, and kinda know this time it will be .. different.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/08/2017 02:08 am
Yeah, sort of. Despite the (many) mistakes that were made more than a decade ago - in the wake of Columbia - and there's not enough time and space to get into all that... Despite the mistakes; Mike Griffin was right when he set his sights on the Moon as the next goal after ISS completion. Mars is a bridge too far at this point - especially for the (traditional) NASA way of doing things. Leave Mars to Elon, should he succeed.

Get yer "Leave It To Elon" T-shirts right here. On sale soon...
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/08/2017 02:54 am
"Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?"  In a word - yes. Although it would be a hard bump in the road to get funding for a Lander - it would be easier to get that and a fixed number of SLS/Orion launches per year than all the stuff needed for Mars: the chemical and SEP propulsion stages, Descent/Hab/Ascent modules, Hab modules for travelling to and fro from Mars.

The "where?" is almost immaterial. The more important question is the "why?", because that's what determines how long the funding stream can be maintained.

Another consideration is the "how long", because NASA is not the organization that it was in the 60's when we last went to the Moon. Even a fully funded Constellation program was not likely to get to the surface of our Moon until the mid-2030's, and the SLS and Orion are lesser version of their Constellation parents. And the Constellation program only lasted one Presidential administration.

Quote
if a launch cadence of 3x SLS per year could be achieved...

Of course that is possible, although the SLS factory is only set up for less than 2 per year. So more money.

Quote
...two manned and 1x Cargo - then you could have 2x longish duration manned missions to the surface per annum (much longer than the 3 day Apollo paradigm, anyway).

OK. Would that be worth a 15 year effort? What if during that 15 year period SpaceX actually does reach Mars with humans? Wouldn't that change the public's perception about the ROI for NASA's infrequent excursions to our Moon?

Which is why you have to have a strong enough "National Imperative" that it could survive multiple Presidents and many different combinations of Congress. Do we know if we have one yet?

We'll see what the Pence NSC comes up with.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/08/2017 05:26 am
Yeah - the 3x SLS launches per year would be the maximum we could ever expect without a major funding boost; making more launchpads, Crawlers, service towers and other infrastructure available, plus upgrading the VAB would be the only way to get better than 3x launches. But 2x SLS launches per year - the accepted 'norm' for now would be okay if the other launches for cargo, propellants etc were done on Commercial rockets such as the Vulcan, Falcon Heavy and New Glenn. 2x only crewed Orions per year should be maxed out for mission endurance; meaning lunar surface missions of at least 14 Earth days to make the expense worth it.

Now; there are some out there reading this who would go; 'Pffft! Elon's new BFR will totally crush all this effort - why bother?!'

I'm as much or more a SpaceX amazing people as the next guy - but do not count on the BFR paradigm-shift as an absolute sure thing until it actually happens. My money is on a 9 or 10 year effort to get those things operational. In that decade; even the years-late SLS/Orion plus Lander(s) could pull off some spectacular Sortie missions that would - at best - eclipse the achievements of Apollo and at worst; be much better than a cold, hard nothin'...
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 10/08/2017 12:41 pm
'Grey Dragon' [...] A modified Dragon 2 that obviously had no heavy heatshield or parachutes; but increased propellant load for the Dracos and using a 'Crasher Stage' in the Trunk for most of the descent delta v. Because it would be in a vacuum; the ship could have 'bulging', extra conformal propellant tanks for most of the Ascent propellant load. Of course; a Cargo, descent-only version could be devised later for longer stays. All of the 'Grey Dragons' would have a deployable solar panel for power - able to be jettisoned just before Ascent.

In order to turn Dragon into a lunar lander, you have to add a lunar lander, then remove most of Dragon.



Re:SLS
but do not count on the BFR paradigm-shift as an absolute sure thing until it actually happens.

SLS doesn't just fail in comparison with BFR (everything fails in comparison with BFR), it fails in comparison with any alternative. Even if none of the new launchers work out, New Glenn, Vulcan, even FH, any alternative architecture to SLS using existing launchers is still more cost-effective and practical than SLS. We knew that before Constellation.

In that decade; even the years-late SLS/Orion plus Lander(s) could pull off some spectacular Sortie missions that would - at best - eclipse the achievements of Apollo and at worst; be much better than a cold, hard nothin'...

Why? What is the value of a slightly more than Apollo flags'n'footprints mission to the moon?
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: AncientU on 10/08/2017 12:45 pm
Yeah - the 3x SLS launches per year would be the maximum we could ever expect without a major funding boost; making more launchpads, Crawlers, service towers and other infrastructure available, plus upgrading the VAB would be the only way to get better than 3x launches. But 2x SLS launches per year - the accepted 'norm' for now would be okay if the other launches for cargo, propellants etc were done on Commercial rockets such as the Vulcan, Falcon Heavy and New Glenn. 2x only crewed Orions per year should be maxed out for mission endurance; meaning lunar surface missions of at least 14 Earth days to make the expense worth it.

...better than a cold, hard nothin'...

Not really.  If we are going back to the Moon to do 'sorties' -- let's not go.

The reality is, 2-3 SLS flights per year will break the bank -- assuming that it is even feasible to make 10-ish RS-25Es per year, fab 2-3 Orions, prep 2-3 launch vehicles, etc.  Anyway, that won't happen until 2030s...

Several new paradigms are needed:
1. We go back to the Moon to stay.  24/7, 28-day day and all, year after year.  Serious exploration and prospecting a hundred or a thousand kilometers around is the real work to be done.
2. Lunar Village is constructed and expanded by surface equipment and physical labor of the people on the Moon; it's not just a few sardine cans plunked down... where NASA astros hang out for 14 days between rover jaunts around the immediate vicinity.
3. Commercial vehicles, landers, habs, etc. make up the bulk of the effort.  NASA role is more a conductor or choreographer, not playing all the instruments or dancing all the dances.
4. Fuel-rich architecture is a fundamental requirement... as is reusability.  Limitations of one-shot hardware must be overcome.

It is not worth going back to the Moon if we simply 'practice' those activities that will keep us from going further.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: AncientU on 10/08/2017 01:20 pm
We really should move the Missions to the Moon, Mars, Asteroids topics out of the HLV / SLS / Orion / Constellation section.  We know we aren't going to any of the above with these vehicles alone, or even with these vehicles as the primary contributor, so this positioning is an anachronism.  NASA's own testimony confirms this fact.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: blasphemer on 10/08/2017 01:56 pm
The "where?" is almost immaterial. The more important question is the "why?", because that's what determines how long the funding stream can be maintained.

Considering that funding stream for manned spaceflight has been roughly constant ever since the end of Apollo, I dont think it will significantly change anytime soon. I certainly see no political change on the horizon that would lead to any big changes in the budget. The funding is simply there because launching astronauts to space is what US does and always did, I think there is no deep reason "why" behind it really.

"where" and "how" are much better questions because that will determine what will actually be achieved with that constant funding stream.

As for where, Mars is way too ambitious goal for NASA. Maybe Elon will get to Mars but for NASA it is Moon or nothing. NASA simply does not have what it takes to get to Mars under current budgets and management, much less stay on Mars. Too amibitious goals under restricted budgets is a sure way not to achieve anything. Moon is at least a semi-realistic goal.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/08/2017 03:29 pm
Yeah - the 3x SLS launches per year would be the maximum we could ever expect without a major funding boost...

No. Any launch rate above 1 per year requires increasing more money, and the factory is only capable of two per year in it's current configuration. From a SpaceNews interview with the outgoing SLS Program Manager (http://spacenews.com/an-interview-with-boeings-outgoing-sls-program-manager/):

Quote
Boeing has Michoud set up to stamp out enough stages for one SLS a year — two at most with the factory’s current manufacturing capabilities, and then only if NASA pours more money and personnel into the facility.

So going to three per year would require new factory tooling, and that will require more funding from Congress.

Quote
...making more launchpads, Crawlers, service towers and other infrastructure available, plus upgrading the VAB would be the only way to get better than 3x launches.

From what I've heard the current launch infrastructure would have no problem with three launches per year, and likely could do more without any major improvements.

Quote
But 2x SLS launches per year - the accepted 'norm' for now...

The "accepted" norm today is launching once every year, which also happens to be the minimum safe launch rate as defined by NASA. Remember there are no programs that require the SLS yet, so NASA was only building to the absolute minimum flight rate.

Quote
would be okay if the other launches for cargo, propellants etc were done on Commercial rockets such as the Vulcan, Falcon Heavy and New Glenn.

The current fleet of commercial launchers can support far more activity in space than what 3X flights of the SLS can support, but so far the exploration architectures NASA has been officially coming up with don't utilize them very well. It's political of course, but it also points back to the "why" of what NASA is funded to do.

Quote
2x only crewed Orions per year should be maxed out for mission endurance; meaning lunar surface missions of at least 14 Earth days to make the expense worth it.

Is that worth the taxpayer money it will take to do this? Couldn't we do quite a bit of that with low cost robotic systems that could roam around for years?

Plus, the SLS and Orion don't leave behind durable infrastructure in space, so the ratio of expendable vs reusable is not very high. For instance, with the ISS we spent $100B to get it up and running, and so far it's been occupied continuously for 17 years - what you're describing, which is likely to be the same overall price, results in far less activity in space. Seems like we're regressing, not progressing as far as HSF goes.

Quote
In that decade; even the years-late SLS/Orion plus Lander(s) could pull off some spectacular Sortie missions that would - at best - eclipse the achievements of Apollo and at worst; be much better than a cold, hard nothin'...

As currently forecasted it will have taken 18 years before the Orion spacecraft becomes operational. Somehow I don't see how a NASA built lunar lander will take any less time.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/08/2017 04:31 pm
Being able to refuel human lander on surface from ISRU halves its DV requirements. The question is does NASA rely on ISRU refuelling when designing the human lander and transport architecture.

While most transport architectures work on staging in lunar orbit, DSG at NRO being goal for now. A 6km/s hydrolox lander would allow  exploration missions from DSG without relying on ISRU surface refuelling.
With ISRU the same lander could go direct between LEO and surface, bypassing DSG.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/08/2017 06:05 pm
Being able to refuel human lander on surface from ISRU halves its DV requirements. The question is does NASA rely on ISRU refuelling when designing the human lander and transport architecture.

Paul Spudis, who has been a very vocal and consistent supporter of human activity on our Moon, co-authored a paper a couple of years ago where he outlined a very logical plan to start propellant manufacturing on the Moon. He forecasted it would cost $88B and take something like 17 years.

While some of that time and money would be common with the HSF portion, so far no one in the U.S. Government is talking about ISRU for this initial return. Which means I would rule it out for now.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/08/2017 08:41 pm
What I'm getting from the posts above - particularly to the ones responding to me - is that the SLS/Orion and all related are completely useless and will never happen. This is what I (not so) secretly fear as well. What I outlined above was a best-case scenario, that would need much greater funding, though probably not Apollo levels, even adjusted for inflation. So yeah; others said it; not me. So therefore it's pragmatic, if not set in stone.

Eliminating SLS would probably free up enough funding to build more Orions, Landers and buy Commercial launchers that could launch Orion.

One thing that irks me and always has is the pejorative 'Flags & Footprints'. FFS; all missions are 'Flags & Footprints'!! It's just the duration of them that makes a difference. Apollo, particularly 15-17 were among the greatest achievements of the human frakkin race. End of story. In the early years of a human return 14 to 42 days stay on the lunar surface is the best we could hope for. Are some of you guys going to say - meh; not impressed. Unless you're staying for a year - wake me when that happens?! It's about context; it's about infrastructure, it's about building on one success after another. We should be greatful when human lunar missions happen again, whether they be Chinese or American again. The first human Mars mission - even if it's SpaceX may end up having flags deployed as well as footprints. Are some of you going to go; 'Pffft!! Flags & Footprints! Eww...' The only way NOT to do flags & footprints is to simply not go.

And even then some d1ckheads are going to say it's all faked again...
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/08/2017 09:00 pm
And in reply to Paul451 - there was a thread around from earlier this year that was widely discussed and participated; talking Commercial lunar landers with emphasis on Dragon 2 as a lander. Actual rocket scientists like Chuck Longton participated and it was great. There were two scenarios for Dragon 2 as a lander - the first was it's use as a descent vehicle and surface habitat and something else lightweight and single-purpose was an ascender. The second was only using the Dragon pressure vessel and mating that to a Descent/Ascent legged stage, powered by the Super Draco propulsion system with nozzle extensions.

Elon has stated that Dragon 2 versions could land on many solid surfaces in the solar system. If you think he's wrong; take it up with him. He could defend himself better than I can ;)
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Proponent on 10/08/2017 09:00 pm
Being able to refuel human lander on surface from ISRU halves its DV requirements. The question is does NASA rely on ISRU refuelling when designing the human lander and transport architecture.

Paul Spudis ... co-authored a paper a couple of years ago where he outlined a very logical plan to start propellant manufacturing on the Moon.

The 2010 version of that paper is attached to this post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26396.msg791838#msg791838).
The 2011 version is the second attachment to this post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27898.msg856900#msg856900).
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/08/2017 09:19 pm
If the pivot/return to the Moon becomes official; I nominate Paul Spudis and Dennis Wingo to be major consultants to the project!
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 10/08/2017 09:44 pm
With Apollo, the mission came first, and the hardware was designed for that purpose.  If NASA wants to go to the Moon again, they first have decide why, and what they want to do there.  I think for many people in Congress and at NASA, they think about going to the Moon only because 1) that is all they know how to do, 2) they hate taking risks, and 3) that is what SLS/Orion was built for.  And those are the only reasons.

If it was me planning a Moon mission, I would pick Tycho or the South Pole.  Tycho to collect evidence for what was that thing that hit there, and the South Pole to start building a permanent facility at which to carry out research after ISS is gone.  Research like a) ISRU from whatever ice might be found there, b) far-side Radio Astronomy, c) Rotating ground-based solar panels to follow the Sun around the horizon, d) Is long term 1/8G any better for humans than zero G?
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/08/2017 11:16 pm
What I'm getting from the posts above - particularly to the ones responding to me - is that the SLS/Orion and all related are completely useless and will never happen.

No.

The SLS and Orion have a number of very specific use cases, but so far the requirements for those use cases have not fully appeared.

For instance, people like to focus on capabilities, but for both the SLS and the Orion there is a rather substantial cost that comes with those capabilities, and it remains to be seen if Congress wants to commit to a long-term program that assumes those substantial costs.

Quote
Eliminating SLS would probably free up enough funding to build more Orions, Landers and buy Commercial launchers that could launch Orion.

I would not assume so.

NASA's budget is made up of many individual programs, and there is no mandatory top line budget number. So if one program is eliminated that does not mean that NASA suddenly has free money, it just means that program (and it's money) goes away.

Quote
One thing that irks me and always has is the pejorative 'Flags & Footprints'. FFS; all missions are 'Flags & Footprints'!! It's just the duration of them that makes a difference.

Not sure you understand what the term means, it means leaving no reusable infrastructure or capabilities behind. And certainly Apollo was that - by design. Kennedy's goal was one person landing and returning, there was no need to create a lasting presence.

Quote
The first human Mars mission - even if it's SpaceX may end up having flags deployed as well as footprints. Are some of you going to go; 'Pffft!! Flags & Footprints! Eww...' The only way NOT to do flags & footprints is to simply not go.

The goal of SpaceX is to stay, not to visit. And though it could fail, by design it's not "flags & footprints".
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: savuporo on 10/08/2017 11:18 pm
The goal of SpaceX is to stay, not to visit. And though it could fail, by design it's not "flags & footprints".
IDK, everything they have shown indicates their goal is to transport. The 'stay' part has been really addressed much at all.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/09/2017 12:05 am
The goal of SpaceX is to stay, not to visit. And though it could fail, by design it's not "flags & footprints".
IDK, everything they have shown indicates their goal is to transport. The 'stay' part has been really addressed much at all.

Musk's goal is to make humanity multi-planetary, starting with Mars. Yes, SpaceX is the transportation, but Musk is the colonization leader (for now).
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: eric z on 10/09/2017 12:50 am
 Help! I can't take it anymore! Let's all get picket signs and meet somewhere and chant "SLS has got to go,NASA sucks ho ho ho". For Pete's {Conrad} sake- I'm thrilled Apollo happened- I'm Never gonna malign the Greatest Event Since the Wright Brothers flew that contraption, at least. Tell Dave Scott and John Young they were just Flaggin' and Footin"-geez. Tell Duke and Schmitt they were just goofing-off. How did this idiotic phrase ever get started in the first place?
 I think we could all agree that SLS represents an anomaly; we wouldn't do it that way again, probably. But IMHO, the question is now, overwhelmingly, how can we use SLS, JAXA and ESA assets,and the growing commercial sector [which is really to me a misnomer but I'm too tired to debate it right now- btw, where do you all get the time and boundless energy to argue over this stuff endlessly- I'm sincerely in awe!] synergistic-ly[my spell-checker seems to be having trouble with this word] to achieve the great things we are long-since dreaming of in space? BFR/S may turn out to be the greatest thing since buttered-toast with a side of filet-mignon, but what if it isn't? What's Plan-B, or C? "Can't we all just get along?" One last thought:The title of this thread is obsolete- that's where were heading next- even Mr. Musk said so. ;D
 
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/09/2017 12:51 am
What I'm getting from the posts above - particularly to the ones responding to me - is that the SLS/Orion and all related are completely useless and will never happen.

No.

The SLS and Orion have a number of very specific use cases, but so far the requirements for those use cases have not fully appeared.

For instance, people like to focus on capabilities, but for both the SLS and the Orion there is a rather substantial cost that comes with those capabilities, and it remains to be seen if Congress wants to commit to a long-term program that assumes those substantial costs.

Quote
Eliminating SLS would probably free up enough funding to build more Orions, Landers and buy Commercial launchers that could launch Orion.

I would not assume so.

NASA's budget is made up of many individual programs, and there is no mandatory top line budget number. So if one program is eliminated that does not mean that NASA suddenly has free money, it just means that program (and it's money) goes away.

Quote
One thing that irks me and always has is the pejorative 'Flags & Footprints'. FFS; all missions are 'Flags & Footprints'!! It's just the duration of them that makes a difference.

Not sure you understand what the term means, it means leaving no reusable infrastructure or capabilities behind. And certainly Apollo was that - by design. Kennedy's goal was one person landing and returning, there was no need to create a lasting presence.

Quote
The first human Mars mission - even if it's SpaceX may end up having flags deployed as well as footprints. Are some of you going to go; 'Pffft!! Flags & Footprints! Eww...' The only way NOT to do flags & footprints is to simply not go.

The goal of SpaceX is to stay, not to visit. And though it could fail, by design it's not "flags & footprints".
I know exactly what Flags & Footprints means - in several contexts, which is what my post was about. Your characterization of F & F is accurate. I was pointing out that flags and footprints would be a part of any mission scenario where human bootprints and ceremony was included. And to that you could say to me that I was being disingenuous, with some justification. But I was also pointing out that too many people throw the term F & F about out of context and use it to describe manned mission scenarios of almost any type. Then, they get further disingenuous themselves; neither agreeing nor disagreeing with me - and then not saying what they do or do not want or forsee. I can be both right and wrong at the same time - just as people can say; "No, that's not going to happen, that will never happen" and "That's a bad idea."

They don't have to follow this with their own detailed plans and desired scenarios - but it would clarify the discussions sometimes if they did. Some people are just naturally fence-sitters, or like to 'have a bob each way'.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/09/2017 01:03 am
eric z's post above - that man gets it. Well done. It's all about context. Appreciate and venerate what is best about Apollo. Use the best features from it, but leave the bad behind, moving forward and improving incrementally with new and more efficient ways of doing things. I'm not the biggest fan of SLS. I think we should use it, or lose it. Move Orion and any upcoming landers to Vulcan and other Commercial launchers. Make the lunar lander reusable. Stage it from a reusable, small propellant depot or station in high lunar orbit. I know that if the SLS goes away; it's funds wont be pragmatically or magically reallocated to other or better things. I used to argue on this very website years ago with people who used to say "If the darned Shuttle would just go away; there'd be plenty of money for other things". I said; 'No - that wont happen; the money will just go away'. They responded by saying that I didn't know what I was talking about; just watch and see what happens. So I said 'NASA will lose an immediate 2 or $3 billion dollars in funding right after Shuttle goes'. They said again I didn't know what I was saying.

Well; NASA lost 'only' $1.6 billion in funding after Shuttle. I was both right and wrong at the same time - there was a cut, but it wasn't as bad as I feared. It's taken NASA years to claw back that money. But even then, this has not kept up with inflation. And SLS, Orion and the JWST has been eating NASA out of house and home.

A return to the Moon and a refocus on it will give some stability and direction. We shouldn't wait around decades more in Low Earth Orbit only - been there; done that - waiting for somebody (Elon etc) to invent magic moonbeams and science fiction ships before we can do anything. But use them if and when they do! The ancient world didn't wait for 747s to be invented before colonizing the world, nor economically exploiting it. I'm generalizing a bit, eh.

But in my first couple of sentences; I stated clearly what I think should happen -right or wrong. I was unambiguous.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: eric z on 10/09/2017 01:28 am
 Someone else could state the following much better, and I'm sure they have! SLS was a fluke result of what happens when an administration and a Congress lock themselves in mortal combat on just about everything under the sun. Plenty of fibbing to go around. I have stated elsewhere that President Obama's team should have insisted on the R&D money for depots, advanced this and that, etc.in return for keeping the biggest booster part of Constellation going-but they didn't. Then Congress keeps mucking around by insisting on technical parameters to the thing that they had no business getting involved with- but that's not the way they run things. Then add-to-the-mix NASA leadership rolling over, because they always try their best to make-do. Which is admirable but not always the best thing to do. One could ask endless questions- Why wasn't the station budgeted from the git-go with an escape capsule? How could Orion have become so down-scoped -wasn't it 6 crew originally?- yet so expensive? The heat shield can't reenter from mars velocity-really??? Now the loser, Boeing, their capsule will be flying before the winner's?  I'm gonna stop now- you guys know this deeper than I do. This is a result of political dysfunction overcoming common sense. What will happen 4,8,12 years from now- stop the moon base, we're going to Venus to grow really hot French-Fries?
 Actually, there are many reasons now to be optimistic about the future, so let's get together and go for it.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/09/2017 02:04 am
I know exactly what Flags & Footprints means - in several contexts, which is what my post was about.

Apologies. Apparently I missed it.

Quote
I was pointing out that flags and footprints would be a part of any mission scenario where human bootprints and ceremony was included.

It's not a matter of ceremony, it's a matter of whether you create an enduring presence.

And that has to be defined as the goal from Day 1 because that drives a vast amount of the hardware architecture. That also changes the funding commitment, since Flags & Footprint missions should have a defined end, but an enduring presence doesn't. Apollo compared ISS.

Quote
But I was also pointing out that too many people throw the term F & F about out of context and use it to describe manned mission scenarios of almost any type.

As you can see I like to defend the consistent use of definitions. Otherwise it's impossible to have a discussion or debate that doesn't get distracted.

Quote
They don't have to follow this with their own detailed plans and desired scenarios - but it would clarify the discussions sometimes if they did. Some people are just naturally fence-sitters, or like to 'have a bob each way'.

The Senators that created the SLS certainly wanted their cake and to eat it too, but so far the rest of Congress has not been anxious (or willing) to have their way. In other words, the SLS & Orion are funded, but so far there is nothing Congress has funded for them to do.

Will the Pence-led NSC provide the incentive to convince Congress to fund a return to the Moon? Too early to tell.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/09/2017 06:33 am
Yes - I know Congress virtually forced SLS on NASA. The one time I actually met and conversed with Charlie Bolden in 2011, I asked him - rather jumping the gun - if he felt Congress were going to force a Shuttle derived, Pork monster-rocket on him. He of course declined to give a straight answer - which is exactly what I would have done were I in his shoes!! In some minor ways SLS is superior to 'Direct' and the Side-Mount Heavy Lifter; but in other ways inferior because a more 'pure' Shuttle Derived launcher would have been cheaper, probably quicker to develop and should definitely have had a higher launch rate. Actually - and I know Chuck Longton and Ross Tierney would bristle at this - I thought the Side-Mount Heavy lifter should have been the way to go, if Congress pedantically had to have it be a Shuttle derived pork monster. But then the booster would have been ready years before Orion and a Lander. But without a Lander; the Sidemount could still throw about 30 metric tons beyond Earth orbit. They could have had a 'Gateway' station made out of surplus ISS modules plus some fresh ones years earlier than the half-baked plan that is swirling around now.

I would have preferred that NASA pursued the uprated EELV ideas for Constellation launches and left those RS-25 SSMEs in museums; or retasked for a reusable Spaceplane concept. The Atlas V Phase II and Delta IV-Heavy would have made good templates for medium-heavy lift. Twinned launches of 35 ton class launch vehicles could have shifted some versions of Orion and Altair ships out to Lunar orbit. A Delta IV-Heavy with uprated upper stage - possibly drafting the Ares 1 J2X-powered stage for use or a new 4x RL-10 engined stage should have been able to lift either a fully fueled Orion or Altair into LEO. A second launch of an Atlas V Heavy with that 4x RL-10 upper stage would place that stage near the spacecraft. The spacecraft could dock with the stage and take a 4-day ride to high Lunar orbit. Essentially; an earlier version of 'distributed launch' without the $40 billion+plus development pricetag of the Ares 1 & V. Yes; the Orion and Altair would have had to be downsized to a 2x man vehicle, but that would not be the end of the world if the goal had been 'Sortie' missions far superior to Apollo. If it were decided that nothing else but the four man CXP ships had to be retained; then an upgrade to 50 ton EELVs or the 70 ton Sidemount Heavy could be done instead.

Still twinned launches, as per CXP - but twin launches of the same class of booster, or at least a complimentary one...

Some Historical has-beens and wannabes there, eh?


**Here's what I would like to see happen (and I know there's a good brains trust here who can better or improve my summary ideas):

Rather than a manned space station, I want the 'Gateway' station to be far more of a propellant depot in high lunar orbit that the reusable lander stays attached to between missions. Commercial suppliers could ship out quantities of propellant for the Lander to use. And occasionally, the crewed Orion could bring co-manifested tanker modules to help fill it up. The launch cadence after the depot is filled and in place could be: Orion with crew brings tanker module and the depot's robot arm plugs the tanker into place on a port beside the Lander. The Depot has three docking ports in a roughly 'XYZ' shaped configuration. The Lander is 'X' on the long axis of the Depot's ports. Orion and Tanker Modules dock at one of the other ports angled 90-degrees to this. The depot and the tanker module fills the Lander, the crew transfer to the Lander and the Lander departs for the Moon. When they return, they transfer back to Orion and the Orion takes the depleted Tanker module with it, for disposal into the Earth's atmosphere along with the Orion's depleted Service Module. In time; a Lunar ISRU station could manufacture propellants for the Lander's ascent, meaning that the Tankers need only bring descent propellants from that point.

There a number of propellant combination options for the Lander - LOX/CH4, LOX/LH2 (for lunar water topup), LOX/RP1 and LOX/Hydrazine. All but LOX/LH2 need require Lunar oxygen only extraction from the Moon - from the regolith and not the Moon's good but not infinite polar water supplies. If the choice was mine; I'd prefer the lunar water was reserved for human and plant consumption on the surface itself. Mining the water ice for propellant would be easier than 'cracking' regolith, but as I said; there are options. Perhaps the water can be saved purely for crews to use and just keep on bringing the cryogenic or hypergolic propellants from the Earth. But unless there are much cheaper Commercially sourced, reusable launchers that can reduce the cost of shipping fuels to the Depot, then eventually lunar ISRU will have to get the pragmatic nod. That is; if we're really serious about making a decent sized Outpost on our nearest neighbour...
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/09/2017 11:36 am
<snip>

**Here's what I would like to see happen (and I know there's a good brains trust here who can better or improve my summary ideas):

<snip>

Please add some comments on what should happened with NASA if the SX BFS enters service around 2021 (humor me in the unlikely date) for cis-Lunar operations and planning. Since the BFS can replace all of the vehicles listed in your post.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/09/2017 12:27 pm
Excellent point - and the '$64 Billion dollar question', isn't it?! I said I preferred the enhanced EELV approach in the first place and I know a couple of the 'Direct' guys did, too. I don't think SpaceX could get the Falcon Heavy operational much faster than they already have. If it could get 40 tons into LEO in reusable mode and about 60 tons into LEO fully expendable, for distributed launch - then that still wouldn't surpass a Sidemount Heavy - particularly if it were using the 5 segment solid boosters and getting about 90 tons into LEO per shot. In that case, I don't think it would have much impact on the 'Pork politics' spending that was already solidly in place. They would be unlikely to switch horses midstream - too costly to redesign and reassign the Orions and Altairs for the Falcons. This would be especially true if lunar missions were already underway. NASA and the vested interest launch industry would act fairly oblivious. Which is why I think that here in the Real World; SLS and it's supporters will hang on till the bitter end.

But there would be a big opportunity there for SpaceX in the EELV or Sidemount, non-Ares universe - sending big chunks of cargo to Cislunar space or even the lunar surface itself; far cheaper than Shuttle derived and likely cheaper than the enhanced EELVs as well. And I'd applaud Elon for advocating 2 or 3x man Sortie, 'Flags & Footprints' missions to Mars (heh heh; see what I did there?! ;) ) while NASA and it's international partners 'only' trailblazed the Moon. The notional F&F Mars missions could do a Mars orbital reconnaissance mission to Phobos first - to 'shake out' many of the technologies for manned Mars missions and to show the World it's bloody well possible. This would be followed by a 2 or 3x person crew down to the surface for a two or three week stay before returning to Earth as conquering heroes. The massive wave of feelgood vibes would reach fever pitch when right after this mission; Elon announced his big plans for a 9 meter wide family of 'BFRs' that would use space refueling and ISRU on Mars to conquer and settle Mars. Even if it takes him a decade; maybe NASA could start to phase out their expendable and only partially reusable 'space dinosaurs' and join SpaceX on their journeys. In fact; I'm planning a novella around this alternate universe...

...Meanwhile back in the Real World; if the price was right and ULA gets Vulcan/ACES operational and Blue Origin has their New Glenn flying and Falcon Heavy soldiers on for a few years until the BFR test flights - then SLS starts to look pretty sick, if you ask me. For about the same price (?) as a single 105 ton payload Block 1B SLS, you could have one launch each of a New Glen, a Falcon Heavy and a 6x solid booster Vulcan/ACES. That would be about 165 tons into Low Earth Orbit if 'salvo launched' from 3 separate launchpads. And with the max budgeted launch rate of 2x SLS per year; that's only a bit more than 200 tons into LEO. Double that Commercial launch salvo that I mentioned; and that's 330 tons into LEO. Not looking great for our beautiful, Boeing/ATK Shuttle-derived dinosaur, is it? Is it Dollars and cents or 'Dollars and Sense'? And since Boeing is a part of ULA - with Vulcan in the mix, Big B seems to be competing with itself...

Should NASA refocus on the Moon? Yes - I believe it should. I don't think I'm alone in believing this. But not at any and all costs. The spacecraft should have at least some reusability. The launchers should make more economic and technological sense. It should be about building a permanent presence and sustainable infrastructure, not er, doing endless flags and footprints, where the ceremony is most of the whole achievements. Don't do it in an endless cycle of short, expendable Sortie missions - that type of modus-operandi should only have been for shaking down technologies and pioneering ways of doing things. Without some form of ISRU, reusability and propellant depots, manned space missions will forever be in a 'X-plane' mode of operations. More than a few people believed that the Shuttle program was in a permanent state of X-plane operations. Shuttle should have been the DC-3 of the space age - but it was never even the DC-0. This is almost 2018 and the 2020s are coming in a mad rush.

We can do better :)
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/09/2017 12:43 pm
...Post script:  I'm a big SpaceX amazing people, no question - I'm staying up to 2am my time to watch another Falcon 9 launch, after all! But I'm very wary of putting all eggs in one basket in the blind faith that Elon is going to provide a holistic, space panacea for everything. I'd say that NASA and it's partners should continue planning for lunar - and maybe Mars as well - but do so from a more logical, pragmatic technical and fiscal modus operandi. Yeah; maybe I expect too much... But anyway, SpaceX has a long, long, long way to go before BFR flies anywhere. Might be 2024, might be 2029... Who knows. Be confident; cheerlead them even. But don't ever be naive.

But NASA and partners shouldn't send back all their funding, sit back, do very little and wait for Elon to just hand them everything on a titanium and composite platter. The world doesn't work that way.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: RocketmanUS on 10/10/2017 04:24 am
...Post script:  I'm a big SpaceX amazing people, no question - I'm staying up to 2am my time to watch another Falcon 9 launch, after all! But I'm very wary of putting all eggs in one basket in the blind faith that Elon is going to provide a holistic, space panacea for everything. I'd say that NASA and it's partners should continue planning for lunar - and maybe Mars as well - but do so from a more logical, pragmatic technical and fiscal modus operandi. Yeah; maybe I expect too much... But anyway, SpaceX has a long, long, long way to go before BFR flies anywhere. Might be 2024, might be 2029... Who knows. Be confident; cheerlead them even. But don't ever be naive.

But NASA and partners shouldn't send back all their funding, sit back, do very little and wait for Elon to just hand them everything on a titanium and composite platter. The world doesn't work that way.
How about NASA pays for landed mass on Lunar surface, not launches? That is they only pay once the payload is landed on Lunar, same for Mars. That could be far for both and an incentive for SX.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: blasphemer on 10/10/2017 04:53 am
There a number of propellant combination options for the Lander - LOX/CH4, LOX/LH2 (for lunar water topup), LOX/RP1 and LOX/Hydrazine.

Also LOX/Aluminum. Aluminum is very abundant on the Moon and no wasting of precious lunar water.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: daveklingler on 10/10/2017 04:55 am
What I'm getting from the posts above - particularly to the ones responding to me - is that the SLS/Orion and all related are completely useless and will never happen. This is what I (not so) secretly fear as well. What I outlined above was a best-case scenario, that would need much greater funding, though probably not Apollo levels, even adjusted for inflation. So yeah; others said it; not me. So therefore it's pragmatic, if not set in stone.

Eliminating SLS would probably free up enough funding to build more Orions, Landers and buy Commercial launchers that could launch Orion.

One thing that irks me and always has is the pejorative 'Flags & Footprints'. FFS; all missions are 'Flags & Footprints'!! It's just the duration of them that makes a difference. Apollo, particularly 15-17 were among the greatest achievements of the human frakkin race. End of story. In the early years of a human return 14 to 42 days stay on the lunar surface is the best we could hope for. Are some of you guys going to say - meh; not impressed. Unless you're staying for a year - wake me when that happens?! It's about context; it's about infrastructure, it's about building on one success after another. We should be greatful when human lunar missions happen again, whether they be Chinese or American again. The first human Mars mission - even if it's SpaceX may end up having flags deployed as well as footprints. Are some of you going to go; 'Pffft!! Flags & Footprints! Eww...' The only way NOT to do flags & footprints is to simply not go.

And even then some d1ckheads are going to say it's all faked again...

Xeus is a viable lander that's been in development for several years and seems not that far from flying, if it was funded.  In my view it's pretty superior to any other lunar lander I've seen, especially if you put the kit on an ACES instead of a Centaur.  But it works fine on a Centaur. and Centaur has flown a time or two.

After Boca Chica is operational, we could theoretically launch simultaneous missions from Boca Chica, SLC-40, SLC-41, 39A, 39B and Wallops, if we so desired.

I've been putzing around with a lunar mission plan that uses Falcon 9s, one Falcon Heavy, an Atlas 5, and possibly an Antares 300.  An SLS tanker fits well into the plan, and would make Congress happy (and the proposal more topical).  Sorry, but my lunar sortie uses a Dragon, not an Orion.  I'd cancel Orion long before I cancelled SLS, although I'd make SLS into a tanker.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/10/2017 05:06 am
There a number of propellant combination options for the Lander - LOX/CH4, LOX/LH2 (for lunar water topup), LOX/RP1 and LOX/Hydrazine.

Also LOX/Aluminum. Aluminum is very abundant on the Moon and no wasting of precious lunar water.
You're right - I'd nearly forgotten that aluminum is abundant in a lot of lunar regolith. So you're saying a hybrid LOX/powdered aluminum then?
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/10/2017 07:45 am
...Post script:  I'm a big SpaceX amazing people, no question - I'm staying up to 2am my time to watch another Falcon 9 launch, after all! But I'm very wary of putting all eggs in one basket in the blind faith that Elon is going to provide a holistic, space panacea for everything. I'd say that NASA and it's partners should continue planning for lunar - and maybe Mars as well - but do so from a more logical, pragmatic technical and fiscal modus operandi. Yeah; maybe I expect too much... But anyway, SpaceX has a long, long, long way to go before BFR flies anywhere. Might be 2024, might be 2029... Who knows. Be confident; cheerlead them even. But don't ever be naive.

But NASA and partners shouldn't send back all their funding, sit back, do very little and wait for Elon to just hand them everything on a titanium and composite platter. The world doesn't work that way.
How about NASA pays for landed mass on Lunar surface, not launches? That is they only pay once the payload is landed on Lunar, same for Mars. That could be far for both and an incentive for SX.

The easiest way to do that is for NASA to pay the lander firms. Astrobotic Technologies and Moon Express Inc do not have launch vehicles so will have to subcontract out launch. ULA will have both but probably now understands payment milestones.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/10/2017 04:14 pm
There a number of propellant combination options for the Lander - LOX/CH4, LOX/LH2 (for lunar water topup), LOX/RP1 and LOX/Hydrazine.

Also LOX/Aluminum. Aluminum is very abundant on the Moon and no wasting of precious lunar water.
You're right - I'd nearly forgotten that aluminum is abundant in a lot of lunar regolith. So you're saying a hybrid LOX/powdered aluminum then?

There is a HUGE supply chain that is needed to build solid fuel propellant here on Earth, so let's drop any discussions about doing anything more than mining ice for water-derived products. Learning how to extract minerals and process them will take many decades and far more money than what NASA will be able to provide.

If NASA is going to go back to the Moon, the payoff has to be far more immediate, so let's focus on that for this thread.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 10/10/2017 05:37 pm
Also LOX/Aluminum. Aluminum is very abundant on the Moon
[...]
There is a HUGE supply chain that is needed to build solid fuel propellant here on Earth, so let's drop any discussions about [...]
If NASA is going to go back to the Moon, the payoff has to be far more immediate, so let's focus on that for this thread.

Has there been a thread about how to build an LOx/Al engine? Powdered Al pseudo-liquid engine, or hybrid-solid motor? (I've read about a liquid engine using a monoprop of powdered Al suspended in gelled LOx, which seems particularly explodey.)

and no wasting of precious lunar water.

Aren't the estimates of polar ice on the order of several thousand years worth of daily SLS launches?
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/10/2017 05:44 pm
and no wasting of precious lunar water.

Aren't the estimates of polar ice on the order of several thousand years worth of daily SLS launches?

It's not just the availability of water that is a concern, but the amount of energy that would be required to free it.

And until the U.S. Government states that it is their goal to mine and process material on our Moon, I think we should stick to exploration or outposts as the likely initial goals (or defeating ISIL, whatever...).

Keep in mind that NASA is still struggling to get water reuse perfected on the ISS after many years, so expecting NASA to be able to mine, process, and create water-derived products on the Moon on their first try borders on fantasy.

Let's stick to what is likely.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 10/10/2017 07:21 pm
and no wasting of precious lunar water.
Aren't the estimates of polar ice on the order of several thousand years worth of daily SLS launches?
It's not just the availability of water that is a concern

Blasphemer said "precious".

but the amount of energy that would be required to free it.

From... ice?

2kJ per kg per Kelvin, usually.

[edit: stupid typo]
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/10/2017 08:37 pm
but the amount of energy that would be required to free it.

From... ice?

2kJ per kg per Kelvin, usually.

Meaning where does all that energy come from? Power sources require their own infrastructure, and the cost of getting them there and set up can be high too.

Which I think is not related to the question at hand, since it's very unlikely that the U.S. would decide to go beyond a basic outpost on the Moon as a first goal.
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 10/10/2017 10:36 pm
but the amount of energy that would be required to free it.
From... ice? 2kJ per kg per Kelvin, usually.
Meaning where does all that energy come from?

If the base is outside of the region of permanent shadow, probably the sun. Melting ice is hardly a difficult problem. The rest of fuel production, yeah, energy requirements out the wazzoo. But just melting ice?

Which I think is not related to the question at hand, since it's very unlikely that the U.S. would decide to go beyond a basic outpost on the Moon as a first goal.

If we're talking "likely", NASA/Congress is unlikely to do anything beyond sorties. Flags'n'footprints. Nothing long term, nothing that lasts beyond local sunset. So why discuss anything?

Because you aren't going to have an "outpost", however small, outside of a tiny number of awkward locations at the Sth Pole without a steady night-time power-source like a nuke.  And if you have a nuke, the energy problem is solved wherever you are.

Even at those awkward but well-lit polar sites, you still experience a few days in a row of "night" (not as many, not as often, but some), so without a nuke you'll need buckets of solar and plenty of battery storage. Thankfully, modern solar is cheap/light.

Your big issues will therefore be daytime cooling and the amount of fuel required for transport to support the base.

... Why if only there was a nice pile of cold stuff near those sites which you could dump heat into and it was also stock for producing fuel. Wouldn't that be handy?

[edit: Wouldn't it be even better if that same pile of cold stuff was also of potentially extraordinary scientific importance, and hence the perfect place to locate a science-centric base anyway?]
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/10/2017 11:53 pm
Conversion of 1kg water to LH and LOX takes about 7kwhr.  For polar site with 80% sunlight, it works out to be about 1000kg per year for 1kw array. This doesn't cover energy required to extract water from polar craters, but that should be significantly less and maybe able to use surplus heat from the electrolysis process.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20010039031.pdf                  
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: AncientU on 10/11/2017 03:11 pm
Yeah - the 3x SLS launches per year would be the maximum we could ever expect without a major funding boost; making more launchpads, Crawlers, service towers and other infrastructure available, plus upgrading the VAB would be the only way to get better than 3x launches. But 2x SLS launches per year - the accepted 'norm' for now would be okay if the other launches for cargo, propellants etc were done on Commercial rockets such as the Vulcan, Falcon Heavy and New Glenn. 2x only crewed Orions per year should be maxed out for mission endurance; meaning lunar surface missions of at least 14 Earth days to make the expense worth it.

...better than a cold, hard nothin'...

Not really.  If we are going back to the Moon to do 'sorties' -- let's not go.

The reality is, 2-3 SLS flights per year will break the bank -- assuming that it is even feasible to make 10-ish RS-25Es per year, fab 2-3 Orions, prep 2-3 launch vehicles, etc.  Anyway, that won't happen until 2030s...

Several new paradigms are needed:
1. We go back to the Moon to stay.  24/7, 28-day day and all, year after year.  Serious exploration and prospecting a hundred or a thousand kilometers around is the real work to be done.
2. Lunar Village is constructed and expanded by surface equipment and physical labor of the people on the Moon; it's not just a few sardine cans plunked down... where NASA astros hang out for 14 days between rover jaunts around the immediate vicinity.
3. Commercial vehicles, landers, habs, etc. make up the bulk of the effort.  NASA role is more a conductor or choreographer, not playing all the instruments or dancing all the dances.
4. Fuel-rich architecture is a fundamental requirement... as is reusability.  Limitations of one-shot hardware must be overcome.

It is not worth going back to the Moon if we simply 'practice' those activities that will keep us from going further.

This.

Quote
JAXA plans to construct a fuel plant at the lunar south pole & include a human lunar stay of 500days! for a crew of 4 #leag2017 #MoonVillage

https://twitter.com/Capoglou/status/917789236023255040
Title: Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
Post by: Paul451 on 10/11/2017 05:39 pm
This doesn't cover energy required to extract water from polar craters, but that should be significantly less and maybe able to use surplus heat from the electrolysis process.

Logically you'd use the surplus heat from the refrigeration process. If you have an extremely low temp heat-sink available, it would be foolish to not take advantage of that to cool the prop gases as much as possible.

[Aside: I suspect they'd start with LOx, dump the hydrogen. Gives you the maximum mass saving for the landers for the minimum infrastructure cost.]