Author Topic: ESA leading us back to the Moon  (Read 102545 times)

Re: ESA leading us back to the Moon
« Reply #140 on: 09/21/2017 05:31 am »
Here is link to Hercules robotic mission podcast from last year.

http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Landgraf_5-25-16/

This robotic mission makes lot more sense now as it tests a lot of human mission systems. Descent and ascent engines along with RTG and landing systems. They also get robotic lander to support human surface mission. A RTG power rover with life of 2yrs would allow for a lot exploration. Unlike Curiosity, lunar rover could be driven with next to no latency from DSG and only few seconds from earth, using DSG as comms relay.

Assuming DSG is there... you can never be sure of space mission funding these days :-(

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: ESA leading us back to the Moon
« Reply #141 on: 09/21/2017 05:41 am »
..I think it is good plan, with large chunk be reusable. Bang for bucks it is very good considering each mission results in 168 man days on surface. ...

I think completely the opposite. IMO anything serious should start with much more substantial robotic/telerobotic presence on the surface, building up to a human landing. If you aren't building a lunar DEXTRE as the first thing, you are doing it wrong.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: ESA leading us back to the Moon
« Reply #142 on: 09/21/2017 07:16 am »
For the future context, savuporo; I largely agree.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ESA leading us back to the Moon
« Reply #143 on: 09/21/2017 08:15 am »
I'm all for ISRU and robotic base but we could be waiting a while for this happen and who is going to pay for it. If they wait for ISRU it may never happen. Better to plan mission with what is at hand and hope future commercial developments help reduce mission cost.

The likes of Blue NG, Space FH or ITS and ULA distributed launch could all help bring mission costs down. When it comes to crewed lander and rover I don't see any commercial company planning to build these without government funding and technology input.


« Last Edit: 09/21/2017 08:20 am by TrevorMonty »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: ESA leading us back to the Moon
« Reply #144 on: 09/21/2017 01:25 pm »
ESA, NASA, JAXA and Canda have been quietly working on lunar surface exploration architecture and here it is. Not funded, but without a detailed plan and cost estimate they can't ask governments for funding.

http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Whitley-Landgraf_9-20-17/

Here is brief summary.
2 x 2 man rovers on single lander (crew descent stage?). Nuclear and solar powered, designed for 42day missions. Left on surface with life of 5+ missions over few years.
1 x 4man lander. 2 stage, expendable methane descent stage, reusable ascent stage which uses storeable fuel. Typical flight 0.5days but can support crew for 3-4.

In emergency a rover can support 4 till they get back to lander.

Initial mission is 3 x SLS, 1x rovers, 1x crew lander 1 x Orion and crew.
Follow on missions are 1.5 SLS not very well explained but new descent stage, fuel for ascent stage plus surplus.

Allow for commercial partners especially cargo and fuel to DSG plus cargo landers.

Canada + ESA for rover development. ESA ascent stage, JAXA descent stage. NASA would most likely provide some help but lion share of development costs will be on 3 international partners.

I think it is good plan, with large chunk be reusable. Bang for bucks it is very good considering each mission results in 168 man days on surface. Still comes down to funding ($20B) which ESA may struggle with given their large input.

The brilliance behind this approach is that it build payloads for SLS
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ESA leading us back to the Moon
« Reply #145 on: 09/22/2017 07:08 pm »
Not sure if this is for european companies or all XPrize teams/companies. While not specfic to XPrize teams, they are only commercial companies that have landers and rovers.

Even if lander is from US company bulk of mission costs would be spent in european as payload will be ESA and LV is likely to be Vega or rideshare on Ariane 5 or 6.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/09/22/esa-buy-ride-moon-commercial-spacecraft/


"Rather than develop a complete lander mission from scratch – a long and costly process – ESA wants to buy a ride on a commercial lander to deliver our precious research equipment safely to the surface. Once there, we are ready to pay the ‘roaming charges’ to talk to our hardware."

Offline gosnold

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
  • Liked: 243
  • Likes Given: 2116
Re: ESA leading us back to the Moon
« Reply #146 on: 09/22/2017 07:32 pm »
..I think it is good plan, with large chunk be reusable. Bang for bucks it is very good considering each mission results in 168 man days on surface. ...

I think completely the opposite. IMO anything serious should start with much more substantial robotic/telerobotic presence on the surface, building up to a human landing. If you aren't building a lunar DEXTRE as the first thing, you are doing it wrong.

I think the main question is why do you want to go to the moon? Science, resource exploitation, flags and footprints ... ?

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ESA leading us back to the Moon
« Reply #147 on: 09/22/2017 08:24 pm »

One of side benefits of 42day lunar stay is study long term effects of low gravity on human body. I don't think this was driving factor in 42day design more case of trying to maximus exploration time on surface.
« Last Edit: 09/22/2017 08:34 pm by TrevorMonty »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: ESA leading us back to the Moon
« Reply #148 on: 09/22/2017 10:01 pm »
{snip}
Why? Because HSF is extremely costly, and only worth it if doing something robots can't.

If you keep to things with this discipline, then you get the best split of human/robotic/technology from economics/business perspective.

Space has been ultimately "gamed to death". We've tweaked it to the point where we don't think rationally about anything but the narrowest of mission footprint. Because of resource starvation. This screws up economics due to overreach.

Root benefit of this approach instead of heritage - you get less wasted intermediate resources/hab need at way stations to get to exploration site. (Enroute vehicles and exploration site/vehicles still have same resource/hab needs.)

Bottom line - you need to have little/none hab on DSG's/other way stations, because it is a complete waste to exploration - they are only places to allow accumulation of automated vehicles/logistics awaiting phasing/window of next mission step. And if you do need more for some kind of on orbit mission, then you build it as a separate automated mission to purpose there, just like other missions.

Don't overbuild DSG. It works against you.

The DSG then becomes a motel and gas station in space. Small town gas stations also service cars.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: ESA leading us back to the Moon
« Reply #149 on: 09/23/2017 02:15 am »
Quote
If you aren't building a lunar DEXTRE as the first thing, you are doing it wrong.
Too far away.


What are you referring to here ? Dextre works decently on ISS, with almost a decade of learning and future improvement plans into the architecture available now. Even without hardware upgrades, it has slowly gained more capabilities over time. There have been other telerobotic orbital demos, and of course Lunokhods.

What does 'too far away' mean ?

EDIT: And obviously, lunar derivative of Dextre would be built slightly differently, not a 1-1 copy, that part should be obvious.
« Last Edit: 09/23/2017 02:16 am by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: ESA leading us back to the Moon
« Reply #150 on: 09/23/2017 04:56 am »
OK, this makes more sense, i thought you were talking about physical distance.

I obviously don't agree with 'too far'. I think this entire thing needs to be approached from building up robotic capabilities first point of view, otherwise it's never going to be sustainable. And by capabilities i don't mean sending scientific instruments or 'exploration', i mean things like construction, assembly, site preparation, deployment of equipment, laying cable, even on-site fabrication, and yes, eventually also cooking raw materials like oxygen out of the soil.

It is entirely possible to approach entire core base design so that it can be set up fully using remote operations only.

IMO humans should follow only after a core facility is there, that includes robust power architecture, consumables resupply and recycling is validated, regular radiation protection and emergency flare shelters exist, etc.  I.e. in ISS terms far closer to the 'core complete' than Unity and Zarya docking.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2537
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: ESA leading us back to the Moon
« Reply #151 on: 09/23/2017 06:27 am »
I do find that presentation encouraging.  It's not a perfect scheme, but it does adapt to the limitations both Orion and DSG have.  The biggest bonuses I note of it are a reusable upper stage lander, LOX/CH4 fueled landings, and 2 crew rovers for mobility and long-term stays.  I would still pick a Mars-centric route for NASA but if ESA, JAXA, ect can deliver elements like these (even without the ISRO) I'd happily endorse NASA in a lunar supporting role which would be the strengths of the DSG and Orion.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ESA leading us back to the Moon
« Reply #152 on: 09/23/2017 09:45 am »
This architecture is lower cost than base and better for exploration. With base you are limited to area around it, while this concept can explore totally different regions every mission. A year between missions gives rovers plenty of time to drive between locations and rendevous with crew lander. In process the unmanned rovers explore new areas with option of picking up lots of samples for crew to examine.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: ESA leading us back to the Moon
« Reply #153 on: 09/23/2017 10:51 am »
I like the above Design Reference Mission Architecture! Not as good as a fully-fledged Lunar Outpost; but much cheaper than an Outpost and certainly much better than week-long sortie missions that used to be the Constellation Design Reference Mission. A lot of ground and technology development could be broken with this architecture which is an excellent compromise between long duration and Apollo-style grab-and-run missions. I also like the forward-thinking towards ISRU and operational maturity of LOX/CH4 propulsion systems - and their obvious pay-it-forward application for Mars missions.

I also note with a wry smile that some of the ideas in this DRM are eerily similar to ideas I've seen come up for discussion on the pages of this fine website over the last couple of years - ideas that several of you fine folk will recognize... ;)

The Landers and Ascent Vehicles are not necessarily suitable for use on Mars - I realize that some of the vehicles depicted are just notional avatars. But in another class of 'we said it here first' - I once said that if the Landers and Ascent Vehicle chassis' could be over-designed to withstand greater than Lunar G and the thrust/acceleration forces, and that the propulsion systems could be fielded in two classes for Lunar first and then Mars later. 'Scar' these designs so that aeroshell and parachute systems could be added later for Mars.

Or; if Mars is simply off the table for the forseeable future - restrict the designs for Lunar operational conditions only. And if Mars should appear on the political and fiscal radar at some point, 'Mark II' landers and ascent vehicles could be boostrapped onwards from the basic designs.

One thing I noticed from the 42 day surface mission design is the reliance on robotics to do sample work during the bitterly cold Lunar night. Reliance on robotics and rovers during a manned mission is going to be de rigueur during Martian missions, I believe. So it's only natural that it might be even more so during Moon missions, with the environment there being even harsher than Mars in several ways. Operational experience in these fields has to grow I think, no question.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Home
  • Liked: 921
  • Likes Given: 205
Re: ESA leading us back to the Moon
« Reply #154 on: 09/23/2017 02:05 pm »
I listened to that presentation and it's actually pretty good. It's great that people are working on such architectures. If NASA would switch gears and shift to the moon it could actually get there together with international partners.

One observation on the architecture is that the 42-day mission is going to be the first thing that gets cut down to 14 days. Another problem is that there doesn't even seem to any attempt at investigating ISRU opportunities. I don't necessarily mean relying on it but trying to check if it can be done should be a major goal.

It's not completely known or proven that extracting water from permanently shadowed is possible. But if is then the potential impact is so huge that answering this question should be the top priority of any manned lunar program. This can actually be done with unmanned rovers, piloted either from Earth or DSG.
« Last Edit: 09/23/2017 02:06 pm by DreamyPickle »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: ESA leading us back to the Moon
« Reply #155 on: 09/23/2017 05:24 pm »
The architecture reuses the rovers, this requires them to survive the cold of lunar nights. So the prime difference between a 14 day mission and a 42 day mission is the groceries - food, water and air. If the cold of night destroys the rovers then each mission needs to bring a new set of rovers - very expensive.

A cost comparison between two 42 day reusable rovers that are used for say 5 missions against 5 sets of two 14 day expendable rovers will probably be worthwhile. Include transportation to the Moon costs.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ESA leading us back to the Moon
« Reply #156 on: 09/23/2017 06:15 pm »



It's not completely known or proven that extracting water from permanently shadowed is possible. But if is then the potential impact is so huge that answering this question should be the top priority of any manned lunar program. This can actually be done with unmanned rovers, piloted either from Earth or DSG.

This is HSF exploration, ISRU robotic missions are separate projects.  ESA are talking about using commercial landers for ISRU robotic mission, see post above.
NASA is also becoming more interested in robotic missions using commercial landers.

Its better that ISRU is not in critical path for manned lunar exploration but run in parallel. For manned base ISRU is critical but not for exploration missions.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: ESA leading us back to the Moon
« Reply #157 on: 09/23/2017 07:39 pm »
It's disappointing to me to have a bunch of government agencies come out with yet another reference mission that ignores SpaceX's ITS/BFR plans.  Of course the SpaceX plans might not pan out, but the same is true of the government reference missions.  I would have hopped that they would start taking SpaceX seriously and at least try to work with them instead of making long-term plans that ignore the SpaceX plans.

I guess the government space agencies still feel too threatened by SpaceX.  It's a shame.

Offline Pipcard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: ESA leading us back to the Moon
« Reply #158 on: 09/23/2017 07:52 pm »
It's disappointing to me to have a bunch of government agencies come out with yet another reference mission that ignores SpaceX's ITS/BFR plans.  Of course the SpaceX plans might not pan out, but the same is true of the government reference missions.  I would have hopped that they would start taking SpaceX seriously and at least try to work with them instead of making long-term plans that ignore the SpaceX plans.

I guess the government space agencies still feel too threatened by SpaceX.  It's a shame.
I would like to see them acknowledge the ITS too, but I think it's because the ITS is way beyond the scope of any other proposal to send humans beyond Earth orbit.  They might think it's "low TRL," "too ambitious," "overly optimistic," "too much risk on the critical path," etc.
« Last Edit: 09/23/2017 09:42 pm by Pipcard »

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: ESA leading us back to the Moon
« Reply #159 on: 09/23/2017 08:36 pm »
It's disappointing to me to have a bunch of government agencies come out with yet another reference mission that ignores SpaceX's ITS/BFR plans...
Got two words on this: Red Dragon
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1