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.
..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. ...
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.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 09/21/2017 01:08 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.
{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.
QuoteIf you aren't building a lunar DEXTRE as the first thing, you are doing it wrong.Too far away.
If you aren't building a lunar DEXTRE as the first thing, you are doing it wrong.
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.
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.
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...