Author Topic: Project Thoth - A Manned Lunar Return Study  (Read 31965 times)

Offline MattJL

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • Rock scientist, not a rocket scientist.
  • United States
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Project Thoth - A Manned Lunar Return Study
« on: 01/21/2013 04:22 am »
Part 1 of 3: Background and the Workhorse of the Fleet:  Apex.

(I do hope that this is in the right place... didn't feel too Advanced Concept-y to me).

Well, this has taken a bit of courage to write, and I really hope this idea doesn’t seem too outlandish.  I hope that this doesn’t seem too much like an advertisement, as I’m really throwing this out there with the hopes of it getting torn apart mercilessly.  This has been in my head for a while, and I think it needs to get out.

So I’ve been generating this idea for about six months now as a commercial approach to a manned lunar return with the goal of lowering cost and increasing flexibility of the system.  I call it Thoth, after the Egyptian god of the Moon.  The Thoth system consists of a launch vehicle family (Apex) and two spacecraft, the 10-ton Phoenix and the 23-ton Artemis lunar lander, which I will talk about in parts 2 and 3.  But this first installment will focus on the workhorse LV – Apex.

The Apex LV family is based around a common element:  The Common Core Unit, or CCU.  The CCU consists of two stages, the first of which is 6.6 meters in diameter and 25 meters tall.  The first stage, or A-I, is similar in design to the S-IB save for being a monolithic tank and the deletion of the 8 fins around the base.  A cluster of 8 H-1 class (900 kN) engines (again, the same as the S-IB) would be mounted at the base.  The second stage of the CCU, or A-II, would be heavily based off the S-IVB as used on the Saturn V (that is, able to be restarted).  The A-II, however, would have the added ability to cross-feed fuel between stages so as to improve performance and lighten a multiple CCU vehicle.  As it stands, three variants within the Apex family could be constructed, each with a varying number of cores.  The Apex I LV would be a standard 1-CCU LV and be able to loft about 21 tonnes to LEO.  Apex III, consisting of 3 CCUs, would be able to loft about 63 tonnes to LEO and 20 tonnes to the Moon.  Apex V, the granddaddy of them all, consisting of 4 CCUs around a core of 1 CCU, would be able to loft 105 tonnes to LEO and 33 tonnes to the Moon.  So here we have a series of launch vehicles that are flexible and capable of serving commercial launch markets without the cost of maintaining multiple different production lines.

To explain how the Apex V would work, I have a quote from another topic I created (“HLV made from multiple common two-stage cores).  Note that I’m using the designations S-IB and S-IVB instead of A-I and A-II:

“I've finally got enough time to explain my logic, mainly that the Apex vehicle (as I've decided to call this thing) would have enough propellant to get a payload to the Moon based off the Saturn V's burn time values.

So the first stage of the vehicle (5 CCUs) has the same burn time (150 s) as the S-IC.  The five CCUs provide slightly more thrust than the S-IC (36 kN, compared to the 33.85 kN of the S-IC), so the first stage is more than capable of matching the S-IC's performance.

The second flight phase of the Apex LV would see all 5 J-2 engines on the upper CCU stages burning all at once for 367 seconds, with the outer 4 stages feeding the center engine.  The S-IVB type stages have just enough hydrolox to feed the center engine (assuming 1/4 of the propellant from the outer stages is diverted into the center stage, which leaves each outer stage with 383 s of propellant, and the inner stage with the required 367 seconds of propellant).  This leaves about 16 seconds of residual propellant in the outboard S-IVBs which probably will not be used, but fueled anyway.  Propellant could be spread out between all 5 engines, extending their burn time for heavier payloads.

At separation of the outer upper CCU stages, the center S-IVB completes the burn to orbit (depleting about 86 s worth of propellant) and then TLI (which burns to depletion).

Since these are the Apollo spacecraft numbers (same amount of thrust and similar mdot in all stages), but with a slightly better performance lower stage, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that Apex could loft 45 t to the Moon.”

I believe my original conclusions (as quoted) about the payload of Apex V are a tiny bit optimistic, to say the least.

The image below shows the Apex V as would look at launch.

Offline MattJL

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • Rock scientist, not a rocket scientist.
  • United States
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Project Thoth - A Manned Lunar Return Study
« Reply #1 on: 01/21/2013 04:24 am »
Part 2 of 3:  The Phoenix CSM

The Phoenix CSM is designed to be a small spacecraft with a delta-v of 1.1 km/s, enough to leave lunar orbit or de-orbit from LEO.  LOI with the Artemis LM will be covered in Part 3.

Phoenix is not be a large spacecraft.  The command module is only slightly smaller than the Apollo command module (6.6 cubic meters as opposed to 6.7) and the entire vehicle, when fueled, would have a mass of only 10 tonnes.  The SM is based off of the 7K-LOK, save for the addition of dual 1 kW solar arrays, both of which are able to be rotated 180 degrees in either direction.  This allows the spacecraft (with 1 “flipped” solar panel) to preform a barbecue roll.

Mass breakdown:
Dry mass: 6 tonnes
Wet mass: 10 tonnes
Crew capacity: 3 (commander, lunar module pilot, command module pilot)
Duration: 14 days

The image below shows Phoenix (above) docked to Artemis as it would look on – orbit, minus the 1 kW solar arrays.

Offline MattJL

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • Rock scientist, not a rocket scientist.
  • United States
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Project Thoth - A Manned Lunar Return Study
« Reply #2 on: 01/21/2013 04:24 am »
Part 3 of 3:  The Artemis Lunar Module

The Artemis Lunar Module is markedly similar to the Grumman Lunar Module as used during Apollo, except for an increased fuel capacity in the descent stage to bring the total wet mass up to 23 tonnes.  The 18 – ton decent stage would function as the LOI and landing stage in a similar fashion to the Soviet lunar spacecraft.  The spacecraft would be extracted from the core A-II stage after TLI by Phoenix. 

As the LM by itself would not have the ability to deliver a LRV to the surface (or any large experiments package), the Artemis descent stage would be used as a “truck” to land up to 5 tonnes of payload on the lunar surface.  This would offer greater scientific capability than any of the Apollo missions and pave the way for a manned lunar base.

Mass breakdown:
Dry mass: 6 tonnes (?)
Wet mass: 23 tonnes
Crew capacity: 2 (commander, lunar module pilot), 3 if required
Duration:  3 days without Extended Duration Consumable (EDC) module (delivered by “truck”), 10 days with EDC

So that’s it for Thoth.  Please tear this apart mercilessly, as I’m certain that there’s a lot of holes in this idea.

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Project Thoth - A Manned Lunar Return Study
« Reply #3 on: 01/21/2013 06:10 pm »
...So I’ve been generating this idea for about six months now as a commercial approach to a manned lunar return with the goal of lowering cost and increasing flexibility of the system.
...

1)  So your approach to lowering cost is to develop a whole new launch vehicle in 3 versions?  Using engines that aren't in production anymore? Or developing new equivalents of those engines? I suggest that is a very expensive way to go.  If you had a workable design for a new RLV that would be inexpensive to run in the long run, that might justify LV development.
 
2) Have you considered that your 3 & 5 CCU versions have to separate their A-I stages from their A-II stages, at the same time? Hairy!
 
3) One of the big advantages of Delta IV Heavy and Falcon Heavy, is that they can throttle the centre core , and in the latter case eventually cross feed, to extend the burn time of the centre core. You can't do that with 3 upper stages. 
 
4)  It would make far more sense to have extended tank, (and perhaps extra engine), versions of a single central upper stage. In which case why not just use DIVH or FH?
 
 
It seems to me you're trying to re-invent Apollo without having to build the whole Saturn V, instead using multiple Saturn I.
 
Why? It's 2013 not 1963. 50 years later we don't have do it the way they did. We can take advantage of the vast advances in materials, computing, engines, etc, and the existing LV market, to produce a modern architecture.  See Golden Spike for instance.  I wouldn't chose their exact architecture, but it's workable.
« Last Edit: 01/21/2013 06:12 pm by kkattula »

Offline MattJL

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • Rock scientist, not a rocket scientist.
  • United States
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Project Thoth - A Manned Lunar Return Study
« Reply #4 on: 01/21/2013 07:10 pm »

1)  So your approach to lowering cost is to develop a whole new launch vehicle in 3 versions?  Using engines that aren't in production anymore? Or developing new equivalents of those engines? I suggest that is a very expensive way to go.  If you had a workable design for a new RLV that would be inexpensive to run in the long run, that might justify LV development.


I imagined a modular LV.  Cores could be added as desired for a mission (well, one with a payload of 60 or 100 t).  On developing new engines, you make a good point that I really didn't think of.  Also, wasn't the S-I stage designed to be recoverable?  I remember reading something about that a while ago.

Quote

2) Have you considered that your 3 & 5 CCU versions have to separate their A-I stages from their A-II stages, at the same time? Hairy!


Yes.  Couldn't they separate as a unit, though?  It was my limited understanding that DIVH dropped all of its CBCs at the same time.

(Methinks I've been playing too much Kerbal Space Program. :P)

Quote

3) One of the big advantages of Delta IV Heavy and Falcon Heavy, is that they can throttle the centre core , and in the latter case eventually cross feed, to extend the burn time of the centre core. You can't do that with 3 upper stages. 


It wasn't my intention to do so... mainly because the thought of that didn't even cross my mind.

Quote

4)  It would make far more sense to have extended tank, (and perhaps extra engine), versions of a single central upper stage. In which case why not just use DIVH or FH?


The planned payload is way too heavy for DIVH or FH, with the exception of Phoenix.  It could probably get to the Moon on a free-return trajectory (no room for a LOI stage) on either vehicle (most likely FH), though.  Artemis is way, way too heavy to get much of anywhere, unless one used a 33 - odd ton upper stage to fling it to the Moon (it has enough delta v for LOI by itself), but that's probably too massive for the FH (53 t to LEO, this thing would weigh 58 t).  Although, I suppose, that would be workable.  It'd cost $116,844 to do that if SpaceX's predictions (1k per pound) are accurate.

Quote

It seems to me you're trying to re-invent Apollo without having to build the whole Saturn V, instead using multiple Saturn I.

Why? It's 2013 not 1963. 50 years later we don't have do it the way they did. We can take advantage of the vast advances in materials, computing, engines, etc, and the existing LV market, to produce a modern architecture.  See Golden Spike for instance.  I wouldn't chose their exact architecture, but it's workable.


Well, in a sense, I am re-inventing Apollo, except this idea has far stronger roots in the Soviet lunar program (masses of the vehicles, using the LM for LOI,  design of the CSM).  I also started generating this idea a good while ago (a while before Golden Spike, actually) and to be honest, I designed the payload before the LV, so it doesn't quite fit with any other LVs (except, again, the possibility of using FH).

(I will confess that I'm a just sucker for the Saturn family of rockets, especially Saturn IB, and I feel that they were incredibly capable rockets.  I'd be nice to see them live up to their full potential)

My conclusion is that this idea has more holes than a colander made out of Swiss cheese, but that's what I get for putting only six months (on and off) worth of effort into it.

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Project Thoth - A Manned Lunar Return Study
« Reply #5 on: 01/22/2013 04:30 am »
I like the approach, which appears to take an existing configuration that has been successfully demonstrated and make changes.  This is what the engineering process really is about.  The typical terminology is that you are making an engineering change request (ECR).  You send the ECR to a technical review board (TRB) for approval. 

I've heard it said that government programs are never really cancelled, they temporarily fade and return with better marketing and changes (and lots of ECRs).  I really believe that since there are scientists still looking at moon samples returned from Apollo, the program continues in the background today.

The ECR process is routinely performed to reduce cost, deliver new product improvements, improve production rate, and to manage obsolescence.

Being that companies invest in their products so heavily, they tend to think of their products as intellectual property. 

I think one of the major aerospace companies likely still owns something in terms of the intellectual property for the Apollo program.  You could check with your legal team, but if you wanted to sell your own version of a 1969 Ford - I'd wonder what the consequences really would be?

The ten+ other issues:
1) United States space policy currently prevents humans from leaving low Earth orbit.
2) United Nations policies would prevent astronauts from a singular country to land on the Moon.
3) Ten minute seismic events (lunar quakes)-much of the Apollo lander structure is too thin. (can't tell, but if you were going to land with that chunk of hardware on to, the risk to the lunar crew just spiked).
4) It cost an equivalent of $200 billion to develop the lunar program in today's dollars (out of reach even for most billionaires.)
5). NASA has never had more than one manned mission with a transportation vehicle at a time.  (Imagine if an commercial airline could only fly one plane at a time).
6). There are no resources up there such as water/air.
7). Logistics to return to Earth requires hiring a naval fleet.
8). Moon rocks are easier to look at in museums.
9). Scientific conclusions about the moon have all been determined, all new findings will be redundant with Apollo. There are thousands of pages of scientific results on the NASA websites.
10). The moon could explode at any moment.
11). Real designs need to be made on real drawing boards with real pencils.

I say, dream big for new exploration (except Mars).
« Last Edit: 01/22/2013 04:34 am by RigelFive »

Offline Oberon_Command

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Project Thoth - A Manned Lunar Return Study
« Reply #6 on: 01/22/2013 04:41 am »
1) United States space policy currently prevents humans from leaving low Earth orbit.
2) United Nations policies would prevent astronauts from a singular country to land on the Moon.

Wait, what? How do said policies do that?

Quote
5). NASA has never had more than one manned mission with a transportation vehicle at a time.  (Imagine if an commercial airline could only fly one plane at a time).

You're not counting Gemini 6A/7, I'm guessing?

Quote
6). There are no resources up there such as water/air.

Weren't water ice deposits recently discovered at the poles?

edit: ARRRR, I's been had!
« Last Edit: 01/22/2013 05:53 am by Oberon_Command »

Offline MattJL

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • Rock scientist, not a rocket scientist.
  • United States
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Project Thoth - A Manned Lunar Return Study
« Reply #7 on: 01/22/2013 05:18 am »

9. Scientific conclusions about the moon have all been determined, all new findings will be redundant with Apollo. There are thousands of pages of scientific results on the NASA websites.


Here in particular I respectfully disagree.  By no means have we determined every single scientific conclusion about the Moon.  Apollo samples to this day continue to reveal new things about the origins of our closest neighbor.  And we've only got 820 odd kilograms of the stuff.  Imagine what could be garnered from more samples from more diverse locations.  Heck, we've never even touched the far side of the Moon!

Apollo was terminated, IMO, when things started getting really science-y.  The big thing was the Lunar Roving Vehicle, which enabled moonwalkers to go a great distance over the surface in less time (there's a really great telephoto shot of a LM taken by one of the astronauts from about a mile away.  It's in "Voices From the Moon.").  I know that the example of the orange soil from Apollo 17 has been used time and again and might seem worn, but that's a prime example of something that was completely un-expected.  Nobody saw that coming!

How many more orange soil moments are there waiting to happen?  What discoveries lie out there that will probably change our understanding of both our planet and our solar system, hidden under the cold black sky, waiting to be found by man?

And all that's just hanging over our heads every night, quietly mocking and yet beckoning us.

EDIT: Curse you, Poe's Law!  Also, I don't read things thoroughly, unless they have numbers in front of them. :P
« Last Edit: 01/22/2013 06:10 am by MattJL »

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2308
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1950
  • Likes Given: 1139
Re: Project Thoth - A Manned Lunar Return Study
« Reply #8 on: 01/22/2013 05:38 am »

The ten+ other issues:
1) United States space policy currently prevents humans from leaving low Earth orbit.
2) United Nations policies would prevent astronauts from a singular country to land on the Moon.
3) Ten minute seismic events (lunar quakes)-much of the Apollo lander structure is too thin. (can't tell, but if you were going to land with that chunk of hardware on to, the risk to the lunar crew just spiked).
4) It cost an equivalent of $200 billion to develop the lunar program in today's dollars (out of reach even for most billionaires.)
5). NASA has never had more than one manned mission with a transportation vehicle at a time.  (Imagine if an commercial airline could only fly one plane at a time).
6). There are no resources up there such as water/air.
7). Logistics to return to Earth requires hiring a naval fleet.
8). Moon rocks are easier to look at in museums.
9). Scientific conclusions about the moon have all been determined, all new findings will be redundant with Apollo. There are thousands of pages of scientific results on the NASA websites.
10). The moon could explode at any moment.
11). Real designs need to be made on real drawing boards with real pencils.

Heh. Good satirical list. You *almost* had me going until #10.
# 11 is more important.  Does anyone even make pencils anymore?  That is probably why we can't get back to the Moon anymore anyways.  There are not enough pencils.

Offline MattJL

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • Rock scientist, not a rocket scientist.
  • United States
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Project Thoth - A Manned Lunar Return Study
« Reply #9 on: 01/22/2013 05:46 am »

The ten+ other issues:
1) United States space policy currently prevents humans from leaving low Earth orbit.
2) United Nations policies would prevent astronauts from a singular country to land on the Moon.
3) Ten minute seismic events (lunar quakes)-much of the Apollo lander structure is too thin. (can't tell, but if you were going to land with that chunk of hardware on to, the risk to the lunar crew just spiked).
4) It cost an equivalent of $200 billion to develop the lunar program in today's dollars (out of reach even for most billionaires.)
5). NASA has never had more than one manned mission with a transportation vehicle at a time.  (Imagine if an commercial airline could only fly one plane at a time).
6). There are no resources up there such as water/air.
7). Logistics to return to Earth requires hiring a naval fleet.
8). Moon rocks are easier to look at in museums.
9). Scientific conclusions about the moon have all been determined, all new findings will be redundant with Apollo. There are thousands of pages of scientific results on the NASA websites.
10). The moon could explode at any moment.
11). Real designs need to be made on real drawing boards with real pencils.

Heh. Good satirical list. You *almost* had me going until #10.
# 11 is more important.  Does anyone even make pencils anymore?  That is probably why we can't get back to the Moon anymore anyways.  There are not enough pencils.

Should we not consider the relative lack of slide rules as well?  There's a lack of people who know how to use them, too.  :P
« Last Edit: 01/22/2013 05:56 am by MattJL »

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8807
Re: Project Thoth - A Manned Lunar Return Study
« Reply #10 on: 01/22/2013 05:50 am »

The ten+ other issues:
1) United States space policy currently prevents humans from leaving low Earth orbit.
2) United Nations policies would prevent astronauts from a singular country to land on the Moon.
3) Ten minute seismic events (lunar quakes)-much of the Apollo lander structure is too thin. (can't tell, but if you were going to land with that chunk of hardware on to, the risk to the lunar crew just spiked).
4) It cost an equivalent of $200 billion to develop the lunar program in today's dollars (out of reach even for most billionaires.)
5). NASA has never had more than one manned mission with a transportation vehicle at a time.  (Imagine if an commercial airline could only fly one plane at a time).
6). There are no resources up there such as water/air.
7). Logistics to return to Earth requires hiring a naval fleet.
8). Moon rocks are easier to look at in museums.
9). Scientific conclusions about the moon have all been determined, all new findings will be redundant with Apollo. There are thousands of pages of scientific results on the NASA websites.
10). The moon could explode at any moment.
11). Real designs need to be made on real drawing boards with real pencils.

Heh. Good satirical list. You *almost* had me going until #10.
# 11 is more important.  Does anyone even make pencils anymore?  That is probably why we can't get back to the Moon anymore anyways.  There are not enough pencils.

... or so we've been lead to believe ... ;)

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2308
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1950
  • Likes Given: 1139
Re: Project Thoth - A Manned Lunar Return Study
« Reply #11 on: 01/22/2013 05:54 am »

The ten+ other issues:
1) United States space policy currently prevents humans from leaving low Earth orbit.
2) United Nations policies would prevent astronauts from a singular country to land on the Moon.
3) Ten minute seismic events (lunar quakes)-much of the Apollo lander structure is too thin. (can't tell, but if you were going to land with that chunk of hardware on to, the risk to the lunar crew just spiked).
4) It cost an equivalent of $200 billion to develop the lunar program in today's dollars (out of reach even for most billionaires.)
5). NASA has never had more than one manned mission with a transportation vehicle at a time.  (Imagine if an commercial airline could only fly one plane at a time).
6). There are no resources up there such as water/air.
7). Logistics to return to Earth requires hiring a naval fleet.
8). Moon rocks are easier to look at in museums.
9). Scientific conclusions about the moon have all been determined, all new findings will be redundant with Apollo. There are thousands of pages of scientific results on the NASA websites.
10). The moon could explode at any moment.
11). Real designs need to be made on real drawing boards with real pencils.

Heh. Good satirical list. You *almost* had me going until #10.
# 11 is more important.  Does anyone even make pencils anymore?  That is probably why we can't get back to the Moon anymore anyways.  There are not enough pencils.

Should we not consider the relative lack of slide rules as well?  There's a lack of people who know how to use them, too.
We need to train people how to whittle them out of good pieces of hickory.  Young people would be amazed at this piece of high tech machinery.  Of course we would have to teach everybody younger than 45 what they are.  We also need pocket protectors on large quantities.  Who can we get to restart pocket protector production?

Offline MattJL

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • Rock scientist, not a rocket scientist.
  • United States
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Project Thoth - A Manned Lunar Return Study
« Reply #12 on: 01/22/2013 06:01 am »

The ten+ other issues:
1) United States space policy currently prevents humans from leaving low Earth orbit.
2) United Nations policies would prevent astronauts from a singular country to land on the Moon.
3) Ten minute seismic events (lunar quakes)-much of the Apollo lander structure is too thin. (can't tell, but if you were going to land with that chunk of hardware on to, the risk to the lunar crew just spiked).
4) It cost an equivalent of $200 billion to develop the lunar program in today's dollars (out of reach even for most billionaires.)
5). NASA has never had more than one manned mission with a transportation vehicle at a time.  (Imagine if an commercial airline could only fly one plane at a time).
6). There are no resources up there such as water/air.
7). Logistics to return to Earth requires hiring a naval fleet.
8). Moon rocks are easier to look at in museums.
9). Scientific conclusions about the moon have all been determined, all new findings will be redundant with Apollo. There are thousands of pages of scientific results on the NASA websites.
10). The moon could explode at any moment.
11). Real designs need to be made on real drawing boards with real pencils.

Heh. Good satirical list. You *almost* had me going until #10.
# 11 is more important.  Does anyone even make pencils anymore?  That is probably why we can't get back to the Moon anymore anyways.  There are not enough pencils.

Should we not consider the relative lack of slide rules as well?  There's a lack of people who know how to use them, too.
We need to train people how to whittle them out of good pieces of hickory.  Young people would be amazed at this piece of high tech machinery.  Of course we would have to teach everybody younger than 45 what they are.  We also need pocket protectors on large quantities.  Who can we get to restart pocket protector production?
We're gonna need a lotta sub-contractors for this one.

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2308
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1950
  • Likes Given: 1139
Re: Project Thoth - A Manned Lunar Return Study
« Reply #13 on: 01/22/2013 06:05 am »
We need to train people how to whittle them out of good pieces of hickory.  Young people would be amazed at this piece of high tech machinery.  Of course we would have to teach everybody younger than 45 what they are.  We also need pocket protectors on large quantities.  Who can we get to restart pocket protector production?
We're gonna need a lotta sub-contractors for this one.
Typical cost plus?  Or would a COTS approach work?

Offline MattJL

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • Rock scientist, not a rocket scientist.
  • United States
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Project Thoth - A Manned Lunar Return Study
« Reply #14 on: 01/22/2013 06:12 am »
We need to train people how to whittle them out of good pieces of hickory.  Young people would be amazed at this piece of high tech machinery.  Of course we would have to teach everybody younger than 45 what they are.  We also need pocket protectors on large quantities.  Who can we get to restart pocket protector production?
We're gonna need a lotta sub-contractors for this one.
Typical cost plus?  Or would a COTS approach work?
Depends on the stockpiles we've got.  Fortunately, there should be enough in private collections to use as a basis for a new production run.  It'll take time to study the existing samples.
« Last Edit: 01/22/2013 06:14 am by MattJL »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10972
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Project Thoth - A Manned Lunar Return Study
« Reply #15 on: 01/22/2013 02:14 pm »
1) United States space policy currently prevents humans from leaving low Earth orbit.

Wait, what? How do said policies do that?

Easy.  By cancelling Apollo, and not building on its demonstrated success.  Not only that policy, but also the policy which retired shuttle without a replacement.  The new policy prevents humans from getting to LEO on government vehicles.  This policy is scheduled to be in place until, what, 2022?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10972
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Project Thoth - A Manned Lunar Return Study
« Reply #16 on: 01/22/2013 02:18 pm »

9. Scientific conclusions about the moon have all been determined, all new findings will be redundant with Apollo.

You cannot prove that assertion.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10972
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Project Thoth - A Manned Lunar Return Study
« Reply #17 on: 01/22/2013 02:18 pm »
Pocket protector production could be readily funded by kickstater.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline MattJL

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • Rock scientist, not a rocket scientist.
  • United States
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Project Thoth - A Manned Lunar Return Study
« Reply #18 on: 01/22/2013 07:04 pm »
Pocket protector production could be readily funded by kickstater.
Yes!

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Project Thoth - A Manned Lunar Return Study
« Reply #19 on: 01/23/2013 07:45 am »


10). The moon could explode at any moment.
11). Real designs need to be made on real drawing boards with real pencils.

Heh. Good satirical list. You *almost* had me going until #10.
#10 is true.  This administration said that they would not condone the destruction of planets.  But they didn't say anything about destroying moons.

...Long nigh to four weeks ago, NASA conducted a viscous attack upon the Earth's Moon using two probes which they named Ebb and Flow.  NASA attempted to 'double tap' our Lunar satellite to initiate a chain reaction in the core and cause it to explode...

If you rearrange the letters from the words Grail Ebb Flow, you can easily determine what is clearly going on up there.  You can spell the words BFG Rail Below.

Tags:
 

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