Author Topic: Back on the moon with adequate budget.  (Read 3484 times)

Offline carmelo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 385
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Back on the moon with adequate budget.
« on: 02/16/2017 01:41 PM »
I have a curiosity.
With adequate budget (we said the same of Apollo adjusted for inflation) within how many years from today we can back on the moon with a manned landing mission?

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12969
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2832
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Back on the moon with adequate budget.
« Reply #1 on: 02/17/2017 07:44 AM »
The leading item would be the LM, which would probably take six years to get ready. That would put the first landing in 2023 at the earliest.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31279
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9563
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Back on the moon with adequate budget.
« Reply #2 on: 03/09/2017 12:54 PM »
Trump could sell the ISS

That is absurd.  There would be no buyers and it is not feasible.  Also, it can't be unilateral because of the "I" in ISS.
« Last Edit: 03/09/2017 03:12 PM by Jim »

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2123
  • Liked: 378
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: Back on the moon with adequate budget.
« Reply #3 on: 03/09/2017 02:52 PM »
Trump could sell the ISS

That is absurd.  There would be no buyers and it is not feasible.  Also, it can unilateral because the "I" in ISS.

Low energy, Jim. Low energy. So sad.

Offline eric z

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 244
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 315
Re: Back on the moon with adequate budget.
« Reply #4 on: 03/09/2017 03:11 PM »
 I don't want to cause trouble, but why are so many eager to sell/unload/"privatize" government assets all the time? I think the "Gov" has every right to operate stuff like rocket-ships and space stations. I get that we're moving into a new era, hopefully with a lot more emphasis on 3P, but geez... as a taxpayer, don't I get a say,too? :( 
 Maybe the time has come to consider a US joint Navy-Air Force Space Transport Command that could serve as a national back-up to the coming quick private or bust era we are entering. Assured access to space, not just by different rockets, or different companies, but-wait-for-it, the government! Or is that too going to get "privatized"?
 Many are fond of pointing out how little NASA has been in charge of it's own destiny over the years since Apollo. I LIKE the shuttle, and ISS. I want NASA to represent me as we conquer space. If NASA had been funded properly and in a logical sequence over the years, the outposts and bases would have been long-since established and would have served as hubs for expanding "Business" opportunities. But I've given up worrying about it, and wish the new Generation all the best! ;D
« Last Edit: 03/09/2017 03:53 PM by eric z »

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 186
  • Likes Given: 157

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12969
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2832
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Back on the moon with adequate budget.
« Reply #6 on: 03/10/2017 07:49 AM »
That report has some errors. China is developing a new crewed spaceship, but it will go into Lunar orbit only. They are developing a separate Lunar Module very similar to the Apollo LM. China also won't be launching its CZ-9 Moon rocket until 2030, so there is plenty of time for the US to get there first since Apollo. One way to do that is build a low boil-off EUS for SLS Block IB and a new larger LM.
« Last Edit: 03/10/2017 07:52 AM by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline IRobot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1170
  • Portugal & Germany
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 196
Re: Back on the moon with adequate budget.
« Reply #7 on: 03/10/2017 08:31 AM »
I LIKE the shuttle, and ISS. I want NASA to represent me as we conquer space. If NASA had been funded properly and in a logical sequence over the years, the outposts and bases would have been long-since established and would have served as hubs for expanding "Business" opportunities. But I've given up worrying about it, and wish the new Generation all the best! ;D
"Proper" funding would not change the fact that the shuttle was a bad design from the beginning. And there was "proper" funding when the shuttle was initially conceived.
Throwing money at a problem sometimes just makes it worst.

If a better alternative system architecture was chosen over the shuttle, the funding would have been "proper".

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31279
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9563
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Back on the moon with adequate budget.
« Reply #8 on: 03/10/2017 01:23 PM »

"Proper" funding would not change the fact that the shuttle was a bad design from the beginning. And there was "proper" funding when the shuttle was initially conceived.
Throwing money at a problem sometimes just makes it worst.

If a better alternative system architecture was chosen over the shuttle, the funding would have been "proper".

Wrong on all accounts;

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2701
  • Liked: 1243
  • Likes Given: 776
Re: Back on the moon with adequate budget.
« Reply #9 on: 03/10/2017 07:34 PM »
I LIKE the shuttle, and ISS. I want NASA to represent me as we conquer space. If NASA had been funded properly and in a logical sequence over the years, the outposts and bases would have been long-since established and would have served as hubs for expanding "Business" opportunities. But I've given up worrying about it, and wish the new Generation all the best! ;D
"Proper" funding would not change the fact that the shuttle was a bad design from the beginning. And there was "proper" funding when the shuttle was initially conceived.
Throwing money at a problem sometimes just makes it worst.

If a better alternative system architecture was chosen over the shuttle, the funding would have been "proper".

The Shuttle didn't have that much money available for development, compared to what it tried to achieve. Pad abort motors, liquid boosters, and metallic TPS were removed primarily because of lack of development funds.

Offline smfarmer11

  • Member
  • Posts: 72
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Back on the moon with adequate budget.
« Reply #10 on: 04/12/2017 03:58 PM »
Most of the problems came from compromising with the Air Force to get defense funding Larger size, SRBs etc.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31279
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9563
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Back on the moon with adequate budget.
« Reply #11 on: 04/12/2017 04:11 PM »
Most of the problems came from compromising with the Air Force to get defense funding Larger size, SRBs etc.

wrong, urban myth.

Offline Steve G

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 140
  • Edmonton, AB
    • Stephen H Garrity
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Back on the moon with adequate budget.
« Reply #12 on: 04/13/2017 02:20 PM »
No government space agency is going to go to the moon with Apollo-like landings. It will all be part of a permanent moon base. In order for it to be sustainable, we will have to have reusable landers taking on a taxi roll while other landers would be used for habitat, equipment and logistics. (Such as Blue Moon) Since such a large project would likely entail international cooperation, the negotiating will take years before any metal is cut.

That said, my guess is that unless there is a dramatic change of course by the US government for a priority moon program (with international cooperation enhancing rather than required), the private sector may beat any government agency to the surface.

Offline Propylox

  • Member
  • Posts: 81
  • Colorado
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Back on the moon with adequate budget.
« Reply #13 on: 07/22/2017 02:50 AM »
No government space agency is going to go to the moon with Apollo-like landings. It will all be part of a permanent moon base. In order for it to be sustainable, we will have to have reusable landers taking on a taxi roll while other landers would be used for habitat, equipment and logistics. ...
The affordability aspect must go further than just the landers to have a sustainable lunar presence. The SHLV program must be slashed and reorganized significantly while become more capable. Orion's SM must be more capable, less expensive and domestically built.
We need Russia to chip in a LLO habitat (DOS) as well as the LM's propulsion while commercial delivers all the propellant and cargo to LEO. Lastly, we need SEP to shuttle said propellant/cargo to LLO. Affordability and sustainment also dictates the LLO to stage from. It needs to be quite low (no L1 or NRHO junk) and directly over the planned surface base.


A) I'd propose a 251km x 20km (radius of 1988.1km x 1788.1km) at 86 degrees right over Rozhdestvenskiy crater and its moon base. There's plenty of icy craters, rebound peaks, massive flat surfaces to land on, eternal  light or dark if you choose and the best views of crater rims and Earth.

B) The SHLV would initially send Orion/SM to a 315,oookm apogee, depending on distance to the Moon. The SM would separate and perform a combination TLI/inclination change of ~ 213.5m/s ; a capture, circularization and perigee lowering of ~ 646.8m/s into final LLO. Foremost, this coincides with a proposed international agreement not to litter the Moon with spent stages, tanks, etc and plans to remove existing garbage, lest it look like Earth.
Orion's SM would have propellant increased from 9mT to 15mT and a final combined weight of 32mT with 2,000m/s delta-v. Earth return is ~ 592.8m/s, leaving this SM with ~ 546.9m/s margin to accelerate home.

C) The reusable lander would consume 13,320kg of Propylox propellant and tankage to carry a 2,980kg reusable habitat (including crew, consumables, etc). This includes significant performance: 15 degree plane change, a nearly vertical 1km descent/ascent over the LZ to access deep craters, and an auxiliary/emergency hypergolic engine with a big red "Have Mercy!" button. Removal of the habitat enables downmass, delivery, retrieval, etc. The lander, habitat, tanks, etc would be supplied via SEP tug to the LLO station.

D) The SEP tug will take years to develop, but isn't needed until surface operations get going. With a power requirement of around 800 to 1,oookW we should strongly consider HiPEP, scaling up ThrustMe, VASIMR and test if HETs of 30-50kW can be operated in a grid. At these power/isp levels, krypton is superior to xenon. Such a tug should be capable of nearly 30mT of cargo to LLO in a 6mo round-trip using under 8mT of propellant. A FH with reusable boosters, but expendable core should lift it to LEO.

Lastly is the SHLV. That's an entire thread to itself, but includes a revamp within current manufacturing and budgetary constraints. Thoughts?
« Last Edit: 07/22/2017 11:54 PM by Propylox »

Tags: