sandrot - 21/9/2007 10:27 AMMoon dust + docking = BAD
sandrot - 21/9/2007 1:49 PMI fear good ideas. Venturestar was so a good idea after all, coming out of some of the finest engineers on the face of Earth. After all of the lunar proposals will be combed with the risk reduction comb... we will see what will remain intact. For that matter, the feasability comb works pretty well too. Not to mention the funds availability comb!
PurduesUSAFguy - 21/9/2007 8:59 PMI have to say, I hate the Moon base. I don't think that the science return is worth the investment, it doesn't even baseline any ISRU, and most importantly it will keep us from ever getting to Mars. The lunar surface is a bridge to no where and I hope the next administration has the good sense to refocus the vision on Mars.
wannamoonbase - 21/9/2007 9:41 PMQuotePurduesUSAFguy - 21/9/2007 8:59 PMI have to say, I hate the Moon base. I don't think that the science return is worth the investment, it doesn't even baseline any ISRU, and most importantly it will keep us from ever getting to Mars. The lunar surface is a bridge to no where and I hope the next administration has the good sense to refocus the vision on Mars.I couldn't disagree more. The fact that ISRU isn't base-lined for lunar operations is further proof that we aren't even close to ready for a reasonable Mars mission. ISRU is essential to both Lunar and Mars operations if you want to stay more than a few weeks or months.Its not base-lined right now because its unproven and its going to cost billions to get it functioning and reliable that you bet the life of your Astro's on it. If your ISRU plant craps out on the Moon your home in 3 days. If it craps out on Mars you write the Obits.The ISS is a bridge to no where. Lunar exploration is a bridge to somewhere, the Moon and later Mars. Its not just as easy as making the decision to go, its going to be the hardest thing humans have ever done.Edit: Also these Rovers could have near direct copies rolling on Mars too and at very least show what works and what is needed for roving surface operations which will be very cool on mars. This is a very worth while capability to develop.
PurduesUSAFguy - 21/9/2007 7:59 PMI have to say, I hate the Moon base. I don't think that the science return is worth the invstment, it doesn't even baseline any ISRU, and most importantly it will keep us from ever getting to Mars. The lunar surface is a bridge to no where and I hope the next administration has the good sense to refocus the vision on Mars.
PurduesUSAFguy - 22/9/2007 1:59 AMI don't think that the science return is worth the invstment....
.... it doesn't even baseline any ISRU....
tnphysics - 21/9/2007 9:57 PMYou could set up a Mars mission such that the ISRU plant was launched first and had produced enough supplies for the entire mission by the time the manned spacecraft is launched.
MKremer - 21/9/2007 8:34 PMQuotetnphysics - 21/9/2007 9:57 PMYou could set up a Mars mission such that the ISRU plant was launched first and had produced enough supplies for the entire mission by the time the manned spacecraft is launched.Quite a big assumption - that your manned lander will actually be able to land anywhere near enough to the production base to refuel.A challenge - if you don't think I'm correct, produce already published/verified landing accuracy data that proves a Mars *manned* lander can get within 0.5km of a predetermined location.(bet you can't :laugh: )
meiza - 21/9/2007 9:26 PMWe'll see what the performance of a robotic lunar surface mission will be (you don't need ascent stage then), but in ESAS it looked huge, 20 tons. That enables a pretty big hab, though some weird volume constraints might be there. ISS Destiny is about 15 tons and Columbus 10 tons (empty).
JIS - 22/9/2007 1:19 PMQuotemeiza - 21/9/2007 9:26 PMWe'll see what the performance of a robotic lunar surface mission will be (you don't need ascent stage then), but in ESAS it looked huge, 20 tons. That enables a pretty big hab, though some weird volume constraints might be there. ISS Destiny is about 15 tons and Columbus 10 tons (empty).This is exactly the reason why a big launcher is required. The bigger modules the better. I wouldn't object if the Ares V would be made even bigger (10m diameter EDS and fairing). It directly benefits crewed launch too as the cargo landing platform is reused for LSAM.Also all fancy upgrades like fuel depots etc. are aplicable.With semiinflatable habitat (hardshell connected with inflatable joints) you can get pretty moster habitat in one cargo launch. Other cargo launches can deliver powerplants and presurized rover to finish the core of the base. Scientific equipment, tools and supplies can be delivered gradually with crewed missions and left for reuse.Anytime return capability can also be relaxed as the crew can be supported for around 14 days by LSAM, base or pressurised rover. In case of injury there can be a surgery on the base.Also the minimised ascend stage of LSAM with storable props allows to have a spare one at the base. The crew can bring the fresh one every mission and leave on the spare.The good thing on the current architecture is that all infrastructure is build right were needed the most - on the Moon. Only small return stage is wasted from LSAM. No fancy stations at LEO or Lag. points required.
MKremer - 21/9/2007 10:34 PMQuite a big assumption - that your manned lander will actually be able to land anywhere near enough to the production base to refuel.A challenge - if you don't think I'm correct, produce already published/verified landing accuracy data that proves a Mars *manned* lander can get within 0.5km of a predetermined location.(bet you can't :laugh: )
meiza - 22/9/2007 8:54 AMBut there will be massive infrastructure in the plan on *Earth* if megalaunchers are used. Remember still that a huge proportion of an LSAM's mass, no matter crew or robotic, is liquid oxygen. Probably about 20 tonnes of the 45 total. You don't need a megalauncher to launch it if the LOX is tanked on orbit. The 10 m diameter is one thing that speaks for a mega-launcher.
PurduesUSAFguy - 21/9/2007 8:59 PMI have to say, I hate the Moon base. I don't think that the science return is worth the invstment, it doesn't even baseline any ISRU, and most importantly it will keep us from ever getting to Mars. The lunar surface is a bridge to no where and I hope the next administration has the good sense to refocus the vision on Mars.
wannamoonbase - 22/9/2007 3:37 PMQuotemeiza - 22/9/2007 8:54 AMBut there will be massive infrastructure in the plan on *Earth* if megalaunchers are used. Remember still that a huge proportion of an LSAM's mass, no matter crew or robotic, is liquid oxygen. Probably about 20 tonnes of the 45 total. You don't need a megalauncher to launch it if the LOX is tanked on orbit. The 10 m diameter is one thing that speaks for a mega-launcher.And infrastructure on earth is a few percent (if even that much) of the cost of space infrastructure. Also less critical because it can be maintained far easier.I don't know this for certain but I think the cost per pound on the Ares V is going to be less than any amount of LO2 you can position in LEO using smaller launchers. Anyone have ball park numbers on dollars per pound for the Ares V?Also, stationed cryogenics have boil off issues. Going forward (Mars) you have to do this and using a few Ares V launches instead of dozens of smaller vehicles works again.
meiza - 22/9/2007 12:30 PMQuotewannamoonbase - 22/9/2007 3:37 PMQuotemeiza - 22/9/2007 8:54 AMBut there will be massive infrastructure in the plan on *Earth* if megalaunchers are used. Remember still that a huge proportion of an LSAM's mass, no matter crew or robotic, is liquid oxygen. Probably about 20 tonnes of the 45 total. You don't need a megalauncher to launch it if the LOX is tanked on orbit. The 10 m diameter is one thing that speaks for a mega-launcher.And infrastructure on earth is a few percent (if even that much) of the cost of space infrastructure. Also less critical because it can be maintained far easier.I don't know this for certain but I think the cost per pound on the Ares V is going to be less than any amount of LO2 you can position in LEO using smaller launchers. Anyone have ball park numbers on dollars per pound for the Ares V?Also, stationed cryogenics have boil off issues. Going forward (Mars) you have to do this and using a few Ares V launches instead of dozens of smaller vehicles works again.Depends. You have to remember the enormous development and fixed costs of Ares I and Ares V, vehicles that fly only a few times per year and can't really be used for anything else but the moon program. The cost of earth infrastructure might be small per kilogram but there is a huge amount of it. Flying often and buying from the lowest bidder also leads to a path to RLV:s that could drop the price substantially.
clongton - 22/9/2007 5:46 PMQuotemeiza - 22/9/2007 12:30 PMQuotewannamoonbase - 22/9/2007 3:37 PMQuotemeiza - 22/9/2007 8:54 AMBut there will be massive infrastructure in the plan on *Earth* if megalaunchers are used. Remember still that a huge proportion of an LSAM's mass, no matter crew or robotic, is liquid oxygen. Probably about 20 tonnes of the 45 total. You don't need a megalauncher to launch it if the LOX is tanked on orbit. The 10 m diameter is one thing that speaks for a mega-launcher.And infrastructure on earth is a few percent (if even that much) of the cost of space infrastructure. Also less critical because it can be maintained far easier.I don't know this for certain but I think the cost per pound on the Ares V is going to be less than any amount of LO2 you can position in LEO using smaller launchers. Anyone have ball park numbers on dollars per pound for the Ares V?Also, stationed cryogenics have boil off issues. Going forward (Mars) you have to do this and using a few Ares V launches instead of dozens of smaller vehicles works again.Depends. You have to remember the enormous development and fixed costs of Ares I and Ares V, vehicles that fly only a few times per year and can't really be used for anything else but the moon program. The cost of earth infrastructure might be small per kilogram but there is a huge amount of it. Flying often and buying from the lowest bidder also leads to a path to RLV:s that could drop the price substantially.This is where the orbital propellant depot comes into play. The key is to have it operated by commercial for-profit concerns or other NGO's from the international partners. Once they can demonstrate the ability to tank up the depot and have the required O2 available for mission start, then the cost per mission will go way down. The depot can be refilled by ULA, SpaceX, the Russians, ESA, even the Indians. It doesn’t matter who. All that does matter is that we rendezvous with the depot, tank up and go. We pay the supplier for the O2 and off we go. Sure, it won’t be cheap. But it will be far less expensive than (1) launching it ourselves on our own, very expensive rockets and (2) not having to lift the weight of the mission O2 (80% of the propellant weight) means more efficient use of our own lift capacity for mission hardware.
JIS - 22/9/2007 2:00 PMCargo Ares V going directly to the lunar base is ..{snip}..probably much cheaper than depot, several smaler launchers and lunar mission with refueling.
The good thing on the current architecture is that all infrastructure is build right were needed the most - on the Moon. Only small return stage is wasted from LSAM. No fancy stations at LEO or Lag. points required.
I like good ideas, I fear lack of imagination. These rovers, may yet prove impractical, mating surfaces need to be figured out rover or not and the exterior mounted suits are almost inevitable. But its a great start. Open rovers aren't going to get you very far from home base. 14 days of roving in different directions could get you 100 Kms away from base and if you did that 6 times you could have a significant portion of the moon explored.
With the work being done by Carmack and Bezos in the area of VTOL rockets, I think it would just be easier to establish a large, stationary outpost and just use suborbital "hop" vehicles to make expeditions.
meiza - 22/9/2007 5:58 PMThe hoppers could possibly solve many problems for medium distance travel but they could also be dangerous. Think if you crash into your own base for example? Much harder with a rover, although that could be possible too...
ryan mccabe - 23/9/2007 12:40 AM3. Fueling the vehicle. ISRU of oxygen is at least possible, although you would still need a fuel of some sort. Unless it's just a thermal-electric thruster converting LOX into a superhot gas. If you could get an ISP of say 150 s, it might work.
jongoff - 22/9/2007 7:56 PM As it is, with the existing Ares I/V manned architecture, if Ares I has delays you rapidly run the risk of losing a multi-billion dollar mission.
I just fail to see how such a fragile infrastructure is preferable. Real life and the market economy is messy and complicated, but those mess and complicated bits are what give it its resiliency, flexibility, and affordability.
I'm with Chuck on this one. Propellant depots and in-space transportation nodes just make too much darned sense.
If NASA ignores that reality, they'll just end up buying services from those who do "get it".~Jon
PurduesUSAFguy - 22/9/2007 7:51 PMIf the goal of the program is go to Mars, then we should go to Mars,
the lunar base is going to be a very costly detour with very little directly applicable to the program other then the nebulously termed ‘experience’.
I'm not worried about Ares I availability. Ares 1/Orion should be quite routine flight. Ares 1/Orion will be standing ready on the pad on it's MPL attached to LUT at the moment of Ares V launch. I hope that Americans can achieve what Russians are doing with Soyuz several decades already.
Not depending on extra facilities, launches, manoeuvres, docking, fuel transfer etc. doesn't make it more fragile but less complex. Keep it simple is the best way to success.
They make sense from some point of development. If there is a traffic between the Earth, Moon, asteroids or Mars then the lag. points are necessary.
But VSE will be mostly about one way traffic. Only crew and samples are coming back in a can on chutes. Travelling from the lunar surface to the Lagrange point requires big, heavy and complex (reusable) lunar ascend module.Isn't better to begin with small, cheap, simple and expendable one? Nasa can build large rockets but can't build reusable lunar module (yet).
They want to do that for ISS so why not to do that also for the lunar base one day?
MKremer - 21/9/2007 10:34 PMQuotetnphysics - 21/9/2007 9:57 PMYou could set up a Mars mission such that the ISRU plant was launched first and had produced enough supplies for the entire mission by the time the manned spacecraft is launched.Quite a big assumption - that your manned lander will actually be able to land anywhere near enough to the production base to refuel.A challenge - if you don't think I'm correct, produce already published/verified landing accuracy data that proves a Mars *manned* lander can get within 0.5km of a predetermined location.(bet you can't :laugh: )
jongoff - 22/9/2007 7:56 PMPropellant depots and in-space transportation nodes just make too much darned sense. If NASA ignores that reality, they'll just end up buying services from those who do "get it".
PurduesUSAFguy - 22/9/2007 5:51 PMIf the goal of the program is go to Mars, then we should go to Mars...
NASA does think a LEO propellant depot is a good idea. Griffin has suggested just that to leverage Ares V launches.But it's riskier than the present approach, and minimising risk of not achieving the mission objective is the prime consideration at this time.
jongoff - 23/9/2007 4:08 AMJIS,QuoteI'm not worried about Ares I availability. Ares 1/Orion should be quite routine flight. Ares 1/Orion will be standing ready on the pad on it's MPL attached to LUT at the moment of Ares V launch. I hope that Americans can achieve what Russians are doing with Soyuz several decades already.And of course in your world only EELVs and commercial launchers ever suffer from last-minute glitches or scrubs...
QuoteNot depending on extra facilities, launches, manoeuvres, docking, fuel transfer etc. doesn't make it more fragile but less complex. Keep it simple is the best way to success.Not really. There's a reason why staging points and way stations are used so often in other terrestrial logistics chains.
Once again though, I gave specific examples of the fragility of the ESAS planned architecture (particularly places where Loss of Crew events caused by single-point failures could be mitigated).
QuoteThey make sense from some point of development. If there is a traffic between the Earth, Moon, asteroids or Mars then the lag. points are necessary.Propellant depots in LEO make sense far earlier.
Although, even without an actual manned depot in L1 or L2, just having a small waystation that could serve as an emergency shelter in case of TEI failures would be a good start. When I'm talking about infrastructure, I don't assume that is has to be super-massive with all the bells-and-whistles, right from the start. I'm more assuming something more organically developed as needs and markets demand.
QuoteBut VSE will be mostly about one way traffic. Only crew and samples are coming back in a can on chutes. Travelling from the lunar surface to the Lagrange point requires big, heavy and complex (reusable) lunar ascend module.Isn't better to begin with small, cheap, simple and expendable one? Nasa can build large rockets but can't build reusable lunar module (yet). The approach you advocate seems really similar to someone in the early 60s advocating Direct Ascent. After all, DA architectures would've been a lot simpler, and that whole rendezvous thing could've been developed after the fact...but you and I both know what would've happened if a fetish for supposed simplicity had overruled good engineering judgement.
A_M_Swallow - 23/9/2007 12:34 PMRefueling basically involves docking a spacecraft to a satellite, starting the pumping, a long pumping session, completing the pumping and undocking. The only part of that operation that needs large (heavy) spacecraft is the main pumping section = the repetitive bit. Could refueling be developed using small spacecraft lifted on cheap rockets like the Pegasus?Edit c/easy/repetitive/
mike robel - 23/9/2007 3:23 PMIn my opinion NASA is once again pursuing grandiose visions instead of concentrating on getting there with enough capability to provide a sustained program. Grandiose plans lead to a battlestar galactica type project which will not be funded.I will point out that we don't even have a lunar lander designed and under construction. A little too soon to start woofing about huge moon bases and fancy-dancy rovers.I fear that going to the moon will spell the end of any Mars Mission in my lifetime. In fact, the way things are going I am resigned to (1) living in an era where no one living has walked on the moon, and (2) a very real possibility we will not return to the moon in my lifetime (I am 54). The moon base will suck all the funds away from Mars, just like completing ISS/shuttle is postponing development of lunar/mars capability.With current engines, propellant transfer is too expensive in terms of the effort necessary to orbit the depots. Previous transfers are hypergolics and relatively small quantities. We are talking about huge quantities of super cold liquids and a transfer mechanism that will likely be difficult at best in a weightless environment. To say nothing about long term storage processes. If the storage problem can be solved, then if you have a big booster like Jupiter than can put a massive load into lunar orbit and you only need small quantities of fuel for the return to earth, they may have some utility. Color my unconvinced...
JIS - 23/9/2007 5:39 AMTEI failure is mitigated by simple, reliable and good heritage engine. Also backup RCS could help.
JIS - 23/9/2007 5:39 AMAres V could carry LSAM without LOX but more cargo and fill LOX at the depot. Or refuel EDS. I doubt that it is worth to do that right now but the situation could change in the future. I'm sure NASA will do some study when the time is right. At the moment there is nobody to service the depot.
JIS - 23/9/2007 5:39 AMApollo was a good solution to get people there and back. Can you imagine what mass you can land on the Moon with the Direct ascend? Some often dream about building ISS in one or two launches. What about building Lunar Base in one or two launches?
JIS - 23/9/2007 5:39 AMI think that ISS construction has taught us something.
mike robel - 23/9/2007 12:23 PMIn my opinion NASA is once again persuing grandious visions instead of concentrating on getting there with enough capability to provide a sustained program. Grandious plans lead to a battlestar galactica type project which will not be funded.
clongton - 23/9/2007 8:23 PMQuoteA_M_Swallow - 23/9/2007 12:34 PMRefueling basically involves docking a spacecraft to a satellite, starting the pumping, a long pumping session, completing the pumping and undocking. The only part of that operation that needs large (heavy) spacecraft is the main pumping section = the repetitive bit. Could refueling be developed using small spacecraft lifted on cheap rockets like the Pegasus?Edit c/easy/repetitive/Yes. But the delivered payload would be small.But hey, if it makes a profit for the launch provider, isn't that the name of the game? Big profit, or small profit, it doesn't matter. That's what it's going to take to make commercial space work. Profit. If it makes a profit, it works.
MrTim - 24/9/2007 6:22 AM2. A new administration killing the program for political reasons (for example, wanting Bush to have no legacy but the war, and wanting to use NASA for his or her own legacy)
Antares - 24/9/2007 2:32 PMDoes it mention anywhere that it's 13mT over what the current Ares V can put into TLI?
A_M_Swallow - 24/9/2007 11:13 AM Quote It may be worth while writing a few back up plans for this. The next president is a : Conservationist - emphasize ISRU Romantic - poetry of exploration Warrior - rockets are missiles, taking the high ground and showing the USA's strength Pacifist - NASA is a civilian organization and Moon trips are not war Feminist - women astronauts Wants results - an important launch every year he is in office, including unmanned probes. Pictures back.
Cynical but true. We should never forget to consider the advantages an active and successful space program can offer to any President. Whoever wins in 2008, we will need to spin the space program in a way that will be most intriguing and attractive to that President/Administration.
MrTim - 24/9/2007 1:22 AMQuotemike robel - 23/9/2007 12:23 PMIn my opinion NASA is once again persuing grandious visions instead of concentrating on getting there with enough capability to provide a sustained program. Grandious plans lead to a battlestar galactica type project which will not be funded.I am a bit puzzled by the notion that keeps appearing in these forums that the moon will not get funded. Constellation is not structured like Apollo was. The program is being designed to proceed at whatever rate NASA's budgets allow (MONEY constrains the SCHEDULE of the program) whereas Apollo had a fixed deadline (SCHEDULE drove the MONEY and the CAPABILITY). At the beginning there ARE schedule constraints because AresI/Orion are planned to replace STS for ISS access (causing money problems throughout NASA) but that should not be the norm for the overall Moon/Mars plans. The only things that are likely to kill the moon are:1. Congress ordering NASA not to go (for example if political forces go all global-warming on us and demand NASA re-focus all spending on monitoring the climate on Earth)2. A new administration killing the program for political reasons (for example, wanting Bush to have no legacy but the war, and wanting to use NASA for his or her own legacy)3. Outcry from the public in response to some big disaster (loss of a crew not likely bad enough, we survived two shuttle crew losses without abandoning LEO. More like a major pad explosion with major loss of life and/or facilities, an AresV falling in a populated area, or a major terror incident with nukes that demands all national resources. Something BIG)
mike robel - 24/9/2007 1:52 PMMy point was that when George Bush the Father asked for a Mars Plan, NASA came back with a multi-billions of dollars plan that some have titled "Battlestar Galactica". That lost support in Congress and with the American people very rapidly. Same with protracted ISS development.I generally believe that you have to have about a 10 year achievable goal to gain political support - so, 10 years to establishing back to the moon/moon base research station is ok.
mike robel - 24/9/2007 1:52 PMIt is not that I do not support going back to the moon, I don't support grandious plans that will get defeated because they are not bound by reality of funding and the timelines of political support.
MrTim - 24/9/2007 1:22 AMQuotemike robel - 23/9/2007 12:23 PMIn my opinion NASA is once again persuing grandious visions instead of concentrating on getting there with enough capability to provide a sustained program. Grandious plans lead to a battlestar galactica type project which will not be funded.I am a bit puzzled by the notion that keeps appearing in these forums that the moon will not get funded. Constellation is not structured like Apollo was. The program is being designed to proceed at whatever rate NASA's budgets allow (MONEY constrains the SCHEDULE of the program) whereas Apollo had a fixed deadline (SCHEDULE drove the MONEY and the CAPABILITY). At the beginning there ARE schedule constraints because AresI/Orion are planned to replace STS for ISS access (causing money problems throughout NASA) but that should not be the norm for the overall Moon/Mars plans.
MrTim - 25/9/2007 7:52 AMHaving said that, your concerns are one of many reasons I want to see a moon base BUILT on the moon rather than plopped there as a few plug-together pre-fab modules.
I believe a long, gradual, well-planned construction project will be more explainable, sustainable, and yield better functionality over the long haul. If constructed, then you ship building materials to build any new areas you need. Geodesic dome parts, for example, could be fabbed inexpensively and in such large quantities that the line could be easily kept running and many new base sections could be added in various sizes from a very limited number of unique parts. The only module-type structures I want to see placed upon the moon are the LSAMs and rovers, and pre-fabbed airlocks or power plants. If you do habitable modules, then you will select and build the modules ahead of time, store them at the KSC and loft them at some rate until "done". You will have no flexibility to change, and when you run-out of modules you will hit the limit on the size and capability of the base. The plop-some-modules approach sets the entire attitude of the program to a limited vision where unlimited is what's called for.
This is what's happened to ISS; as soon as x modules are plugged together, it's done and there's no more interest in it. In fact, with ISS, they re-assessed the modules and decided to loft a subset before saying "done". Many end-up scratching their heads and saying it is crippled and/or useless. Average people understand ongoing construction efforts and will understand this on the moon better than on orbit (which seems more alien to them) If there are no modules, then there's no "It's done" political escape hatch
JIS - 25/9/2007 2:03 PMISS has problems because there is little use of it.
Analyst - 25/9/2007 1:37 PMQuoteJIS - 25/9/2007 2:03 PMISS has problems because there is little use of it.What is the use of a lunar base? And please include "negative" use as in costs.Analyst
JIS - 25/9/2007 7:06 AMUse of the Moon base:Science at Moon conditions.Support for commercialisation & cooperationPlanetary scienceExplorationColonisation
simonbp - 25/9/2007 4:05 PMAlong that line, a moon base that can pick up and walk to a new location would be ideal...Simon
simonbp - 25/9/2007 4:05 PM QuoteJIS - 25/9/2007 7:06 AM Use of the Moon base: Science at Moon conditions. Support for commercialisation & cooperation Planetary science Exploration Colonisation The point of a lunar base is just that, a base camp from which to conduct long-range geologic field studies. The major limitation with both the Apollo J missions and any future Constellation sortie missions is that the astronauts can't go further in a rover away from the lander than they can walk back. A lunar base gives you the possibility of landing two redundant, pressurized landers so you can do long traverses. Along that line, a moon base that can pick up and walk to a new location would be ideal... Simon
JIS - 25/9/2007 7:06 AM Use of the Moon base: Science at Moon conditions. Support for commercialisation & cooperation Planetary science Exploration Colonisation
While a mobile base may sound good, it would probably end up working about as well as a traveling circus trying to travel across a desert without the benefit of any roads. One bad move and you could lose the whole thing and the crew. I think the operating principle for those who design our lunar base -- and future installations on the Moon and Mars -- should be KISS. That doesn't mean the base should be stripped down -- I like the proposal for a more complete fixed facility that is also more capable from the outset rather than forcing astronauts to make due with a collection of leftover LSAM descent stages. That is very similar to the way our Antarctic base operates and it is extremely successful. One secure step after another is the best way to build our permanent human presence on the Moon and eventually Mars.
stargazer777 - 25/9/2007 4:23 PMOne bad move and you could lose the whole thing and the crew. I think the operating principle for those who design our lunar base -- and future installations on the Moon and Mars -- should be KISS. That doesn't mean the base should be stripped down -- I like the proposal for a more complete fixed facility that is also more capable from the outset rather than forcing astronauts to make due with a collection of leftover LSAM descent stages. That is very similar to the way our Antarctic base operates and it is extremely successful. One secure step after another is the best way to build our permanent human presence on the Moon and eventually Mars.
ryan mccabe - 25/9/2007 6:37 PM Quote I agree 110% Once we have selected a site for our first lunar outpost, I would advocate the largest core module we can get on the ground. Something similar to a Zvezda Service Module that provides core life support systems and a basic habitat for future additions like inflatable Bigelow BA330 modules. It fundamentally comes down to what "science" you want to see. If it's geology, then you want to be mobile so you can cover as much of the surface as possible. I'd rather just see technology demonstration which may have more important commercial and exploration-related implications. You don't need to be mobile to do that.
I appreciate your support. I should note that you don't even need the mobile base for the geology studies. Most interesting geological formations are going to be in areas that are hard to get into and out of -- certainly not a place you want to take a mobile base. Moreover, most geology field studies only require one or two people in the initial stages. Detailed analysis of samples can be left until the astronaut geologists return to their base -- just like we would on Earth. Pressurized rovers -- assuming they are big enough to live out of for several weeks (see my earlier post) are far better suited for this work. This also reduces the risk to the overall mission. If one rover is damaged or breaks down you can send another one without risking everything and everyone.
As far as a walking base is concerned, if they literally mean a base structure on legs -- it is hard to imagine a riskier approach to lunar exploration. We haven't even made that work reliably on Earth. The fewer things that can go wrong -- the fewer unnecessary risks we run -- the better. There is already more than enough inherent risk in exploring the Moon and Mars, we don't need to add to it.
simonbp - 25/9/2007 9:05 PMAlong that line, a moon base that can pick up and walk to a new location would be ideal...Simon
A_M_Swallow - 25/9/2007 9:13 PM It is probably easier to make 2 Moon Bases than a mobile Moon Base, particularly if we have to live underground as protection against solar radiation. Whether rovers should have wheels or legs is a different question. Wheels are efficient but have big problems with cliff faces and the Moon is covered with steep sided craters.
Until we develop better rovers or other means of getting around and space suits that are far more flexible and resilient than anything we have today there are just going to be some places that are too dangerous for human geologists/scientists to go on the Moon and Mars. For such locations we will have to fall back on small (expendable) remotely operated robotic devices -- tracked, wheeled, etc. -- to probe those areas. We may even be able to develop small flying or hovering versions that can get you right where you want to go bypassing otherwise impassable terrain.
JIS - 25/9/2007 5:03 AMQuoteMrTim - 25/9/2007 7:52 AMHaving said that, your concerns are one of many reasons I want to see a moon base BUILT on the moon rather than plopped there as a few plug-together pre-fab modules. It's easier said than done. Cargo Ares V can place one big habitat which is all fixed living space you need for years to come. You can equip this habitat as you wish. You can also use smaller LSAM habs as storage or labs. and pressurised rovers for exploration etc.
JIS - 25/9/2007 5:03 AMUsing minimal LSAM ascend stage each crewed mission will leave a lot of additional equipment (science, rovers, tools, extra supplies) on the Moon which can be reused. We are talking about few (2) cargo flights prior the base can start to be used.
JIS - 25/9/2007 5:03 AMQuoteMrTim - 25/9/2007 7:52 AMI believe a long, gradual, well-planned construction project will be more explainable, sustainable, and yield better functionality over the long haul. If constructed, then you ship building materials to build any new areas you need. Geodesic dome parts, for example, could be fabbed inexpensively and in such large quantities that the line could be easily kept running and many new base sections could be added in various sizes from a very limited number of unique parts. ... The plop-some-modules approach sets the entire attitude of the program to a limited vision where unlimited is what's called for.Only one big habitat is required for VSE (4 people on the moon at one time). When ISRU capability is proved you can bring more people and begin to build a colony. That's what you are talking about - building a colony.
MrTim - 25/9/2007 7:52 AMI believe a long, gradual, well-planned construction project will be more explainable, sustainable, and yield better functionality over the long haul. If constructed, then you ship building materials to build any new areas you need. Geodesic dome parts, for example, could be fabbed inexpensively and in such large quantities that the line could be easily kept running and many new base sections could be added in various sizes from a very limited number of unique parts. ... The plop-some-modules approach sets the entire attitude of the program to a limited vision where unlimited is what's called for.
JIS - 25/9/2007 5:03 AMQuoteMrTim - 25/9/2007 7:52 AM This is what's happened to ISS; as soon as x modules are plugged together, it's done and there's no more interest in it. In fact, with ISS, they re-assessed the modules and decided to loft a subset before saying "done". Many end-up scratching their heads and saying it is crippled and/or useless.ISS has problems because there is little use of it.
MrTim - 25/9/2007 7:52 AM This is what's happened to ISS; as soon as x modules are plugged together, it's done and there's no more interest in it. In fact, with ISS, they re-assessed the modules and decided to loft a subset before saying "done". Many end-up scratching their heads and saying it is crippled and/or useless.
Analyst - 25/9/2007 5:37 AMWhat is the use of a lunar base? And please include "negative" use as in costs.
MrTim - 26/9/2007 12:10 PMQuoteJIS - 25/9/2007 5:03 AMQuoteMrTim - 25/9/2007 7:52 AMHaving said that, your concerns are one of many reasons I want to see a moon base BUILT on the moon rather than plopped there as a few plug-together pre-fab modules. It's easier said than done. Cargo Ares V can place one big habitat which is all fixed living space you need for years to come. You can equip this habitat as you wish. You can also use smaller LSAM habs as storage or labs. and pressurised rovers for exploration etc.An LSAM will only land a hab module that fits within the fairing of the AresV. The only way a pre-fab module would provide any larger volume would be if it was an inflatable.
QuoteJIS - 25/9/2007 5:03 AMUsing minimal LSAM ascend stage each crewed mission will leave a lot of additional equipment (science, rovers, tools, extra supplies) on the Moon which can be reused. We are talking about few (2) cargo flights prior the base can start to be used. We agree totally on all the hardware re-use. If the landers landed on wheels rather than footpads they might function as pressurized rovers themselves.
I find the notion of only 2 flights per year to be silly and short-sighted. I HOPE a future admin will up the budget for quarterly flights so we at least see low-end STS flight rates (it IS one of the reasons we are replacing shuttle, after all (inability to have reasonable flight rates)) Apollo-style flight rates will only emphasize the repeat-of-Apollo theme and be as unsustainable over the long haul as Apollo was.
MrTim - 25/9/2007 7:52 AMThe plop-some-modules approach sets the entire attitude of the program to a limited vision where unlimited is what's called for.
QuoteOnly one big habitat is required for VSE (4 people on the moon at one time). When ISRU capability is proved you can bring more people and begin to build a colony. That's what you are talking about - building a colony.Yes, the base (whatever it ends up looking like) will be only one habitat. Depends on what you mean by a "colony". I do NOT think we will see a large population and families there this century so I would not use the term "colony" which tends to imply people making lives for themselves somewhere.
Only one big habitat is required for VSE (4 people on the moon at one time). When ISRU capability is proved you can bring more people and begin to build a colony. That's what you are talking about - building a colony.
I believe the base should at least get to be like ISS in that eventually we rotate individual crew members and it is continually occupied rather than each mission being a campout by one crew. With a couple of pressurized rovers, I could easily see a scenario where two two-man teams are out on multi-day excursions exploring or working on instruments like telescopes while several people are at the base doing research and maintenance and able to take out a 3rd rover if needed.
QuoteISS has problems because there is little use of it.... Show me ANY other national lab with a staff of only 3 who spend most of their time maintaining the lab.
ISS has problems because there is little use of it.
Give the politicians a plug-together-and-its-done architecture and I guarantee you they will be all too happy to declare it "done!" and de-fund it. I absolutely do not want to see the moon base go that way. If the moon base imitates ISS, I am certain no Mars base will happen; VSE will end-up just going to Mars to plant a flag and then end as a program that is "done".
ryan mccabe - 25/9/2007 3:37 PMIt fundamentally comes down to what "science" you want to see. If it's geology, then you want to be mobile so you can cover as much of the surface as possible. I'd rather just see technology demonstration which may have more important commercial and exploration-related implications. You don't need to be mobile to do that.
stargazer777 - 25/9/2007 2:23 PMWhile a mobile base may sound good, it would probably end up working about as well as a traveling circus trying to travel across a desert without the benefit of any roads. One bad move and you could lose the whole thing and the crew.
simonbp - 26/9/2007 11:17 AM Quoteryan mccabe - 25/9/2007 3:37 PM It fundamentally comes down to what "science" you want to see. If it's geology, then you want to be mobile so you can cover as much of the surface as possible. I'd rather just see technology demonstration which may have more important commercial and exploration-related implications. You don't need to be mobile to do that. Well, sorry but you are not going to fund a moonbase just doing a tech demo. Period. And what "important commercial activities" are you going to do? Mine He3 for the non-existent fusion plants? Set up a lemonade stand? Seriously... The only defensible reason for going back to the moon is geology. The few Apollo missions revolutionized planetary science because the moon is very old, basically a time capsule from 3.9 billion years ago (nearly all the surface of the Earth is less than 0.5 billion years old). So, the moon is actually one of the best places in the entire solar system to learn how the planets were built. This can then help tell you in what conditions Earth-like planets might form, and broadly, how common life might be in the universe. Quotestargazer777 - 25/9/2007 2:23 PM While a mobile base may sound good, it would probably end up working about as well as a traveling circus trying to travel across a desert without the benefit of any roads. One bad move and you could lose the whole thing and the crew. Or like driving a remote-control golf cart across a desert without roads from 10^8 km away? Like the Mars rovers, you'd "drive the base" in a very slow and well-informed way. The particular concept I was thinking about was JPL's ATHELTE-based lunar base from the presentation below. With both legs and omni-directional wheels, it's the best of all worlds... http://www.aiaa-houston.org/cy0607/event-22feb07/Connolly_AIAA_2-20-07.pdf Edit: Here's the ATHLETE's site: http://www-robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/systems/system.cfm?System=11 Simon
ryan mccabe - 25/9/2007 3:37 PM It fundamentally comes down to what "science" you want to see. If it's geology, then you want to be mobile so you can cover as much of the surface as possible. I'd rather just see technology demonstration which may have more important commercial and exploration-related implications. You don't need to be mobile to do that.
stargazer777 - 25/9/2007 2:23 PM While a mobile base may sound good, it would probably end up working about as well as a traveling circus trying to travel across a desert without the benefit of any roads. One bad move and you could lose the whole thing and the crew.
If you can get Athlete to work reliably -- and it will have to be severely tested -- it might be suitable for a pressurized rover -- but I seriously doubt you will ever see it used as a mobile base (assuming we are talking about the same thing in terms of a base.) Also, as much as I like geology and believe we will learn amazing things from our studies of the Moon, that is not the only defensible reason to go back to the Moon. The Moon offers amazing opportunities for astronomy -- optical and radio -- building facilities that are outside the haze of the atmosphere and beyond the radio interference of our technology but which can be regularly updated and repaired. Those are good reasons. Additionally, we are going to learn vast amounts about how humans and other life forms adapt to long term exposure to low gravity environments. Finally, and I think you will agree with me on this, the things we learn in the course of the technology demonstration of our ability to get to the Moon, build facilities there, and live and work successfully in that environment will turn out to be the proof of concept and set the pattern for human exploration and expansion into the rest of the solar system. Not a bad return on our investment -- in my humble opinion.
simonbp - 26/9/2007 10:17 AM(1) Well, sorry but you are not going to fund a moonbase just doing a tech demo. Period. And what "important commercial activities" are you going to do? Mine He3 for the non-existent fusion plants? Set up a lemonade stand? Seriously...(2) The only defensible reason for going back to the moon is geology. The few Apollo missions revolutionized planetary science because the moon is very old, basically a time capsule from 3.9 billion years ago (nearly all the surface of the Earth is less than 0.5 billion years old). So, the moon is actually one of the best places in the entire solar system to learn how the planets were built. (3) This can then help tell you in what conditions Earth-like planets might form, and broadly, how common life might be in the universe.
simonbp - 26/9/2007 4:17 PMQuotestargazer777 - 25/9/2007 2:23 PMWhile a mobile base may sound good, it would probably end up working about as well as a traveling circus trying to travel across a desert without the benefit of any roads. One bad move and you could lose the whole thing and the crew.Or like driving a remote-control golf cart across a desert without roads from 10^8 km away? Like the Mars rovers, you'd "drive the base" in a very slow and well-informed way. The particular concept I was thinking about was JPL's ATHELTE-based lunar base from the presentation below. With both legs and omni-directional wheels, it's the best of all worlds...http://www.aiaa-houston.org/cy0607/event-22feb07/Connolly_AIAA_2-20-07.pdfEdit: Here's the ATHLETE's site: http://www-robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/systems/system.cfm?System=11Simon
sandrot - 26/9/2007 6:30 PMYou've got to get there first and find the R in ISRU. If you're stuck at the place you landed, little if not R.
sandrot - 26/9/2007 12:30 PMYou've got to get there first and find the R in ISRU. If you're stuck at the place you landed, little if not R.
ryan mccabe - 26/9/2007 1:52 PMAnd depending on the resource we are looking for, we can already find oxygen, aluminum, and silicon anywhere we land. The real variable is water, and I doubt there will enough ice in one single location to make the decision of where to place our first base easy.
clongton - 26/9/2007 8:03 PMDetermining if ice is present is a worthy exploration goal because of the potential value. But the architecture must not start out depending on finding it, because if it turns out to not be there, then the entire VSE goes down the tubes. The architecture needs to be designed around the assumption that ice is NOT there. That's the only way it will work. If they find ice, then that's great. But if they don't, it won't hurt us.
JIS - 26/9/2007 3:23 PMQuoteclongton - 26/9/2007 8:03 PMDetermining if ice is present is a worthy exploration goal because of the potential value. But the architecture must not start out depending on finding it, because if it turns out to not be there, then the entire VSE goes down the tubes. The architecture needs to be designed around the assumption that ice is NOT there. That's the only way it will work. If they find ice, then that's great. But if they don't, it won't hurt us.Current architecture doesn't need any ISR. Even without water polar sites are extremely interesting and suitable for base.
A_M_Swallow - 26/9/2007 6:43 PMSince we have not found large easy to extract deposits of carbon and hydrogen they will almost certainly have to be imported from Earth. No ISRU for them; so on the Moon they will cost more than gold. A viable Moon Base will have to perform recycling of these elements with extreme levels of efficiency.Fortunately most plastics can be replaced by silicon equivalents like fiber glass. Silicon, aluminum and magnesium all burn.