Author Topic: NASA Plans Bigger Moon Base, Sporty Rovers for Future Missions  (Read 37287 times)

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3

Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
This is something I have been saying for a long time (not intended as boasting)

We are all so used to things in orbit, where mass and size are problematic and we need to think very differently when it comes to bases on the moon, mars, and beyond. Size is your FRIEND in these situations. In LEO mass keeps costing you money (you must keep re-boosting it and it becomes more expensive to maneuver it) and size can cause problems too (torque moments, etc.) and you always run the risk of having to leave it in an emergency but being unable to return because it can tumble and make docking impossible. On a moon or planet these issues go away.

You want as much habitable volume as possible on the moon. You have to pay to get the MASS of the structure there, but more volume equals more room to live and work and store stuff. More  volume gives better safety margins (including more air to breathe when air processing equipment fails) More volume and more power results in greater eventual self-sufficiency and less need for costly re-supply. The more you can do and recycle and store and repair on-site, the less you have to ship to the site. I wish they were planning to send the parts for large geodesic domes to be assembled on-site rather than a set of smaller pre-fabbed volumes. Geodesic structures would ship in a very compact form (relative to final usable volume) and could be filled after assembly with gasses shipped in highly compressed form. Assembly on the moon, with SOME gravity, should be much easier than assembly in orbit.

Let's all hope NASA does a LOT of thinking outside the box and plans to go even bigger  :)
(well, as long as they stay practical and do not go off-the-deep-end, anyway... )

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
Finally some interesting non-Apollo duplicate ideas.  Bigger landers, larger modules and pressurized rovers.  Excellent!!

I think it would be great if these Rovers can dock to each other for rest periods or crew rotations etc.  Almost certainly they will have to dock with the stationary base modules.

Reading between the lines (and this is likely me imposing my own beliefs) it seems that they are making the adjustment away from the ISS mindset of smaller pieces that require lots of expensive in space assembly.  Labor on the ground is far cheaper than anything in space.  The ISS was designed to use as many shuttle flights and EVA hours as possible because tehre was nothing else to do in LEO.  But on the moon there is actual work to do and places to go so you might as well get big complete modules that don't require as much work.

Beauty!

Awesome!
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Apollo had a planned (or at least, imagined) pressurized rover called MoLab, and a notion for an Oceanus Procellarum traverse. The idea was to land MoLab on a cargo lander, and a crew on an LM, then have them drive to a second unmanned LM 1000km away. How realistic this was I have no idea. My recollection is, I was it in a 1967 magazine while I was still in high school. It's possible I still have the magazine, although in what old box and where is a good question. Forty long years...

Offline sandrot

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Motown
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 5
Moon dust + docking = BAD

It's more practical spacesuits and airlocks.
"Paper planes do fly much better than paper spacecrafts."

Offline GraphGuy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 292
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Lots of good ideas here.  Glad to hear that the base will be more than 4 conjoined tin cans.

Offline sandrot

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Motown
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 5
I 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!
"Paper planes do fly much better than paper spacecrafts."

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
Quote
sandrot - 21/9/2007  10:27 AM

Moon dust + docking = BAD

That's true, but it assumes both mating surfaces are constantly exposed prior to contact.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
Quote
sandrot - 21/9/2007  1:49 PM

I 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!

In hindsight Venturestar was not a good idea.  Just a place to burn a billion dollars (remember it was announced in an election year.)  The money would have been better spent on a Delta II class flyback first stage.  For a billion you could have gotten some hardware that flew.  For all the work and money in the 90's nothing flew.

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.

Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
Why the tangents to an earlier LEO-only cancelled project when this thread is about something totally different??
 :bleh:

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
We'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).

Online jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
The idea of pre-positioning large habitats and not trying to use the LSAM as both a long duration habitat and a transportation vehicle is a good idea.  Of course, I'm a bit biased--I've been suggesting doing something along those lines for a while.

Offline PurduesUSAFguy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 209
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
I 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.

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
I disagree. If nothing else, a long-term moonbase will change/enhance technologies and engineering for radiation exposure, dust and contamination control, lower-gravity surface technologies and engineering, off-Earth materials refining/separation and storage engineering and techniques, plus more efficient technologies for on-site propellent generation and storage....  

And all this can be done within 2-3 days of Earth return, and requiring only a few seconds of control/consultation/advice, and just a few extra days (or even just a few weeks) for extra Earth-launched manned backup/return missions -vs.- a Mars expedition requiring minutes for merely communication, and many months for support and help both ways.

Yes, I do think lunar base engineering and technology/support is more than necessary before committing to a very long-duration Mars mission. (At least, if one supports a mission that emphasizes crew safety over any other type of mission success consideration.)

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
Quote
PurduesUSAFguy - 21/9/2007  8:59 PM

I 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.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline tnphysics

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
wannamoonbase - 21/9/2007  9:41 PM

Quote
PurduesUSAFguy - 21/9/2007  8:59 PM

I 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.

You 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.

Offline Ankle-bone12

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 207
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
PurduesUSAFguy - 21/9/2007  7:59 PM

I 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.

You must walk before you can run.
LEO=crawl
Moon=walk
Mars=run
Even if it does take 50 years.
Alex B.

Offline CuddlyRocket

Quote
PurduesUSAFguy - 22/9/2007  1:59 AM

I don't think that the science return is worth the invstment....
It's not about the science. That's just a bonus.

Quote
.... it doesn't even baseline any ISRU....
That's because ISRU is not in the baseline. You have to be able to get to the Moon and back and have a need to stay for a while before you need to be thinking about ISRU.

First things first.

As for these two-man rovers with the two external suits - who's going to close the back-plate on the second one?

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
Quote
tnphysics - 21/9/2007  9:57 PM
You 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: )

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Quote
MKremer - 21/9/2007  8:34 PM

Quote
tnphysics - 21/9/2007  9:57 PM
You 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: )

Near is relative. I see getting within 50 km as near enough to transport fuel. And if you can move the lander, even a move of a few hundred kilometers would be manageable over a few months.

Karl Hallowell

Offline grakenverb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 434
  • New York
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
meiza - 21/9/2007  9:26 PM

We'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.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Quote
JIS - 22/9/2007  1:19 PM

Quote
meiza - 21/9/2007  9:26 PM

We'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.

But 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.

Offline ryan mccabe

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
MKremer - 21/9/2007  10:34 PM
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: )

If the final descent is powered, I don't see the challenge. Using pre-positioned navigation aides, we could execute a precision landing on the Moon or Mars.

The reason we haven't been able to get a lander within say .5 km is because our top priority has just been getting the payload to land safely. The precise location it comes to a stop has been less of a concern for Pathfinder and the MER rovers, so ballistic reentry and airbags work fine. But a manned vehicle will need safety and precision, so it will be designed accordingly.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
Quote
meiza - 22/9/2007  8:54 AM
But 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.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline cpcjr

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
PurduesUSAFguy - 21/9/2007  8:59 PM

I 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.

Could not disagree more. A moon base is an essential step to going to Mars. Unless you plan a mission with a vary short stay going to Mars will require the ability to live for extended periods on another planet. At present we have no experience with that. We do not know what the affect of living long term in reduced gravity is. We know the affect of zero g’s but not 1/6 or 1/3.

Since Mars is far more hospitable than the Moon, the Moon would be a perfect testing ground for the technology needed to live on Mars.

1. The Moon’s gravity is 1/6 g while Mars’ is 1/3 g.  1/3 g will cause crews fewer physical problems than 1/6 g so if extended stays in 1/6 g proves not to be a problem, then 1/3 g will not be a problem.  

2. The Moon has no atmosphere and stronger radiation so if the survival technology works well on the Moon it should do OK on Mars.

In fact once several years of experience on the Moon have proven and refined the technology a Moon base could be used for a full up dress rehearsals of a Mars mission.

What you could do is build a near duplicate of the planed Mars transfer vehicle, (MTV) with a lunar lander. You have a crew of 6 dock to it with an Orion. They then take the MTV to a really high Earth orbit say about 100,000 miles where the would spend the next 6 months..

After the 6 month MTV test they pull in to lunar orbit and land on the Moon near the base. Supply vehicles would have been landed in advance, the contents they would use for a say of about 500 days on the Moon. In the mean time they could be doing a lot of lunar science.

After their 500 day stay on the moon the crew uses their lander’s assent stage to rendezvous with the MTV, or a replica ERV if it’s intended to be a different vehicle and spend another 6 months doing a test return flight. At the end of which the crew uses the Orion to return to Earth.

This would allow a full test of Mars mission equipment, with crew all safely close enough to Earth, that a return to Earth can be easily made in an emergency.

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Quote
wannamoonbase - 22/9/2007  3:37 PM

Quote
meiza - 22/9/2007  8:54 AM
But 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.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Quote
meiza - 22/9/2007  12:30 PM

Quote
wannamoonbase - 22/9/2007  3:37 PM

Quote
meiza - 22/9/2007  8:54 AM
But 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.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline PurduesUSAFguy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 209
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0

So the fact that NASA decided not to pursue it is proof that it's not ready? Well if you accept that then not spending any development effort on it is a rather effective way to prove that it won't ever be ready. Even if the lunar base was planned around LUNOX like the early return to the moon plans like FLO etc it still wouldn't be applicable to Mars anyways since on the Martian surface at least initially odds are that you'll just be harvesting atmospheric gases, a much easier task then cracking oxides.

I'll grant you the rovers are directly applicable, but waste over a decade and tens of billions of dollars on pressurized rover development seems questionable.

Something else that would have been a great asset to the space program, for Mars and else where, would have been an in space nuclear reactor, unfortunately NASA has decided to go with solar only as the power source for the Moon. So exactly what technology are we going to be developing on the moon that will be applicable for Mars? It’s a whole lot easier and cheaper to validate a long-lived very redundant physio-chemical life support system here then on the Moon.

As far as the supposition that the lunar surface will provide a testing ground for counter-measures to radiation and gravity, I’m sorry, I just don’t buy it.

We have zero-gravity data for astronauts on orbit for as long as a year, which is significantly longer in zero-g then astronauts, would be subjected to inbound or outbound from the Martian surface. (Assuming you don’t use a tether to rotate the spacecraft) I will grant you there is essentially no data on exposure to partial gravity, but there are cheaper and quicker ways to get it then building a moon base. Lunar data for partial gravity adaptation would be of questionable applicability anyways for the Martian surface. I really think we have sufficient data on zero gravity adaptation that any sort of further research into this field isn’t really needed if we use transfer vehicles that provide close to one G through rotation. I don’t think it’s much of an assumption that partial gravity is healthier then no gravity, if an astronaut can survive a year in zero-g then 90 days in 1/3rd of a G should be perfectly survivable, especially with a six month in bound transit to get reacclimated to one G.

Have we ever landed a payload on Mars within a kilometer of two of a previously landed payload, no. We’ve done it on the moon though with Apollo. I think it is safe to say that we could develop the technology to do so and demonstrate it with unmanned landers for a small fraction of the cost of lunar base hardware development.

If 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’.

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
clongton - 22/9/2007  5:46 PM

Quote
meiza - 22/9/2007  12:30 PM

Quote
wannamoonbase - 22/9/2007  3:37 PM

Quote
meiza - 22/9/2007  8:54 AM
But 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.

Cargo Ares V going directly to the lunar base is quick, safe, simple and probably much cheaper than depot, several smaler launchers and lunar mission with refueling.
If something will change in the future then launch Ares V with super big cargo and refuel at the depot.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Quote
JIS - 22/9/2007  2:00 PM


Cargo Ares V going directly to the lunar base is ..{snip}..probably much cheaper than depot, several smaler launchers and lunar mission with refueling.
No it's not.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Online jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
JIS,
Quote
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.

You don't seem to understand that this is a serious bug, not a feature.  All that "fancy" infrastructure in LEO and in LUNO/L1/L2 buys you flexibility, affordability, sustainability, and most importantly safety.  With the existing plan, a failed TEI burn dooms the crew.  There's no way to return to base, and its unlikely that a rescue mission could be launched in time.  Those engines fail to light, they're dead.  Which forces the transportation architecture towards using things like hypergols that are lower performance, and an expensive hassle on the ground.  If on the other hand, you had a small station there, and a no-light is only an inconvenience.  You can choose to hang out at the station, try to effect some repairs, transfer propellants back to the lander and return to the lunar base, etc.

By having a propellant depot in LEO you allow NASA to take advantage of future advances in transportation systems.  Right now at low flight rates, Ares V might appear cheaper than EELVs (so long as you gloss over things like the infrastructure and development costs like HLV advocates almost always do), but by the time Ares V flies, there may very well be RLVs available, or at least cheaper EELVs.  Heck, even increasing the flight rate with existing boosters starts making Ares V look expensive even if you do gloss over all the infrastructure and development costs.  

And while yes, a single Ares V launch for cargo missions might be theoretically simpler and easier, you don't want to overoptimize one part of your architecture at the expense of the rest of it.  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

Offline stargazer777

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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.
I share your enthusiasm for good ideas and am glad to see that NASA is getting more ambitious in their lunar base & exploration plans.  Putting larger more capable Habs in place at the outset can only serve to make the base more habitable and usable for the full range of people -- including but not limited to scientists -- who will be needed to make our foothold on the Moon a success.  I do, however, have some concerns with the rover concept particularly regarding the externally mounted space suits.  
  • First, I would assume that the kind of exploration we are going to undertake is going to require heavy use and, inevitably, inflict significant wear and tear on these space suits -- both short-term and long-term.  Experience with the ISS certainly supports this view.  Placing them outside the pressurized environment for the duration of these sorties would seem to make it difficult if not impossible for astronauts to make the kind of routine small repairs, swap out gloves, etc. that would seem to be essential for the success of these missions.  
  • Second, I agree that mating the back of the suit to the outside of the rover seems like a high long term risk -- particularly given the dangerous characteristics of Moon dust we have been told about.  One trip and roll over in the dust (there will of course be many of these) and you are coated with dust and you aren't going to be able to get rid of most of it -- particularly to the tolerances that will be needed for an airtight seal in the lunar vacuum.  Add to this multiple attachments/detachments and other wear and tear and you have a situation where you are asking for a disaster.  
    • Regarding points 1 and 2, although I understand the desire to avoid placing an airlock on the rovers, some form of airlock may turn out to be indispensable.
  • Third, are these going to be one size fits all suits?  It sounds like that is what we are moving towards.
  • Fourth, although the vehicle depicted in the artists conception is, of course, just a drawing at this stage, it seems too small to accommodate two astronauts for lunar sorties that could last several weeks -- even just for sleeping, eating, and other necessary functions.  And I am not even addressing the contingency of having to accommodate four astronauts in an emergency.  They may not be thinking "big" enough on the size/capability of these vehicles if this is an accurate reflection of their current thinking.

Offline ryan mccabe

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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. Rather than spend days/weeks in a pressurized rover, astronauts would suit up in the morning, "hop" to their site of interest, and heck maybe come home for lunch. Suit design would not need any radical changes and the only airlock required is the ingress hatch back into the outpost, where specialized suit cleaning equippment could also be available. You could still cover massive quantities of the lunar surface in this manner.

Offline stargazer777

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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.
Interesting, but of course you have the huge issue of rocket fuel for these VTOL vehicles.  We are a long way from solving that even for lunar landers.  Additionally, I think rovers are going to be far more practical for a long time to come both from an energy/fuel conservation perspective but also from the very real need to see the vast expanse of these lunar features close-up.  I have some background in geology and I know that there no substitute for eyes-on close examination of the geologic features they will be exploring.  Examining the approaches to an object of interest can be just as important as the object itself -- sometimes more so.  That is what rovers will give you that a "hopper" of any type will not.  There is a whole world to explore with a geology we have never seen before and we have barely scratched the surface.  But there will be plenty of uses for hoppers later on as human presence on the Moon expands.

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
The 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...


Offline ryan mccabe

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
meiza - 22/9/2007  5:58 PM

The 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...

At least the way I envisioned the "hoppers" is that they would be unpressurized vehicles themselves. Given my druthers, I would have any arriving/departing spacecraft 100-200 meters away from the habitat to prevent kicked-up lunar dust from damaging the base. In addition, I'd also like to see a 1-2 meters of dirt over the habitat, which would also mitigate the problem.

The biggest problems I see to the hoppers would be:

1. Failure of propulsion system in flight. Vehicle would immediately go on a ballistic trajectory back toward the Moon. To give the crew a chance at survival, I would make sure they are surrounded by some kind of "roll cage" and their couches are rated for high-G impacts. A series of airbags could also be deployed just prior to impact.

2. Failure of propulsion system on return trip. The base would need more than one vehicle to allow a stranded crew to be rescued.

3. 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.

In regards to "danger," you're on the Moon. Danger is your middle name at that point  ;)

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Quote
ryan mccabe - 23/9/2007  12:40 AM
3. 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.

Two possible fuels that can be made on the Moon are magnesium and powdered aluminum.  These elements would be released by extracting oxygen from the regolith.  Special hybrid thrusters will need designing.  The ISRU refinery could be solar or nuclear powered.

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
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'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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
I'm with Chuck on this one.  Propellant depots and in-space transportation nodes just make too much darned sense.

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).  

Quote
 If NASA ignores that reality, they'll just end up buying services from those who do "get it".

~Jon

They want to do that for ISS so why not to do that also for the lunar base one day?
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
Quote
PurduesUSAFguy - 22/9/2007  7:51 PM
If the goal of the program is go to Mars, then we should go to Mars,
The goal is to include our local star's planetary system in our economic sphere.
Or even better, in our enjoyable eco-sphere.
To go live on any body outside Earth. And come back when the fun of the trip dries up.
As the chemical propulsion is the only space flight tried and tested propulsion, Luna is one-point-five orders of magnitude closer than Mars.
In terms of resources, time is the most precious resource to each and every human.
Right now, the minimum travel to Mars and back is at 2years/70y = 1/35 of the lucky human's lifetime.
To Luna and back, say 2weeks/(70yearsx52w)= 52 times shorter.
Quote
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’.
Directly applicable to "the program" is the political will to experience astro bases at all, in the near future.
Right now:
- the orbital eco-sphere is a target for non-gov.
- the lunar eco-sphere is a target for governments.
- the martian eco-sphere is not a target.


Online jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
JIS,
Quote
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.

And of course in your world only EELVs and commercial launchers ever suffer from last-minute glitches or scrubs...

Quote
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.

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), and you just respond in platitudes.  KISS is a great principle, but can be taken too far.  There's always some complexity that buys you sufficiently large amounts of extra safety and flexibility that its worth it.  

Quote
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.

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.  Ie for a propellant depot, at first it might just be a spent upper stage with some extra systems for long-term storage built in docked to a Bigelow Sundancer station.  Later, as needs develop, it could include stuff like tugs for moving stuff around, more tanks so it can carry different sorts of propellants, and eventually hangars and repair shops.  But all that develops organically in a market-driven way.

Quote
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).  

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.

Lagrange based way stations don't absolutely require reusable lunar modules from the start, though that would be the smart way to do it.  And while NASA at this very second couldn't do a reusable lander, by the time they actually start the project, the start of practice in the suborbital VTVL community will be far enough along that maybe a reusable lander right from the start would make sense.

Quote
They want to do that for ISS so why not to do that also for the lunar base one day?

Maybe because by waiting until after the fact to start soliciting private sector help, they'll have wasted most of the potential benefit?  COTS, while a good idea, is also too-little-too-late to really make ISS an affordable piece of space infrastructure.  Commercial involvement could've and should've been solicited earlier, and would've resulted in a much better, more affordable system that probably would be much larger, and more capable by now.  But NASA seems to always learn the wrong lessons from any mistake.

~Jon

Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
MKremer - 21/9/2007  10:34 PM

Quote
tnphysics - 21/9/2007  9:57 PM
You 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: )

You lose

Apollo 12 landed 143 meters from the Lunar Surveyor 3.

Precision landing ain't that big of a deal, especially if you have a beacon.


Offline CuddlyRocket

Quote
jongoff - 22/9/2007  7:56 PM

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".
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.

Quote
PurduesUSAFguy - 22/9/2007  5:51 PM

If the goal of the program is go to Mars, then we should go to Mars...
As said, it's not the goal. Mars mission are one step on the way to the goal. But the principal reason NASA is not starting with a Mars mission is that it's impossible to sell to the politicians. Not only will it cost a lot more, but it's not certain we can actually do it (for instance, we do not know how to keep life support going for that length of time without resupply from Earth), and if we can't then that money will (as far as the voters are concerned) have been wasted. We know we can do a Luna mission.

There are a lot of posters on this board (though not me) who are convinced that the lunar missions will be cancelled on cost grounds as they take multiple Congresses and Administrations to achieve. Now magnify both the cost and time for a Mars mission....

One step at a time. With each step being a modest increment from what we know we can do and involve a demonstrated achievement. That's the best way to achieve things in the long run.

Online jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
CuddlyRocket,
Quote
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.

Oh, I agree that Griffin and Stanley have mentioned interest in propellant transfer and propellant depots.  The problem is that while there is technical risk associated with developing the transfer capabilities, that the risk is relatively small.  More importantly, there are risks inherent in *not* doing it that way, and I think on net NASA would be money ahead trying to do risk reduction on those key technologies sooner rather than later.  When you have a good idea, but aren't 100% sure you can make it work, and it has this big of a potential impact on your future decisions, you try to do something to find out if the idea will work.  By the time Ares V is built, most of the benefit of a propellant depot will have been lost.  Adding a little marginal capability to an overpriced, underwhelming architecture instead of actually allowing you to do things in ways that are much more effective.

As I said to JIS, the Apollo guys could've said the same thing about orbital rendezvous capabilities.  Orbital rendezvous was completely unproven at that point, much riskier then than propellant transfer is now (between Russian experience, Centaur, and now Orbital Express).  Direct Ascent while it would've required a much bigger booster completely eliminated the need for putting such a risky and expensive-to-develop technology on the critical path for a return to the moon.  It could've "been put off till later" as an enhancement to a Nova-based mission to boost the payload to the lunar surface.  However, NASA made the right call, and made sure they put the time and money into beating the problem into the ground instead of wringing their hands about how difficult the problem might be.

It's not like by avoiding propellant transfer NASA's actually getting things done in any real hurry, or that they're saving any money.   They're planning on blowing $60-100B over the next dozen and a half years building a boring warmed over remake of Apollo that suffers from many of the same limitations because they're too afraid of taking any risks.  If they're too incompetent to help field a new technology that's closer to being proven out than orbital rendezvous was for the Apollo program, what makes you think they're capable of executing a $60B+ lunar architecture?

I don't know why NASA thinks it can go to the moon if it's so afraid of taking even small and intelligent risks like that.

~Jon

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
jongoff - 23/9/2007  4:08 AM

JIS,
Quote
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.

And of course in your world only EELVs and commercial launchers ever suffer from last-minute glitches or scrubs...

In my world system called Soyuz does exist. The same configuration all the time all bugs cleared. Ares 1/Orion have about 10 years to get there.

Quote
Quote
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.

Not really.  There's a reason why staging points and way stations are used so often in other terrestrial logistics chains.

The reason is called multiway traffic.

Quote
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).

TEI failure is mitigated by simple, reliable and good heritage engine. Also backup RCS could help. What is the difference to L2 architecture? Keeping backup there? But first you need far more complex lunar module to get from L2 to the moon and back. New failure modes added. New costly infrastructure added. Less infrastructure on the Moon where needed most.

Quote
Quote
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.

Propellant depots in LEO make sense far earlier.

When they are ready they can be asily acommodated to the current architecture. Ares 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.

Quote
 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.

NASA did ISS first and now is creating servicing market for it. Not way round. The reason is the STS was supposed to be the right solution. STS has failed for reasons obvious now - too complex high risk vehicle. Keep it 'simple' is the right way.

Quote
Quote
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).  

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.

Apollo 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?
I think that ISS construction has taught us something. Cargo Ares V is direct 20t one way what I consider good enough, but 25t would be even better. Is 25t with refueling at depot better than 20t direct? What about 40t vs 20t? I don't know. We urgently need a good engineering judgement.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Refueling 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/

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 23/9/2007  12:34 PM

Refueling 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.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
In 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 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, propellent transfer is too expensive in terms of the effort necessary to orbit the depots.  Previous transfers are hypergolics and relatively small quantitites.  We are talking about huge quanties 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...


Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Quote
mike robel - 23/9/2007  3:23 PM

In 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...
Lets just pick some numbers out of the air.
Lets say it costs NASA $50 per pound to purchase LOX
Lets say it costs NASA $2,000 a pound to launch anything, including LOX.
That means it costs NASA $2,050 per pound for the LOX it launches.
That’s because everything the government does is more expensive. Fact of life.

Lets say it costs commercial space $10 per pound to purchase LOX on the open market.
Lets say it costs commercial space $1,000 per pound to launch anything.
That’s because they are not a federal government entity
So it costs commercial space $1,010 per pound to launch LOX.
They sell it, on orbit from a depot to NASA for $1,530 per pound.
NASA gets their LOX for $520 a pound cheaper than if they do it themselves, a 25% savings.
Commercial space makes $520 per pound profit for something that costs them $10.
It’s win-win for everybody, including the American taxpayer, who foots NASA’s bill.
The commercial space stockholders are ecstatic.
Selling LOX to NASA from an orbital depot is a moneymaker for anyone who does it.
I want to own stock in the company that does it.

Granted those are fictitious numbers, but they do approximate reality.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Lets say you need 191,000 pounds of LOX and 37,000 pounds of LH2 for a total mass of 228,000 pounds and you want to place that in orbit.  Lets say that the best launch vehicle you have can place 260,000 pounds into orbit.

You probably recognize that as the SIVB fuel load and the Saturn V Payload.  Now, I realize that much of the SIVB load is expended in getting to Earth orbit, but for the sake of argument lets us agree that the booster we are using is a space tug and this fuel load lets it depart earth orbit, break into and out of lunar orbit, and break again into earth orbit.  Let’s say this also takes care of the propellants to descend and ascend to/from the lunar surface and the Lunar Lander is left in lunar orbit and is completely reusable.  The only spacecraft we have to orbit then is the crew carrier that takes the astronauts to earth orbit, tags along with the tug, and then is used to reenter.

Launches to orbit 228,000 pounds of propellants

Delta IV Heavy = 56,800 pounds = 4.01 launches
Atlas V Heavy =  55,115 pounds = 4.13 launches
Jupiter/Direct = 101,412 pounds = 2.24 launches
.
Plus, you would still need a crew launch

I do not see how this is cost effective, regardless of who is launching it.  Of course, an engineer could calculate better numbers for the required fuel load for a given payload, and the numbers may improve somewhat.

I am still skeptical.

A nuke may be better and make it worthwhile.

Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
JIS - 23/9/2007  5:39 AM
TEI failure is mitigated by simple, reliable and good heritage engine. Also backup RCS could help.

Sorry, but a better engine is not "mitigation" it's just better odds than a poorer engine. It MAY well be the case that one great engine is safer than two good engines, but one must be careful not to fall into the trap of deciding that a reduction in risk equals mitigation; that thinking gets people into trouble over and over again...  ;)

Quote
JIS - 23/9/2007  5:39 AM
Ares 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.

I like the idea of refueling depots in LEO, but they are a joke if not supplied by RLV. If you are going to build a large expendable and park its upper stage in LEO (full of fuel as a refueling depot) then what is the advantage over not leaving anything in LEO between missions and simply having one extra rocket launch of an expendable full of fuel as part of your mission package? If, on the other hand, you plan to loft a refueling depot and then periodically re-fill it and do maintenance on it from an RLV, then it makes sense because it's all about the fuel and not about throwing hardware away.

Quote
JIS - 23/9/2007  5:39 AM
Apollo 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?

Apollo was indeed a good solution for a couple of trips to plant flags and prove we were capable of doing this stuff. It was a terrible example of what to do if you are serious about going somewhere and staying. I love the Apollo program for its boldness and its engineering prowess and I get the same shivers of pride from seeing the hardware that anybody else with a beating heart gets, BUT I hope we never repeat it. When we plan for the moon it needs to be a plan to go and never abandon it. We need to make every bit of hardware we send there into something that gets added to the base so it just gradually gets bigger and more capable and more self-sustaining. We need to learn all the lessons there that will enable us to do the same when we go to Mars (as opposed to going there to plant a flag and then return home to cower for 40 years). Not personally a fan of a lunar base in one or two launches (too easy to get trapped into ending-up with a small base that is "complete" and never grows to be truly usable). I'd personally rather see a few heavy loads of building supplies and equipment with initial construction done telerobotically from Earth or by Astronauts camping in an LSAM.

Oh, and the Apollo program also taught us one very critical lesson that all of us space enthusiasts need to remember and hammer into the space critics: When critics complained that all this exploring stuff was costing too much money and the money was better spent on Earth ending poverty and curing diseases etc. the politicians of the Apollo era listened and killed the program. After decades of not flying to the moon, there is still poverty, disease, racism, etc. thereby proving that killing America's exploration activities did NOTHING its critics said it would. Those fallacious, specious arguments should NEVER be allowed to stand again. :angry:

Quote
JIS - 23/9/2007  5:39 AM
I think that ISS construction has taught us something.

Answers only matter if you pay attention to the questions. We need to be careful not to mis-apply what ISS taught us; The lessons of ISS mainly apply to building large structures from small modules in zero-G. Building on the moon or Mars is entirely different; Structures must be built in and deal with gravity and dust but they need not be constrained in size, shape or mass nor by a need to be re-boosted or a need for attitude control (and all the stresses associated) Construction on the moon will likely be easier than in LEO because gravity will make it more like a terrestrial construction. The lessons of ISS will mainly apply to assembling the vehicles that will take us to Mars, and beyond; these vehicles will probably be assembled in LEO and the lessons from ISS will be very valuable. :cool:

Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
mike robel - 23/9/2007  12:23 PM
In 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)



Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Quote
clongton - 23/9/2007  8:23 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 23/9/2007  12:34 PM

Refueling 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.

I meant this as the development testing.  When everything works change to full size fuel tanks and rockets to launch them.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Quote
MrTim - 24/9/2007  6:22 AM
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)


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.


Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Does it mention anywhere that it's 13mT over what the current Ares V can put into TLI?
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Quote
Antares - 24/9/2007  2:32 PM

Does it mention anywhere that it's 13mT over what the current Ares V can put into TLI?
That tiny tidbit has been conveniently left out. Do you think anybody noticed? They are hoping not.  :frown:
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline stargazer777

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

Quote
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.


Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
My 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.  Obviously, you need to have a follow on plan, but it needs to be thought out in chunks.  You only get a give president for a max of 8 years and his influence, at best, only lasts two beyond his last day in office.  Congress critters are about the same.

It 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.

Mike

Quote
MrTim - 24/9/2007  1:22 AM

Quote
mike robel - 23/9/2007  12:23 PM
In 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)



Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
This presentation contains the charts used to present NASA's current Lunar Architecture at AIAA's Space 2007 conference last week.

Contents:

Introduction to Session - Doug Stanley

Current exploration strategy and status - Doug Cooke

- Lunar Architecture update - Geoff Yoder
- Lunar Science - Laurie Leshin
- Pressurized Rover and EVA concepts - Mike Gernhardt

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2007/AIAA.ESMD.SPACE2007.pdf

Offline Mark Max Q

  • Going Supersonic
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1185
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 15
Bad link.

Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
mike robel - 24/9/2007  1:52 PM
My 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.  

Quote
mike robel - 24/9/2007  1:52 PM
It 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.

Quote
MrTim - 24/9/2007  1:22 AM
Quote
mike robel - 23/9/2007  12:23 PM
In 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.
[/QUOTE]

Mike,
Since we're all hanging-out here on these forums, we probably agree much more on space matters than we disagree. NASA really HAS had quite a history of either (a) making grandiose plans that will never get funded and that first stoke-up and later disappoint space cadets or (b) making plans that DO get funded but only because of unrealistic claims which later disappoint because they cannot be met. This is one reason I really like Mike Griffin and what he is doing with Constellation. I may dislike certain aspects of the plans, but the overall effort is the first bit of realism to hit the agency since 1969. It's positively a gale-force wind of fresh air that NASA is planning achievable goals and pegging the rate of the effort to whatever funding congress and administrations choose to provide. For this reason more than any other I suspect Mike Griffin will be seen by future generations as having been pivotal and one of the best to ever run the place. I really do believe this effort will succeed no matter which parties control what unless something unusual happens since most administrations want little to do with NASA other than photo op's when big successes occur.

Having 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  ;)


Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
MrTim - 25/9/2007  7:52 AM

Having 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.
Using 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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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  ;)

ISS has problems because there is little use of it.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Quote
JIS - 25/9/2007  2:03 PM

ISS 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

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=25506
This should work.
It's courtesy to not link straight to bandwith intensive stuff. :)

A very fascinating document by the way, it perhaps felt for the first time that maybe people will walk on the moon in fifteen years or so.

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
Analyst - 25/9/2007  1:37 PM

Quote
JIS - 25/9/2007  2:03 PM

ISS 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

Use of ISS:
Science in microgravity conditions
Support for commercialisation & cooperation

Use of the Moon base:
Science at Moon conditions.
Support for commercialisation & cooperation
Planetary science
Exploration
Colonisation
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
The AIAA presentation is very interesting.  It makes a good case for mobile rovers and I am very impressed with the projected 7 and 14 day distances.  The presentation does leave the purpose, size and shape of the base a little foggy.

I really liked the sketches of the small rover with the bubble (for a lack of a better term) front where you would have complete visibility.  It  likely would weigh far to much to be built and sent to the moon but how great would it be to rove across the moon with 180°+ vision of the surface.

Edit: I agree with JIS points above as well as the Lunar activities targeted in the AIAA paper.  There is so much more to do on the moon than on the ISS.  You may question whether any of its worth it but you can't question that the Moon has far more things to do.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Quote
JIS - 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 ;)

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Quote
simonbp - 25/9/2007  4:05 PM

Along that line, a moon base that can pick up and walk to a new location would be ideal...Simon ;)
Or fly  :)
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline stargazer777

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

Quote
simonbp - 25/9/2007  4:05 PM  
Quote
JIS - 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 ;)

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.


Offline kfsorensen

  • aerospace and nuclear engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1568
  • Huntsville, AL
    • Flibe Energy
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 0
Way to use quotes, Stargazer!!!! :)

Offline sandrot

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Motown
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 5
I like simonbp's idea of the walking base. If we had 6 legs instead of 4 on the lander, we could pretty safely "walk" (or being "walked" while crew is sleeping) to new locations. Walking is very efficient and you would always be hauling with you the return module if things go bad. 6 legs are necessary to remain vertical (IIRC the LM had some tight tolerance there), and so to limit the "wrong moves" that might doom the crew. Legs are not KISS but what sits on top of them may be.
"Paper planes do fly much better than paper spacecrafts."

Offline sandrot

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Motown
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 5
"Paper planes do fly much better than paper spacecrafts."

Offline ryan mccabe

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
stargazer777 - 25/9/2007  4:23 PM
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.

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 simmilar 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.

Offline stargazer777

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

Quote
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.


Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
simonbp - 25/9/2007  9:05 PM

Along that line, a moon base that can pick up and walk to a new location would be ideal...

Simon ;)

One big disadvantage - environment could change quite rapidly. The spot with nearly permanent sunshine and benign temperatures is quite narrow. Also shielding against micrometeoroids or flares could be done better at the permanent base. Permanent base can use all that backup stuff landed on LSAMs. If you need a spare valve, aggregate, PV panel or battery just go to the graveyard and grab it.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
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.

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
Wheels are a whole lot easier and cheaper than legs. (cheaper being the overriding priority)

Offline stargazer777

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

Quote
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.      


Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
JIS - 25/9/2007  5:03 AM
Quote
MrTim - 25/9/2007  7:52 AM
Having 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. A geodesic structure, on the other hand, could be shipped to the moon as a densely packed stack of prefabbed triangle shaped panels. No matter what size base you want, you just ship more of the same panels plus the odd airlock module or panel with a hatch or window in it. Unfortunately we have a decade to work on assembly methods. Since all panels would be same size and shape, we should be able to make a tool that is clamped to any seam and told to "go" which should be able to crawl along a straight line between two panels welding the joint and checking it. Automated welding is used all over the place here on earth right now. BTW: A parked lunar lander is not a "base" even if it is larger than a LEM was; it is a parked lunar lander and that will be obvious to everybody. If we are going to severely limit our options and capabilities before going (by plan), then we may as well stay home because what we send is already crippled. :(

Quote
JIS - 25/9/2007  5:03 AM
Using 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.

Quote
JIS - 25/9/2007  5:03 AM
Quote
MrTim - 25/9/2007  7:52 AM
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 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.

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.

I DO think we ought to push for a base that could eventually grow to have a dozen people. One lesson of ISS is that SOME man-hours are needed to operate and maintain, so a minimal crew has minimal science returns. Over time, the base should get labs, storage areas, greenhouse, workspace for maintenance/repairs, etc. The base will need to be more comfortable than ISS; there is gravity, and these crews will need to get out of their dirty, heavy moon suits, get cleaned-up and stretch-out and relax between periods of heavy exertion on the lunar surface.
Two guys cat-napping in a crowded LM between a couple of short outings on Apollo is NOT a good model for the future. 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.

Quote
JIS - 25/9/2007  5:03 AM
Quote
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.
ISS has problems because there is little use of it.

Yeah, in large part because it has too few modules, not enough power, and is not capable of hosting a big enough crew. Simply put: it's too small, cramped, limited and understaffed to do good science. Show me ANY other national lab with a staff of only 3 who spend most of their time maintaining the lab. 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".

Quote
Analyst - 25/9/2007  5:37 AM
What is the use of a lunar base? And please include "negative" use as in costs.

1. To prepare for and learn lessons we need to learn to put a base on Mars.
2. To prepare for and learn lessons we need to learn to put bases on other moons.
3. To make exploration of the moon practical.
4. To operate and maintain any new instruments we choose to put on the moon (such as optical or radio telescopes)
5. To be human (to explore frontiers and challenge ourselves)

Why be negative? We all know the biggest negatives are cost and risk of lost lives, but like all science and exploration not doing it carries a cost all its own. Those negatives are reasons to kill ALL space exploration (even robot rovers and space telescopes). On some level, those arguments are useful against ANYTHING worth doing.

The whole way we think about exploring the moon will change once we have a base. With a permanently manned base and a pressurized rover, we will see astronauts plan to drive-out to various sites to explore or maintain instruments (perhaps for several days) and then drive back to base with samples etc. and to get cleaned-up and re-charge/repair equipment before taking off again on another off-road adventure. As time passes we may improve the rovers to go for even longer trips so that perhaps after years of doing this week-long rover trips might be common. The sights will be amazing and who knows what we will learn. This will be SHOCKINGLY different from the old Apollo method of flying to a spot on the moon, exploring for hours, and then flying home never to re-visit the site and with no time for any in-depth study. On Apollo if some experiment got messed-up or some core sample could not be obtained there was pressure to abandon and move-on because the surface time was so limited and precious.

Imagine: a telescope MUCH larger than Hubble could be built on the moon and when it has problems a crew from the moonbase could drive out to it, diagnose it, and possibly repair it. If parts are needed, they go up on a future supply LSAM and the crew drives back-out to fix it. Working on it becomes FAR easier and safer than trips to Hubble are now. Over time, a twin could be added some distance away thus forming an incredibly capable interferometer. Radio telescopes could also be built perhaps just over the horizon from Earth to block noise. A moon base could become an amazing boon to science.  :cool:

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
MrTim - 26/9/2007  12:10 PM

Quote
JIS - 25/9/2007  5:03 AM
Quote
MrTim - 25/9/2007  7:52 AM
Having 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.

Seminflatable. Cylinder splitted in half (the split goes trough heads). Both halves connected with flexible wall. Place cylinder on its side, support the upper half the lower one will be deployed by gravity. With 8m diameter you can get structure more than >12m high (climbing ladder or stairs shouldn’t be a problem in short sleeves and lower gravity). This would be just empty shell with airlock and basic infrastructure, the equipment (tools, crew supp, surgery) and supplies are provided gradually from missions leftovers. Shielding provided by ISRU (modified regolith, water)

To deploy such hab I would recommend a crane oper. Also maintenance or building of such structure could be easier with crane. Maybe mobile crane with anchors.  

Quote
Quote
JIS - 25/9/2007  5:03 AM
Using 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.

Lander will carry some kind of minihab, service module and ascend module.
Minihab could be detached and placed on the mobile platform. With crane oper. this could be fairly easy. Although service module can be modified I think the dedicated mobile platform could be better solution.

Quote
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.

2 crewed flights. There will be more cargo flights. The key is to make the assembly much easier than on ISS. Also the maintenance should be more about changing out black boxes. Everything should be interchangeable between base, LSAM and rovers.

Quote
MrTim - 25/9/2007  7:52 AM
The plop-some-modules approach sets the entire attitude of the program to a limited vision where unlimited is what's called for.

I'm talking about purpose build habitat fitted with generic equipment. If you need another hab just send another - same or different. Not big deal - just one Ares V flight. I doubt it would be cheaper to fabricate them on site. That is why the skids are used in offshore industry. No fabrication on site.

Quote
Quote
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.

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.

I think that term "colony" means able to grow without increased support from outside. ISRU needed. The base doesn't grow without help from outside.  

Quote
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.

The key is to decrease maintenance and construction time. This could be done by remotely operated vehicles, good modular architecture and lot of spares (from LSAMs). For example the crew support will be landed with each crewed LSAM and left on the Moon as a spare. The hab can use several parallel sets and in case of need the spare from LSAMs will be used. Also physical exercises won't be as critical as heavy physical activity can be expected in normal course of exploration.

Quote
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.

Moon base could indeed be finished in several flights. However, it's not about base but exploration.
New science packages, ISRU or rovers can be delivered to increase capabilities. No need for more crew. Any time the crew bring new samples the new science can be done - simply by delivering those samples to the Earth. It's unique to the exploration.

Quote
Quote
ISS 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.

I think it's more logistic and maintenance problem than anything else. Those guys will be just collecting samples, maintaining machinery and moving around science packages. The scientists will be doing what they are doing most of the time. Sitting at the computer at the desk (or on the beach).

Quote
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".

The base should be 'fully automatic' to be operational without the crew. Fortunately it will be easier to do than with ISS. Once the base is there it will be much easier for anybody to go to the Moon.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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 ;)

Offline stargazer777

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

Quote
simonbp - 26/9/2007  11:17 AM  
Quote
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.
 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.  
Quote
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.
 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 ;)

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.


Offline ryan mccabe

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
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.

1. ISRU could have revolutionary application to spaceflight, and no that does not necessarily mean He-3. We talk about ISRU all the time, but we've never actually done it.

2. Geology is NOT the only reason for going back to the Moon and even NASA says this much. Technology demonstration for a manned Mars mission is the primary reason we are going back, and geology is clearly the justification we are using for that end.

3. Let's say we unlock clues to planetary formation and the likelihood of Earth-like worlds beyond our solar system. So what? What near-term application does that hold? The answer is little to none. ISRU, not geology, is what will make us a spacefairing civilization.

Offline sandrot

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Motown
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 5
You'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.
"Paper planes do fly much better than paper spacecrafts."

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
simonbp - 26/9/2007  4:17 PM

Quote
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.

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 ;)

Athlete can find some use for transporting modules (or as a rover) but what use would have a mobile lunar base? Don't forget that there is 14 days long lunar night. The only spot where the night is shorter is on the poles. The permanent base has to be there.
Also the permanent base will be very very heavy growing all the time. With rovers you can easily explore sites many 100km away.
Now, tell me why somebody would like to have mobile base.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
sandrot - 26/9/2007  6:30 PM

You'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.

There will be lunar orbiters looking for such resources soon.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline sandrot

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Motown
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 5
I'm sure prospecting from orbit is very reliable. In fact we found Mars has water gullies... oh no, wait a minute... the gullies are dry!
"Paper planes do fly much better than paper spacecrafts."

Offline ryan mccabe

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
sandrot - 26/9/2007  12:30 PM

You'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.

That's true sandrot, and I don't want to give anyone the impression that I am 100% against geology and pure science. I simply think we are putting too much emphasis on geology and in doing so, we could be adversely effecting our architecture decisions. Like others have said, fixed bases provide more safety, more reliability, more radiation protection, etc. Those should be uncompromised priorities for our first long-duration lunar missions.

And 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.

Offline sandrot

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Motown
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 5
So would we agree that we need to do things in this order?
1) land there
2) improve mobility
3) prospect
4) ISRU
5) expand

ISRU is a low priority for now.

And since more or less we know how to get there, some time can be spent on mobility.

Orbiters can help you finding "promising" landing sites. Once you get there you have got to explore.
"Paper planes do fly much better than paper spacecrafts."

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Quote
ryan mccabe - 26/9/2007  1:52 PM

And 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.
Personally, I think there is not enough water ice on the moon to be THE justification for a base location. Remember, they have NOT confirmed the presence of water ice, only the signature presence of hydrogen. There are other compounds with hydrogen as a component that “could” also account for the signature. If ice is present, it will exist, as they “surmise” in places of permanent shadow. Which, btw, means that they have never seen it or gotten a telltale signature that it is even there. It’s like seeing a rainbow in the sky and assuming the presence of a pot of gold at the end. Until I put that nickel between my own teeth, I wouldn’t bank on any ice. I stopped believing in fairies and leprechauns a long time ago.

Going to the moon is not going to be a cake walk, and to bank on the presence of ice to justify it is playing with fire.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Determining 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.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
clongton - 26/9/2007  8:03 PM

Determining 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.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Quote
JIS - 26/9/2007  3:23 PM

Quote
clongton - 26/9/2007  8:03 PM

Determining 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.
I didn’t say it does depend on it. I said it mustn’t depend on it. That’s 2 different things.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Since 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.

Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 26/9/2007  6:43 PM
Since 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.
I am glad to see some realism here. I think anybody who expects any moon base to take advantage of in situ resources is headed for big disappointment. The only resources we should count on are sunlight and moon rocks; anything else is frosting on the cake. This is part of why I want to see a bigger moon base BUILT there rather than a few small modules plugged together: Re-supplying a moon base from Earth will make ISS look bargain-basement discount bin cheap. The moon base will only really be sustainable and not debated every year as an item to be canceled if we can minimize the supplies we must send to it, and that means recycling air and water and generating power locally (and recharging rover and suit batteries locally). It also means setting-up a greenhouse and growing at least some food locally (I suppose if you grew plants in lunar soil you could consider that to be a form of ISRU). If you have enough power and habitable workspaces you can experiment with fabricating simple things from lunar materials, which sounds time-consuming and expensive here and now, but which would be good experiments then and there. If reasonably useful things could be fabricated on-site ( perhaps fiber-glass-like insulations, metal panels or beams for use in further construction, etc. ) they would not need to be sent from Earth (more time consuming and expensive).

Perhaps, rather than building large surface structures, we should consider tunneling into the surface and forming air-tight interior tunnel walls by sintering with lasers. This would mean NO mass shipped to the moon for facility structures other than the tools ( small lunar version of a TBM and lasers ) and some pre-fabbed airlocks for the entrances. It would also provide safety for astronauts re radiation. You would NEVER do this on Earth where energy is expensive, building materials are cheap and readily available, and structures live in 1-G, but on the moon where the economics are very distorted, gravity is low, and radiation is an issue it ought to be considered.

BTW this also means that if we master building and living in a base on the moon, we will be much more likely to succeed at mars. Mastery of the efficiencies and recycling needed for the moon will buy us margins on Mars where some added challenges (like weather, and distance from the safety of Earth) will need to be dealt with, but where we hope to be able to use existing water.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0