Author Topic: Zubrin's New Falcon Heavy Architecture - Moon Direct  (Read 64060 times)

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Zubrin's New Falcon Heavy Architecture - Moon Direct
« Reply #20 on: 03/17/2018 09:29 pm »
{snip}
Crew vehicle:

* Develop and build a Lunar Excursion Vehicle: the LEV. Cabin the size of the LM. 2 tons.
* Have on the LEV a hydrolox stage with enough fuel to do TEI and then EOI back to LEO. All told, 6 km/s.
* The above requires a mass ratio of 3.7, resulting in a 8 ton vehicle.
* Put all that in a cargo module, to be landed by the previously developed cargo lander.{snip}

2 tons is a bit low, I would be happier with 3 tons. The Apollo LEM had weak walls because of the extreme weight saving measures used. Upper end caravans are around 5 tons.
I'll raise you to 5 or maybe even 6 tons - then, the craft might be robust enough to aerocapture into LEO without needing lots of propulsion. But then; it's less hazardous and technically simpler to just have enough delta-v to brake back into Earth orbit. So yeah; 3 or 4 tons max, then...
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline robert_d

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 356
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 118
Re: Zubrin's New Falcon Heavy Architecture - Moon Direct
« Reply #21 on: 03/17/2018 09:33 pm »


Probably, then again launch failure rates are the following....

Falcon 1: 60%
Falcon 9: 4%
Shuttle: .7%

Failure rate (last 20 missions):
Shuttle/STS: 5%
Falcon 9:      0%

So?

Edit 3/18 after correction below: I was wrong. (sorry) Thanks to ncb1397 for pointing it out.

Last 30 Shuttle missions,  failure rate: 3.33%
Last 30 F9 missions,         failure rate : 3.33% (counting Amos-6)
Assuming this would have been a crewed flight, I am confident that SpaceX would not have changed the propellant loading procedures. So no loss of crew possible.
   I am not being critical of the Shuttle. I think they were just getting to the point that the 1/270 loss of crew number was attainable. Had they been able to use it in an unmanned mode at the rate SpaceX is using the F9 further potential failure modes would have been identified sooner.

I would ride on an F9 block 4 without a qualm.
« Last Edit: 03/18/2018 01:52 pm by robert_d »

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Zubrin's New Falcon Heavy Architecture - Moon Direct
« Reply #22 on: 03/17/2018 09:43 pm »


Probably, then again launch failure rates are the following....

Falcon 1: 60%
Falcon 9: 4%
Shuttle: .7%

Failure rate (last 20 missions):
Shuttle/STS: 5%
Falcon 9:      0%

So?

Last 20 missions would be STS-115(Sept. 2006) through STS-135 (July 2011). All were successful.

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1354
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1424
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Zubrin's New Falcon Heavy Architecture - Moon Direct
« Reply #23 on: 03/17/2018 09:48 pm »
That's OK, just try 25 missions, 30, 35, until you get a value that matches the point that was actually being made.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Zubrin's New Falcon Heavy Architecture - Moon Direct
« Reply #24 on: 03/17/2018 09:57 pm »
At the risk of going all 'Sheldon Cooper' on you guys - what is the point of arguing about loss of mission and reliability statistics of Shuttle and rocket launchers when we're talking about a fairly decent Lunar mission architecture??!!  ::)
« Last Edit: 03/17/2018 09:59 pm by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: Zubrin's New Falcon Heavy Architecture - Moon Direct
« Reply #25 on: 03/17/2018 10:06 pm »
If you wanted to do this you don't really need all of the elements proposed.
Dragon V2 was originally intended for landing on terrestrial bodies. With slight modifications it could land on the moon on its own. Maybe create a fuel tank or depot based on Dragon V2, like a dragon tanker basically for refueling the hypergolics so you can get back off the surface of the moon again, send that and land it first.

No refueling a Falcon 9 second stage would not be easier, Falcon 9 S2 was never intended to be refueled you would basically have to build an entirely new stage no point in doing this when they are already into fabrication and testing of BFS.

No point in even proposing this because nobody is going to pay for it. NASA at the direction of Congress and friends is going to sink all their money into SLS/Orion and the Lunar Orbital platform, as well as DSG in the future. SpaceX would be stupid to spend their money on it since BFS and BFR fabrication and testing are already underway. Why spend twice?

This is an interesting proposal but it would have made more sense to do 7 years ago, if we assume a timeline where Falcon Heavy existed 7 years ago. As things are now there is no point. All funding effort should be focused where SpaceX is focusing it, on a new architecture capable of doing many mission profiles instead of just one small one.

If NASA were to pay for this it might make more sense, but they aren't. Even then, it would only make a limited amount of sense. It would make alot more sense if things went that route for NASA to simply buy future flights on BFR and thus via a COTS style contract contribute funding to BFS BFR development, which would potentially speed development and IOC.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: Zubrin's New Falcon Heavy Architecture - Moon Direct
« Reply #26 on: 03/17/2018 10:11 pm »
There's another thread where we've been talking about something like this, the "going back to the Moon really fast" thread.

I thought it was kind of funny that Bob Zubrin hadn't ever heard of Xeus and ACES, which he's basically describing.  In other words, he's rediscovered what Dave Masten figured out, that Centaur makes a great lander with a few mods and also a great tug.

But that's fine. Maybe he'll draw more attention to Xeus and ACES, and ULA (and Dave Masten) will get the funding they want to move forward with it a little sooner.

Back in 2009 ULA released this paper:

Vulcan would also increase mass per launch and decrease cost though not by as much. Then there is New Glenn in a few years potentially.

Meanwhile, why are we discussing failure rates ITT? Failure rates don't enter into this, the architecture will never happen.

Far more likely BFS/Vulcan family heavy variant/New Glenn, one of these three or all three flies first and eliminates the need for multiple small launches at higher cost before you could have everything you needed for this proposal built and flying.

At the risk of going all 'Sheldon Cooper' on you guys - what is the point of arguing about loss of mission and reliability statistics of Shuttle and rocket launchers when we're talking about a fairly decent Lunar mission architecture??!!  ::)

It is not a decent architecture. Why is this proposal a thing?
Why isn't he proposing COTS/CRS/CCDEV for BEO? Something that would be far easier to sell to Congress (there is already discussion of using commercial launchers for pieces of the Lunar Platform thing)?

Elephant in the room is being ignored once again, money being wasted on a giant NASA rocket and spacecraft that could be better served elsewhere. Good luck paying for lunar mission elements while simultaneously funding that nonsense.

I am somewhat upset that Dr. Zubrin and others in similar positions don't want to talk about this issue. It is only going to get worse and more pronounced as time goes by and the commercial sector continues to mature. They don't want to talk about it to the point they are proposing whole new mission architectures and totally ignoring it.
« Last Edit: 03/17/2018 10:16 pm by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Zubrin's New Falcon Heavy Architecture - Moon Direct
« Reply #27 on: 03/17/2018 10:20 pm »
There's a thread on NSF from last year; dealing with a Dragon 2 derivative for lunar landing. It was a bit Apollo-redux, in the sense that the Dragon 'Command Module' was left in lunar orbit and a Dragon lander did the descent and ascent. We imagined a lander built around the Dragon pressure shell - no outer aerodynamic mold line and heatshield - surrounded by propellant tanks and mylar, somewhat like the Apollo LM ascent stage was. The thread dealt with hypergolics for propellants. I imagined a version where lunar oxygen could refuel the oxidizer of the Super Draco engines - burning a combo of LOX and MMO.

But even though this is a Zubrin lunar architecture study, I thought it was related enough to mention. Maybe for the interim; we could concentrate on suggestions and improvements to 'tweak' Dr Zubrin's ideas? I think taking your TEI/EOI propellant up and down with you would be wasteful. Perhaps the crew lander could leave the cryogenic propulsion stage at either EML-1 or high lunar orbit? Then, the Lander could make direct descent and ascent back to the stage, dock with it and fly back to Earth with EOI then done? This is a concept actually a bit close to a previous Dr Spudis paper I once read.
« Last Edit: 04/11/2018 05:44 am by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Zubrin's New Falcon Heavy Architecture - Moon Direct
« Reply #28 on: 03/17/2018 10:25 pm »
In answer to Final Frontier above - I said a fairly decent mission architecture. In no way did I intend it to be characterized as optimal. I agree that with Vulcan and New Glenn coming; we could talk about several different mission options available. This is why I think we should discuss the good points and any bad points of Zubrin's ideas. No mission architecture is going to please everyone and be deemed 'perfect'. But they can be improved. I used the word 'tweak' earlier...
« Last Edit: 07/28/2018 05:47 am by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: Zubrin's New Falcon Heavy Architecture - Moon Direct
« Reply #29 on: 03/17/2018 10:28 pm »
There's a thread on NSF from last year; dealing with a Dragon 2 derivative for lunar landing. It was a bit Apollo-redux, in the sense that the Dragon 'Command Module' was left in lunar orbit and a Dragon lander did the descent and ascent. We imagined a lander built around the Dragon pressure shell - no outer aerodynamic mold line and heatshield - surrounded by propellant tanks and mylar, somewhat like the Apollo LM ascent stage was. The thread dealt with hypergolics for propellants. I imagined a version where lunar oxygen could refuel the oxidizer of the Super Draco engines - burning a combo of LOX and MMO.

But even though this is a Zubrin lunar architecture study, I though it was related enough to mention. Maybe for the interim; we could concentrate on suggestions and improvements to 'tweak' Dr Zubrin's ideas? I think taking your TEI/EOI propellant up and down with you would be wasteful. Perhaps the crew lander could leave the cryogenic propulsion stage at either EM-1 or high lunar orbit? Then, the Lander could make direct descent and ascent back to the stage, dock with it and fly back to Earth with EOI then done? This is a concept actually a bit close to a previous Dr Spudis paper I once read.
All good points, but for the interim we should be discussing why we aren't cancelling SLS and using the money to fund these things. If you use the same contracting structure the political interests would be satisfied thus avoiding the "kill your own lobby" problem that was discussed in detail on another thread here not too long ago. Where are the proposals for this?
Irksome that these architectures never cover that half of the problem just the technical side. We have the technical side figured out, it's been figured out since long before that ACES paper even.

Quote
In answer to Final Frontier above - I said a fairly decent mission architecture. In no way did I intend it to be characterized as optimal. I agree that with Vulcan and New Glenn coming; we could talk about several different mission options available. This is why I think we should discuss the good points and any bad points of Zubrin's ideas. No mission architecture is going to please everyone and be deemed 'perfect'. But they can be improved. I used the world 'tweak' earlier...
Fair point. But I feel that Dr. Zubrin and others are missing the forest through the trees.

IMHO if you want the fastest possible way to LAND on the moon the fastest way use a modified Dragon V2 for the lander, or better yet just ask them to make a small landing vehicle around just the super draco engines.  Then use everything else you already have.

Better yet bid the thing out. Bid out each piece of the proposed architecture here COTS style and go from there. But I think this would still be slower than BFS/BFR/NewGlenn/Vulcan. The new launch vehicles in the pipeline right now have already had a significant amount of work time and money dumped into them, the 'forest through the trees' here is that it really seems like it would make alot more sense to simply support these existing efforts and use the elements of each for your mission architecture, rather than building new stuff.

Especially since NASA is burning up cash trying to do exactly that already. About the only things they have planned that should be taking priority are the proposed lunar station/tug/ whatever it is, and the DSG. Both of these ought to be priority #1 you can buy a launcher later. There is clearly not going to be a shortage of launchers.
« Last Edit: 03/17/2018 10:36 pm by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Zubrin's New Falcon Heavy Architecture - Moon Direct
« Reply #30 on: 03/17/2018 10:37 pm »
No refueling a Falcon 9 second stage would not be easier, Falcon 9 S2 was never intended to be refueled you would basically have to build an entirely new stage no point in doing this when they are already into fabrication and testing of BFS.

The non-optimal hardware for a minimal effort would not be significantly more than a payload with a skeleton interface at the top, and a small tube with appropriate valves through the bulkhead into the LOX tank to the bottom, as well as already demonstrated upgrades.

F9S2 is quite happy with several hour coasts.

It can do re-pressurisation after venting at least partially the S2 oxygen tank (it did this on the FH test flight). (with extra helium tanks added)
It has also demonstrated performance nearly adequate to dock two S2s together. (0.5m/s trajectory error in DSCOVR, for example, with nearly empty tanks, performance with nearly full tanks may be considerably better)

You launch the tanker with no payload, and significantly lower than normal kerosene, the payload with less oxygen. Dock the two stages on the top of the second interface, set the whole lot spinning gently, vent the tank of the receiving stage, open the valves, and wait a couple of hours.

Now you have a mostly full S2 + small payload, with very limited modifications required.

However, this is almost insane to try unless there is a pressing reason to do it in the next three years, or if it is clear BFR is not going to happen, for some reason.

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Zubrin's New Falcon Heavy Architecture - Moon Direct
« Reply #31 on: 03/17/2018 11:48 pm »
Mostly I am just surprised Zubrin thought up a scheme for the Moon, although he's usually advocated adapting Mars-based plans for the Moon previously.  Using Falcon 9 (heavy and regular) launchers puts it into current reality, although Musk admits he plans to inevitably phase it out for the BFR/ITS.  I suppose it could depend on how soon you want to get to the Moon; the F9/FH is alive and well whereas BFR is barely entering into prototyping.

A few people mentioned the Gateway (now LOP), Orion, and SLS in regards to those projects blocking something more streamlined as this.  If the 2000s ARM and the 1980s SEI have taught us anything, don't hold your breath;  the minute Congress or the Presidency changes, so will the priorities.  Traditional NASA projects come and go, but, like F9 and ITS/BFR, if commercial companies develop the lander elements internally that would be the best chance of either a Lunar or Martian expedition materializing.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Zubrin's New Falcon Heavy Architecture - Moon Direct
« Reply #32 on: 03/18/2018 01:35 am »
XBASE is likely to be split off from the ISS and become a LEO spacestation in its own right. Dream Chaser, CST-100 and Dragon 2 on Falcon 9 can deliver astronauts there from about 2021. A second spacecraft could fly them to the Moon.

LOP-G and Bigelow Depot may become spacestations in lunar orbit. The Falcon Heavy could fly a Dragon 2 to the lunar spacestation. A reusable lander can live there. Propellant, cargo and consumables could arrive in separate flights.

There may be several years between the BFR getting certified to carry cargo and having the upper stages life support certified. See the time between Dragon 1 and Dragon 2.

Offline Negan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 739
  • Southwest
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 533
Re: Zubrin's New Falcon Heavy Architecture - Moon Direct
« Reply #33 on: 03/18/2018 02:06 am »
XBASE is likely to be split off from the ISS and become a LEO spacestation in its own right. Dream Chaser, CST-100 and Dragon 2 on Falcon 9 can deliver astronauts there from about 2021. A second spacecraft could fly them to the Moon.

LOP-G and Bigelow Depot may become spacestations in lunar orbit. The Falcon Heavy could fly a Dragon 2 to the lunar spacestation. A reusable lander can live there. Propellant, cargo and consumables could arrive in separate flights.

There may be several years between the BFR getting certified to carry cargo and having the upper stages life support certified. See the time between Dragon 1 and Dragon 2.

BFS would be a better choice for a LEV and/or lander since it is currently being developed. BFS could use Dragon 2's life support.

Edit: and it's reusable
« Last Edit: 03/18/2018 02:15 am by Negan »

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Zubrin's New Falcon Heavy Architecture - Moon Direct
« Reply #34 on: 03/18/2018 02:29 am »
There may be several years between the BFR getting certified to carry cargo and having the upper stages life support certified. See the time between Dragon 1 and Dragon 2.
Life support approval may get rather easier if you have enough spare mass that having your only life support equipment be a vent and gas cylinders is plausible.

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Zubrin's New Falcon Heavy Architecture - Moon Direct
« Reply #35 on: 03/18/2018 02:49 am »
XBASE is likely to be split off from the ISS and become a LEO spacestation in its own right. Dream Chaser, CST-100 and Dragon 2 on Falcon 9 can deliver astronauts there from about 2021. A second spacecraft could fly them to the Moon.

LOP-G and Bigelow Depot may become spacestations in lunar orbit. The Falcon Heavy could fly a Dragon 2 to the lunar spacestation. A reusable lander can live there. Propellant, cargo and consumables could arrive in separate flights.

There may be several years between the BFR getting certified to carry cargo and having the upper stages life support certified. See the time between Dragon 1 and Dragon 2.

BFS would be a better choice for a LEV and/or lander since it is currently being developed. BFS could use Dragon 2's life support.

Edit: and it's reusable

We'll have to see how quickly SpaceX can cobble it together.  I favor the BRF/ITS and it's doubtful NASA will develop a Lunar lander on its own anytime soon when Orion's enough of a struggle.  All the same, any entity or company that can efficiently pull it off is welcome.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Zubrin's New Falcon Heavy Architecture - Moon Direct
« Reply #36 on: 03/18/2018 03:01 am »
XBASE is likely to be split off from the ISS and become a LEO spacestation in its own right. Dream Chaser, CST-100 and Dragon 2 on Falcon 9 can deliver astronauts there from about 2021. A second spacecraft could fly them to the Moon.

LOP-G and Bigelow Depot may become spacestations in lunar orbit. The Falcon Heavy could fly a Dragon 2 to the lunar spacestation. A reusable lander can live there. Propellant, cargo and consumables could arrive in separate flights.

There may be several years between the BFR getting certified to carry cargo and having the upper stages life support certified. See the time between Dragon 1 and Dragon 2.

BFS would be a better choice for a LEV and/or lander since it is currently being developed. BFS could use Dragon 2's life support.

Edit: and it's reusable

BFR may be too big for the Dragon 2 life support system, unless 5-10 copies are used.

A lander could also use a spacestation's life support. Something may spinoff NextSTEP.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Zubrin's New Falcon Heavy Architecture - Moon Direct
« Reply #37 on: 03/18/2018 03:08 am »
It is not a decent architecture. Why is this proposal a thing?
Why isn't he proposing COTS/CRS/CCDEV for BEO? Something that would be far easier to sell to Congress (there is already discussion of using commercial launchers for pieces of the Lunar Platform thing)?

Elephant in the room is being ignored once again, money being wasted on a giant NASA rocket and spacecraft that could be better served elsewhere. Good luck paying for lunar mission elements while simultaneously funding that nonsense.

I am somewhat upset that Dr. Zubrin and others in similar positions don't want to talk about this issue. It is only going to get worse and more pronounced as time goes by and the commercial sector continues to mature. They don't want to talk about it to the point they are proposing whole new mission architectures and totally ignoring it.

I think Zubrin is proposing this as a replacement for DSG. He didn't propose concepts like COTS probably because he wants to show something concrete for politicians to visualize (i.e. boots on the Moon in x years). Besides, the administration's FY19 budget request already has proposal for public private partnership on lunar lander, it's called Advanced Cislunar and Surface Capabilities (ACSC), but it doesn't have a lot of funding ($116.5M for FY19, increases to $320.3M in FY23). If the administration can be convinced to move DSG's funding into lander development, then there should be enough to do something like Zubrin suggested (it probably won't launch on FH though). All of these can be done without tackling the harder problem of cancelling SLS/Orion, at least I think that's his plan.


Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39215
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32735
  • Likes Given: 8178
Re: Zubrin's New Falcon Heavy Architecture - Moon Direct
« Reply #38 on: 03/18/2018 06:54 am »
* Develop and build a Lunar Excursion Vehicle: the LEV. Cabin the size of the LM. 2 tons.
* Have on the LEV a hydrolox stage with enough fuel to do TEI and then EOI back to LEO. All told, 6 km/s.
* The above requires a mass ratio of 3.7, resulting in a 8 ton vehicle.
* Put all that in a cargo module, to be landed by the previously developed cargo lander.

Delta-V is Ascent+TEI+TCM+EOI+1% margin = (1890+1169+2+3185)*1.01 = 6308.5 m/s. RL-10C-2 ve = 4535.6 m/s. Mass ratio = exp(6308.5/4535.6) = 4.018. An 8 t vehicle would then have a dry mass of 1.99 t, including the cabin! Not going to work. Assuming a mc = 2000 kg cabin, one me = 301 kg engine, two crew at mh = 125 kg each and mr = 100 kg of samples, a stage dry mass model of ms = 0.46718*mp^{0.848}, I get ms = 1353 kg and mp = 12085 kg. Total mass is mc+2*mh+mr+me+ms+mp = 2000+2*125+100+301+1353+12085 = 16,089 kg, which is 4.1 t greater than the 12 t that can be landed!

Attached is a little program that I used for working out the stage mass. You can also use it for other hydrolox stages! Just enter the delta-V, exhaust speed, cargo mass, engine mass and number of engines.
« Last Edit: 03/18/2018 06:56 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Rhyshaelkan

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 264
    • PERMANENT Forums
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Zubrin's New Falcon Heavy Architecture - Moon Direct
« Reply #39 on: 03/18/2018 08:03 am »
What these space proponents should have realized by now, is that Congress has a short attention span.

Forget NASA and crowd source your own space program!  If Spudis, Zubrin, Diamandis, et al. could harness the fanatisism of the common person and give it a single purpose we could be on the moon. Then with the industrial and transportation hub established on the Moon the whole solar system opens up in grand fashion.
I am not a professional. Just a rational amateur dreaming of mankind exploiting the universe.

Tags:
 

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