Poll

If NASA were directed to return to the moon, how should they do it?

Constellation
Boeing SLS proposal
ACES
Golden Spike
Direct (70t SLS)
Spudis/Lavoie
ELA
Cannot select one of the above.

Author Topic: Best NASA lunar architecture for today  (Read 41590 times)

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Best NASA lunar architecture for today
« on: 06/03/2013 04:40 am »
For this poll I am hypothesizing that NASA has been directed to return to the  moon. Im limiting the options to proposals which I could clearly identify eg with a name or document, and that someone has spent a bit of money researching.

Im avoiding wider questions such as is the moon preferable to another goal or whether commercial bodies should be able to return to the moon without NASA money. Nevertheless I am including Golden Spike because, after all, NASA could decide to become simply a customer and there are at least some details of the architecture available.

 I have attempted to find articles on this site or failing that gone to the internet in general. Im not claiming to have found the most appropriate links. I assume I can add better ones later.

( 1 ) Constellation: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/02/altair-project-buying-into-orion-lessons-for-development-process/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program
Consider this option "Constellation updated for today". I imagine it would use the 130t SLS, Orion, and no EML2 base.

( 2 ) Boeing plan:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/boeing-discusses-sls-robust-lunar-program/

( 3 ) ACES: http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Common_Evolved_Stage

( 4 ) Golden Spike: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/golden-spike-northrop-grumman-lunar-lander/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Spike_Company
http://goldenspikecompany.com/

( 5 ) Direct: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/11/second-guessing-nasa-vse/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT

( 6 ) Paul Spudis and  Anthony Lavoie, "Using the resources of the Moon to create a permanent, cislunar space faring system.":
http://www.spudislunarresources.com/Bibliography/p/102.pdf

( 7 ) Early Lunar Access
Summary here
http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/ELA.html

( 8 ) Cannot select one of the above options.
Chose this if you feel there is a problem with the options presented that prevents you selecting one. This is not the anti-moon option, nor is voting for one of the other options to be interpreted as pro-moon. You are still allowed an opinion on what is the best lunar architecture even if you are opposed to the moon as a destination in general, or a NASA funded approach.

(edited to add wiki references where I could find them)
« Last Edit: 06/03/2013 09:29 am by KelvinZero »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Best NASA lunar architecture for today
« Reply #1 on: 06/03/2013 05:04 am »
I chose Spudis and Lavoie, as it at least builds something that makes future spaceflight better.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Andrew_W

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 754
  • Rotorua, New Zealand
    • Profiles of our future in space
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Best NASA lunar architecture for today
« Reply #2 on: 06/03/2013 05:14 am »
Also a vote for Spudis and Lavoie, It's the only architecture that gives at least a nod to permanent and progressive development of lunar resources.
I confess that in 1901 I said to my brother Orville that man would not fly for fifty years.
Wilbur Wright

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Best NASA lunar architecture for today
« Reply #3 on: 06/03/2013 05:20 am »
The ones that follow 39th law of Akin's spacecraft design.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline PlanetStorm

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 238
  • England
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Best NASA lunar architecture for today
« Reply #4 on: 06/03/2013 05:27 am »

At first, I was torn between Spudis/Lavole and ACES, which I've admired for a long time; but in the end, I decided Spudis was much better if we are in it for the long term (and if we aren't, I don't believe we should be doing it at all).

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Best NASA lunar architecture for today
« Reply #5 on: 06/03/2013 02:26 pm »
You missed the best lunar architecture, a thread that fills almost 100 pages:

L2 Gateway +  ZBO LH2 depot centric architecture

originally conceived as a A Halo-Orbit Lunar Station By ROBERT W. FARQUHAR is the basis for the "An Alternative Lunar Architecture" thread.

It is one of the reason why Sorensen pitched the alternative lunar architecture proposed by Robert Farquhar in 1972, since low polar lunar orbits are limited to 14 day windows, and would basically be used for communications and a lunar surface safehaven.  This plan was modified to include a L2 gateway to test advanced GCR mitigation hardware in case the 1500 kgs of plastic/water do not work out for Orion/habitat for the one year trip to Mars in micro-g.   The key is to demonstrate cost effectively that the crew and hardware can stay one year in deep space and the moon does not offer the proper environment nor is within the current budget.

The L2 Gateway then serves as the cis-lunar staging point and backup for for missions to the moon, Mars, and deep space missions (e.g. asteroids).  EP can cycle from L2 and beyond  rather than return to earth and avoid the long return trip back to L2.


The major benefit of a LEO Zero Boiloff LH2 Depot is Amplification Factor which allows up to 15 times more payload to the moon.

"Boeing’s plan is to build the depot in pieces like a stripped-down International Space Station, only in modules based on the upper stage of the Delta launch vehicle. Two depots would provide redundancy...And while many of the necessary parts and operations (i.e., orbital cryogenic storage and transfer) still have to be developed and matured, they’re plausible—and critical for a space-faring civilization anyway.

Anyone can make propellant, and anyone can deliver it. The orbital reservoir will allow for different quantities from tanker vehicles both small and large. The payload itself is cheap, so even low-reliability launchers could potentially be used.

Boeing’s gas station could provide even more benefits than an improved lunar payload. Communications companies could improve their satellite payloads to geostationary orbit and beyond. NASA might be able to combine the dual launches in its moon program, or make its lunar landing vehicle reusable, with another depot using propellants produced on the moon. Because most of the mass necessary to get to the moon is propellant (though Boeing would never say so), a space gas station might even eliminate the need for a heavy-lift launcher altogether, increasing the launch rate of smaller, cheaper vehicles, which in turn could cut costs for getting to the moon and, eventually, Mars.
"

----
How does the L2 Gateway+ LEO ZBO Depot architecture differ from the other approaches?

A LEO Zero Boiloff Depot is a key cornerstone to the architecture (see
LH2 versus methane versus hypergolic transfer stages for details)

The differences between L2 Gateway +LEO ZBO depot  and the other approaches is quite clear:

The LEO ZBO depot can significantly reduce the LV size required and increase flight rates to reduce $/kg, and also solves the boiloff issues with a rather simple solution, allowing the highest ISP to minimize average annual mass to orbit requirements, further reducing costs.

The smaller fleet and IP tankers provide the propellant for extreme cost and schedule flexibility.   

The differences with the (3) ULA approach is that it does not focus only on transfer of propellant and dumping the boiloff overboard to be inefficiently used for attitude control, power, and LOX cooling.  Many of the common building block from the ULA approach are applicable in the evolving architecture, especially the LH2 lander to save costs.

An alternative approach is to skip the depot and launch a refuelable transfer stage filled by tankers.  Because of boiloff, one has to reduce transfer payload mass fraction with insulation. Falcon and Delta heavy configurations refueled on orbit have been suggested for missions to the moon, but missions to the moon distract from the objective of Mars per Sqyres.

Unlike, Boeing and ULA's approach, the Zero Boiloff depot adds about 10 kWe of electrical power, attitude control, and cryocoolers to maintain the 90K LOX and 20K LH2 tanks to ZBO, which avoids disposing of long life, expensive equipment, allows the transfer stages to be launched empty with minimum passive insulation to improve payload mass fraction, and allows tankers to be made as simple as possible by placing AR&D on the depot and can be weight optimized for a short duration delivery.

If the DSH is surrounded with 20 g/cm2 of passive shielding (~20 mT), it will protect a male for less than 300 days in deep space from GCR, based on current requirements and certainty levels.  Orion has 2-4 g/cm2.

A comparison of the L2 Gateway with the limitations of the rest of the plans shows NASA is ignoring its Technology Challenges (cosmic radiation shielding, bone loss mitigation (1/3 g vs mill-g trip), ability to land heavy objects on Mars,...

---
It should be of no surprise that the HLV architecture was all about going to the moon, had nothing to do with Mars, was not about finding the right missions for the right size budget, and "does not feature a depot".

Since ESAS, NASA's focus has only been the moon per Doug Stanley, with a *limited* focus on Mars

Per Shannon during Augustine, the hypergolic lunuar lander drove Ares V to 140 mT, so clearly any LV driving to this size is only considering decades old, poorer performance and cost hypergols.
---

Advantages of the L2 Gateway and ZBO Depot with EP

NASA Long Term Strategy Consists of a Flexible Path, Depot Centric, Architecture and the LEO ZBO depot and L2 Gateway are the first stepping stones

In the alternative lunar architecture, the L2 gateway/LEO ZBO depot is part of an elegant flexible path approach to economically provide
-  a stepping stone to longer duration asteroid missions--a stepping stone to Mars
-  a stepping stone to the lunar surface
-  increased flight rate vs lunar sorties, thereby providing a "commercial" market for propellant + LEO cargo/crew
-  develops and tests active GCR mitigation hardware, subscale first--a critical exp. facility increasing the flight rate
-  test ISRU telecommunications--conducted from earth if GCR protection is not in place
-  demonstrate in-space transport between LEO & L2 prop. depots with economical vs expedient trajectories
-  demonstrate common hardware for GCR protection, depots and ISRU
-  provides a stepping stone location for the economical depot centric architecture and SEP
-  study milli-g, Mars transient health strategies once demonstrated in LEO
-  provide cash for other NASA Space Technology Challenges
-  Mitigate risk by incrementally increasing the time the crew can spend BEO w/o protection from moon
-  prepares for an L2-asteroid for an eventual L2-Mars and beyond EP architecture, which may include a L2 depot

Most importantly, the L2 Gateway LEO ZBO depot meets all the criteria proposed by Squyres for NASA Exploration Plans forward

Squyres also provides rationale for the recommentations.

Quote from: Squyres

My key recommendations to this committee today are as follows:

• Affirm that Mars is and will continue to be NASA’s long-term goal for human exploration of space.

• At all future milestones on the road to Mars, direct the Agency to focus narrowly on activities that clearly serve the goal of landing humans on Mars, operating there, and returning them safely to Earth.

• Adopt cis-lunar space as the next milestone, whether ongoing studies show that it is possible to redirect a small asteroid there or not.

• Dictate no milestones beyond cis-lunar space without first assuring ample funding to achieve them.
« Last Edit: 07/26/2013 12:56 pm by muomega0 »

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: Best NASA lunar architecture for today
« Reply #6 on: 06/03/2013 03:29 pm »
I chose Spudis/Lavoie too. Mainly because (A) It's a plan that someone spent more than 15 minutes thinking up, (B) it builds for the future, and (C) it's a good mixture of using current technology and driving technology development.

Reason (A) is significant in that there currently is no plan for NASA HSF what-so-ever. And no, hauling a 5m rock into lunar orbit for no particular reason other than "because we want to" doesn't count as a plan for me.

Reason (B) eliminates CxP's approach, which was "let's plant some more flags and get the heck out of here and on to Mars".

Reason (C) shows that the authors realized that the vehicles used are a means to an end, not the end in themselves. Although they do recognize that heavy lift would definitely be a great benefit to their plan.

Mark S.

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Best NASA lunar architecture for today
« Reply #7 on: 06/03/2013 07:34 pm »
None of the above.

Something similar in scale and schedule to Spudis/Lavoie, but I think they're building too many different types of landers, and I'm not sure about water depots.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Best NASA lunar architecture for today
« Reply #8 on: 06/03/2013 08:13 pm »
Spudis/LaVoie as WHAT should be done. It's the most sustainable.

As I said in the predecessor thread that does not say HOW to do it. For that I favor ACES upper stages and DTAL landers. In an ideal world these would be launched on the cheapest launchers available. But would ULA work with SpaceX or  Blue Origin or whomever? I honestly don't know. Maybe license the tech since theoretically ULA are not primarily (at all :) ) in the lander business....
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Best NASA lunar architecture for today
« Reply #9 on: 06/04/2013 12:46 am »
I think Spudis' plan is pretty good, but I like mine better, because it has fewer pieces.  Cain't select.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Best NASA lunar architecture for today
« Reply #10 on: 06/09/2013 01:26 am »
This is sort of embarrassing.. I voted Spudis/Lavoie and at the same time am wondering if it should be removed so an actual architecture can be voted on ;)

It is almost more of a clarification of the VSE than an architecture. Thing is, it sort of has to be on that list because it can't simply be implemented with one of the other approaches. It starts unmanned so it doesn't need any new launcher. It is best if it can be kept in the "Whatever we can scrounge up" permanently. Sure you could implement it with ACES or 70t SLS, so long as you have a plan to keep going even if these are withdrawn.

It is very low on concrete details, but no one disputes we have sufficient choice of launchers to begin unmanned landings right now.

ACES would probably have been my second vote. The Spudis/Lavoie plan points out a small problem with ACES though, at least to my mind. What if we went to the moon, started doing ISRU and then concluded methane from lunar volatiles was a much more convenient, safer fuel? This is just one reason why I think we should have a solid ISRU mission going before locking into an expensive architecture that may have a flaw we cannot fix without starting from scratch. Another probably even more important to start ISRU immediately is that it would avoid politicians suddenly getting confused about what it is all for when the money gets short, and they have to choose between achieving anything or their favorite launcher.

« Last Edit: 06/09/2013 01:49 am by KelvinZero »

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Best NASA lunar architecture for today
« Reply #11 on: 06/09/2013 01:44 am »
The number of "cannot reply" answers is also interesting. I think every poll should include that option.

I chose only options that were "on the table" in some sense, ie recent, with some professional study and some following. Perhaps I could of clarified this in the wording somehow. It was not "Is this the best possible architecture", but the best choice that could possibly be rallied behind.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Best NASA lunar architecture for today
« Reply #12 on: 06/09/2013 03:30 am »
Spudis/LaVoie outpolls[1] all the others combined except "can't decide". I think that's because this readership gets that it's not just about launchers and landers, it's about what to DO with them.

Would that the general populace got that. And that it's raining soup if you want it. Finally, that any kind of bucket will work, if you can just get it up there.

1 - as of this writing
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Best NASA lunar architecture for today
« Reply #13 on: 06/09/2013 07:11 pm »
Should be able to pick more than one. E.g., a combination of Golden Spike (for affordable human precursor missions) ULA/ACES (because of their heavy landers, big 3rd stages, and passively cooled depots), and Spudis and Lavoie (because of the emphasis on ISRU.) IMHO opinion, while each of them is a step in the right direction, to really get where we need to be, we need to take the best aspects of all three IMHO.
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Best NASA lunar architecture for today
« Reply #14 on: 06/09/2013 07:31 pm »
Should be able to pick more than one. E.g., a combination of Golden Spike (for affordable human precursor missions) ULA/ACES (because of their heavy landers, big 3rd stages, and passively cooled depots), and Spudis and Lavoie (because of the emphasis on ISRU.) IMHO opinion, while each of them is a step in the right direction, to really get where we need to be, we need to take the best aspects of all three IMHO.

Yes, for sure!!! my point too!!! ...but the poll writer specified it has to be a published plan :) So get writing :)
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Best NASA lunar architecture for today
« Reply #15 on: 06/09/2013 10:43 pm »
I'm voting Boeing plan.

It took me a while to come around to the idea of gateway and to have it taken away/forgotten about/swept under the carpet after finally warming to it was a kick in the guts.

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Best NASA lunar architecture for today
« Reply #16 on: 06/10/2013 12:49 am »
Should be able to pick more than one. E.g., a combination of Golden Spike (for affordable human precursor missions) ULA/ACES (because of their heavy landers, big 3rd stages, and passively cooled depots), and Spudis and Lavoie (because of the emphasis on ISRU.) IMHO opinion, while each of them is a step in the right direction, to really get where we need to be, we need to take the best aspects of all three IMHO.

Yes, for sure!!! my point too!!! ...but the poll writer specified it has to be a published plan :) So get writing :)

Well, of course the best architecture is the Platts Whipple Crater Gold Mine architecture. Am writing it up as we speak! ;)
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Best NASA lunar architecture for today
« Reply #17 on: 06/10/2013 12:57 am »
Well, of course the best architecture is the Platts Whipple Crater Gold Mine architecture. Am writing it up as we speak! ;)
Cool!  Can't wait to see it!  Sounds like the perfect vehicle for an NSF article.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Best NASA lunar architecture for today
« Reply #18 on: 06/10/2013 02:09 am »
Well, of course the best architecture is the Platts Whipple Crater Gold Mine early ISRU and we all get rich architecture. Am writing it up as we speak! ;)

Fixed that for ya! (early ISRU because it seems key to your plans based on what I've seen of them elsewhere, and we all get rich because... well just because!)

Well, of course the best architecture is the Platts Whipple Crater Gold Mine architecture. Am writing it up as we speak! ;)
Cool!  Can't wait to see it!  Sounds like the perfect vehicle for an NSF article.

It would be an awesome article, but even better, a great VC presentation :)
« Last Edit: 06/10/2013 02:10 am by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Andrew_W

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 754
  • Rotorua, New Zealand
    • Profiles of our future in space
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Best NASA lunar architecture for today
« Reply #19 on: 06/10/2013 03:42 am »
Well, of course the best architecture is the Platts Whipple Crater Gold Mine architecture. Am writing it up as we speak! ;)
Cool!  Can't wait to see it!  Sounds like the perfect vehicle for an NSF article.

Is there a thread around here someplace for otherwise unpublished plans?
I confess that in 1901 I said to my brother Orville that man would not fly for fifty years.
Wilbur Wright

Tags:
 

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