FGB to the Moon?

• FGB to the Moon? by Iren on 20 Apr, 2008 15:44
• How hard would be to send a FGB to lunar orbit? Lets say, launching a pretty empty FGB to LEO, attaching a Progress-tanker or booster and fire it to the moon?
  
  If its possible, then Russia could stablish a lunar orbital post with a reusable lander and start sending regular missions to the moon using Soyuz+boosters for crew transfer (lets say a crew of 2) and Progress+boosters for cargo transfers.
  
  Yes, it will be surely expensive. But I'm asking if it is technically possible.
• #1 by Jim on 20 Apr, 2008 17:02
• Anything is technically possible with enough money.
  
  The FGB is a LEO vehicle, its avionics is only designed for LEO, it's thermal systems (passive and active) are for LEO.  The thrusters on the FGB are too weak for a TLI and it doesn't have the propellant capacity for it neither.  FGB doesn't have an air revitalization system.
• #2 by Iren on 20 Apr, 2008 17:17
• Quote

  Jim - 20/4/2008  2:02 PM
  
  The FGB is a LEO vehicle, its avionics is only designed for LEO, it's thermal systems (passive and active) are for LEO.

   
  
  That kinda buries my proposal hehe, reburbishing the FGB to be lunar-orbit capable may be too hard or will make necessary to think about a totally different spacecraft.
  
  

  Quote

  The thrusters on the FGB are too weak for a TLI and it doesn't have the propellant capacity for it neither.  FGB doesn't have an air revitalization system.

  
  Thats why I proposed using a booster to do TLI and lunar orbit braking.
  
  

  Quote

  FGB doesn't have an air revitalization system

  
  Well I though of FGB acting as a place where Soyuz could dock and let the crew transfer to a reusable, refuelable lander (also as the refueling post for the lander and Soyuz). Probably an Elektron would be enough to help on crew transfer periods.
• #3 by pm1823 on 20 Apr, 2008 17:27
• and protection from interplanetary radiation. Lunar module will have a totally different structure, maybe with 2 walls and water layer between.
• #4 by Iren on 20 Apr, 2008 17:57
• Just found out something simillar to what I thought of... with the difference that this concept is using a Mir-like SM instead of a FGB! It just needs a heavy launcher (100 ton launcher class)
  
  http://www.russianspaceweb.com/los.html
• #5 by Jim on 20 Apr, 2008 18:03
• Quote

  Iren - 20/4/2008  1:17 PM
  
  Well I though of FGB acting as a place where Soyuz could dock and let the crew transfer to a reusable, refuelable lander (also as the refueling post for the lander and Soyuz). Probably an Elektron would be enough to help on crew transfer periods.

  
  Need CO2 removal and humidity control too.  And now better solar arrays for the increased loads
• #6 by Iren on 20 Apr, 2008 18:43
• Quote

  Jim - 20/4/2008  3:03 PM
  
  And now better solar arrays for the increased loads

  
  We are talking about structural stress loads or power loads? If its about power, Zarya made a good job keeping Unity's systems, probably would need minimal changes to keep the lunar lander systems alive... Lunar lander could have Soyuz-like retractable solar arrays to generate power...
• #7 by on 20 Apr, 2008 19:25

• Quote

  pm1823 - 20/4/2008  12:27 PM  and protection from interplanetary radiation. Lunar module will have a totally different structure, maybe with 2 walls and water layer between.

  Works better with non-metallic "walls" - radiation byproducts of metal scattering can get through the water . 

• #8 by on 20 Apr, 2008 19:26
• One thing you don't need is the reboost capability - no atmospheric  drag.
• #9 by pm1823 on 20 Apr, 2008 19:59
• But station-keeping is still needed.
• #10 by Jim on 20 Apr, 2008 21:08
• Quote

  Iren - 20/4/2008  2:43 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 20/4/2008  3:03 PM
  
  And now better solar arrays for the increased loads

  
  We are talking about structural stress loads or power loads? If its about power, Zarya made a good job keeping Unity's systems, probably would need minimal changes to keep the lunar lander systems alive... Lunar lander could have Soyuz-like retractable solar arrays to generate power...

  
  
  Power loads for all the life support systems you keep adding.  
  
  Unity didn't have any systems except for lights and some heaters.  
  
  
• #11 by Jim on 20 Apr, 2008 21:08
• still a non viable vehicle for lunar use
• #12 by Jorge on 20 Apr, 2008 22:54
• Quote

  Jim - 20/4/2008  4:08 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Iren - 20/4/2008  2:43 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 20/4/2008  3:03 PM
  
  And now better solar arrays for the increased loads

  
  We are talking about structural stress loads or power loads? If its about power, Zarya made a good job keeping Unity's systems, probably would need minimal changes to keep the lunar lander systems alive... Lunar lander could have Soyuz-like retractable solar arrays to generate power...

  
  
  Power loads for all the life support systems you keep adding.  
  
  Unity didn't have any systems except for lights and some heaters.

  
  I believe it also has at least two MDMs (N1-1 and N1-2). Still nothing compared to what a lunar lander would need, so your point is still valid.
• #13 by DMeader on 20 Apr, 2008 23:10
• Quote

  nobodyofconsequence - 20/4/2008  3:26 PM
  
  One thing you don't need is the reboost capability - no atmospheric  drag.

  
  Lunar orbits are perturbed by the masscons and you'd need maneuver/reboost capability even without atmospheric drag.
• #14 by Iren on 20 Apr, 2008 23:16
• Well for what I've seen on the website I posted above, the concept of sending a Salyut family space station to lunar orbit is being considered for some time in the future by Khrunichev.
  
  Cons: They will have to wait for the heavy Angara rockets, and no one knows when are those going to fly (or built)
  
  I'm still trying to figure out whats the module at the side of the station, and if the crew carrier pictured there has something with ATV...
• #15 by nacnud on 21 Apr, 2008 00:00
• The module on the left looks like the ascent stage of a Luna lander. Another lander can be seen in the foreground .
• #16 by DMeader on 21 Apr, 2008 00:06
• Yes, nice illustrations, but I'd be willing to bet that's all that there is to it, and probably all there will ever be to it. Don't ever get excited about any of the "plans" that you hear about until hardware actually leaves the ground.
  
  I mean, they lack the money to finish the ISS modules they want to launch. Where will the funding for the FGB to the moon come from?
• #17 by Iren on 21 Apr, 2008 00:09
• Quote

  DMeader - 20/4/2008  9:06 PM
  
  Yes, nice illustrations, but I'd be willing to bet that's all that there is to it, and probably all there will ever be to it. Don't ever get excited about any of the "plans" that you hear about until hardware actually leaves the ground.

  
  I'd actually start thinking its possible when I see an Angara flying, if you get what i mean
  
  

  Quote

  I mean, they lack the money to finish the ISS modules they want to launch. Where will the funding for the FGB to the moon come from?

  
  Europe?  :bleh:
• #18 by hop on 21 Apr, 2008 00:48
• Quote

  Iren - 20/4/2008  5:09 PM
  I'd actually start thinking its possible when I see an Angara flying, if you get what i mean
  

  Angara is well on it's way. The Russians have good reason to complete it, and they are making real progress. Metal has been bent, pads modified, test firings are planned to start this year.
  
  However, that doesn't say much about manned moon missions. In terms of lift capacity, the heaviest version is roughly comparable to Proton.
• #19 by Iren on 21 Apr, 2008 00:53
• Quote

  hop - 20/4/2008  9:48 PM
  Angara is well on it's way. The Russians have good reason to complete it, and they are making real progress. Metal has been bent, pads modified, test firings are planned to start this year.
  

  
  Hehe that was my fault, I meant the Angara-100 heavy lift rocket. But youre right, in terms of developement, Angara-100 is far closer than Ares V or other proposed heavy lift rockets...
  
  Oh well, this is part of a totally different topic