Author Topic: 1-launch lunar architecture with Ares V  (Read 19262 times)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: 1-launch lunar architecture with Ares V
« Reply #20 on: 06/27/2009 04:15 AM »
DIRECT claims LOC numbers in the 1 in 2000 range

Whoever is saying that clearly has never spoken to anyone involved in DIRECT.

The only people trying to claim those sorts of numbers currently are Steve Cook & co.   At last count they were trying to convince anyone who'd listen that they have 1:2800 LOC for Ares-I.   Anyone who still falls for those claims, well, they just deserve to at this point.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 06/27/2009 04:19 AM by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline mr.columbus

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 1-launch lunar architecture with Ares V
« Reply #21 on: 06/27/2009 07:57 AM »
DIRECT claims LOC numbers in the 1 in 2000 range

Whoever is saying that clearly has never spoken to anyone involved in DIRECT.

The only people trying to claim those sorts of numbers currently are Steve Cook & co.   At last count they were trying to convince anyone who'd listen that they have 1:2800 LOC for Ares-I.   Anyone who still falls for those claims, well, they just deserve to at this point.

Ross.

What are the numbers from the DIRECT team on LOC and LOV at the moment?

Offline infocat13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 421
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 1-launch lunar architecture with Ares V
« Reply #22 on: 06/29/2009 11:53 PM »

Estimate of capability of Ares V to TLI (without Ares I) is 63.5 mt (gross). That's however with a J-2x upperstage engine (instead of an SSME) and design constraints due to Ares V being primarily designed to place its EDS with Altair into LEO for docking with Ares I.


and the PDF document shows a 5 segment SRB
as well.................so pay for the upper stage engine and the 5 segment SRB development costs NOW and the reduced payload Altair....................now?
and we have Apollo not on steroids and not in say this decade?
but this would be better then nothing :)
I am a member of the side mount fanboy universe however I can get excited over the EELV exploration architecture fanboy universe.Anything else is budgetary hog wash
flexible path/HERRO

Offline infocat13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 421
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 1-launch lunar architecture with Ares V
« Reply #23 on: 06/29/2009 11:56 PM »
One of the things worth thinking about, for a single-launch Ares V Classic (JS-252H) architecture is lunar-surface rendezvous (LSR), rather than some variation of EOR and/or LOR. Ares V is already supposed to support a single-launch cargo lander. It's not that big a step to having the cargo be a smallish earth-return vehicle; maybe something Apollo-CM-like (with an appropriate SM) that could support 3 - 6 crew. A week or two in something like that would be a bit unpleasant, but obviously the astronauts who did it 1968-1972 were able to tolerate the experience. One big advantage is, it automatically gives you anytime from anywhere return. For single-flight excursions, it'd seem picayune, but as soon as you used it in an expeditionary architecture, you get to the surface-rendezvous part, dropping hab components, rovers, and supply depots ahead of manned crews. Provided you had two pads, you could even send the manned flights off in pairs, giving them lifeboat/instant-rescue capability. Think of an expedition where you prepped with 4 or 5 launches to get the habs and rovers to your expeditionary base, then sent two crews of 3-each to spend a few months to up to a year exploring. If, when the crews went to leave, something was wrong with one of the ERVs, they could all pile in the remaining ERV and make the trip home n tight quarters. And, of course, because they had a hab, and because in the meantime more supplies could have come from earth on later Ares V's, they could just wait for an unmanned ERV to be sent up.


moon direct!
I am a member of the side mount fanboy universe however I can get excited over the EELV exploration architecture fanboy universe.Anything else is budgetary hog wash
flexible path/HERRO

Online Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2831
  • Liked: 475
  • Likes Given: 446
Re: 1-launch lunar architecture with Ares V
« Reply #24 on: 07/02/2009 10:37 AM »
Here's a thought: if we had the same TLI mass as was available in Apollo, but using modern spacecraft designs, would we gain any functionality?
Intuitively you would think that, with new composites and alloys, better proopulsion systems, miniaturised electronics, etc etc, we could build significantly mroe capable manned spacecraft within the same mass budget.
However, that does not seem to be how things are working out. For example, the Orion CM will weigh about 50% more than the Apollo CM did, despite only having to carry 33% more crew, and despite having the inherent benefit of being the larger design which ought to yeild a lower mass per crew member.
Waiting for joy and raptor

Offline mr.columbus

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 1-launch lunar architecture with Ares V
« Reply #25 on: 07/02/2009 04:34 PM »
Here's a thought: if we had the same TLI mass as was available in Apollo, but using modern spacecraft designs, would we gain any functionality?
Intuitively you would think that, with new composites and alloys, better proopulsion systems, miniaturised electronics, etc etc, we could build significantly mroe capable manned spacecraft within the same mass budget.
However, that does not seem to be how things are working out. For example, the Orion CM will weigh about 50% more than the Apollo CM did, despite only having to carry 33% more crew, and despite having the inherent benefit of being the larger design which ought to yeild a lower mass per crew member.

Yes, intuitively that's correct. But one thing weighs into the other direction mass-wise - safety concerns. Spacecraft back in the Apollo area were designed with the best safety capabilities possible, still right now NASA probably couldn't say that they can live with LOV and LOC numbers of the Apollo era.

Offline simon-th

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 1-launch lunar architecture with Ares V
« Reply #26 on: 07/15/2009 12:00 PM »
Maybe NASA should change it's "Apollo on steroids" view of Constellation altogether and just go for "Apollo on steroids with a lunar base".

Jupiter-246 Heavy (5-segment SRBs) can carry Orion and a small lunar lander to TLI. For sortie missions a crew of 2 would go down to the surface. For the lunar base later on, a crew of 4 would land (however with supplies already placed on the surface at the base).

Isn't the lunar base the key goal of the (first part of the) Constellation program anyway?

Offline sandrot

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
  • Motown
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: 1-launch lunar architecture with Ares V
« Reply #27 on: 07/15/2009 01:03 PM »
Lunar Outpost. Not permanently manned.
"Paper planes do fly much better than paper spacecrafts."

Offline simon-th

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 1-launch lunar architecture with Ares V
« Reply #28 on: 07/15/2009 01:18 PM »
Lunar Outpost. Not permanently manned.

A lunar base is still the baseline scenario, permanently manned. Rather than focusing on anywhere access and 4-crew 7-14 days sortie mission capabilities, NASA should rather focus on getting a good lunar base architecture together.

Sortie missions should be an add-on rather than the baseline constraining factor for the whole Constellation program.

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2173
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 229
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: 1-launch lunar architecture with Ares V
« Reply #29 on: 07/15/2009 01:23 PM »
I nominate Clavius as the site of the 1st moon base and we should build a big black oblisk.  :)

Offline simon-th

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 1-launch lunar architecture with Ares V
« Reply #30 on: 07/15/2009 02:06 PM »
I nominate Clavius as the site of the 1st moon base and we should build a big black oblisk.  :)

10% of the Constellation budget for the base and 90% for a 2000 metric ton big black obelisk! I am in.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: 1-launch lunar architecture with Ares V
« Reply #31 on: 07/16/2009 06:32 PM »
10% of the Constellation budget for the base and 90% for a 2000 metric ton big black obelisk! I am in.

Just as long as you're talking about ten times the budget in order to afford it :)

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Online Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2831
  • Liked: 475
  • Likes Given: 446
Re: 1-launch lunar architecture with Ares V
« Reply #32 on: 07/17/2009 07:48 AM »
Lunar Outpost. Not permanently manned.

A lunar base is still the baseline scenario, permanently manned. Rather than focusing on anywhere access and 4-crew 7-14 days sortie mission capabilities, NASA should rather focus on getting a good lunar base architecture together.

Sortie missions should be an add-on rather than the baseline constraining factor for the whole Constellation program.

Is a lunar base/outpost possible without access to the lunar poles?
Waiting for joy and raptor

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7140
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: 1-launch lunar architecture with Ares V
« Reply #33 on: 07/17/2009 10:53 AM »
Is a lunar base/outpost possible without access to the lunar poles?

Yes, but you need a power source for the 14 days of darkness during the lunar night.  A nuclear fission pile is the obvious candidate (although the outrage from the environmental lobby would be literally deafening).  Perhaps some kind of exotic fuel cell may also be possible using ISRU products.  Worst comes to worst, have one module made up entirely of rechargable battery cells.

Modern solar cells could generate some power from Earthshine alone, but not that much; probably not enough.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 1-launch lunar architecture with Ares V
« Reply #34 on: 07/17/2009 11:17 AM »
Is a lunar base/outpost possible without access to the lunar poles?

Yes, but you need a power source for the 14 days of darkness during the lunar night.  A nuclear fission pile is the obvious candidate (although the outrage from the environmental lobby would be literally deafening).  Perhaps some kind of exotic fuel cell may also be possible using ISRU products.  Worst comes to worst, have one module made up entirely of rechargable battery cells.

Modern solar cells could generate some power from Earthshine alone, but not that much; probably not enough.

Even if they could, that would keep you from the farside, which has real nights, since earth is never in the sky. With regard to rovers in a long-range (and far ranging) LSR expeditionary scenario, I find myself wondering if a trailer loaded with nuclear thermal generators would be viable. You could periodically rendezvous with a cargo lander bearing a new trailer full of batteries, and swap out. A rover like that could explore farside. And so long as you *were* using LSR, if something went wrong, an unmanned CRV could be sent from Earth within a few days (provided you had a LON LV/CRV always on hand). The more I think about it, the more I think LSR and rovers is the right way to *explore* the Moon. If you're planning on a crew spending 6 months driving around on the Moon, there' no reason not to have a multi-launch scenario, where you send 2x launches (rover and powercart). You'd land those on dayside and rover would have backup solar power so it could drive over to the cart lander. Once the rover+cart were in place and working, you'd send the first CRV, then cart+supply landers at intervals, and new CRVs for crew rotation at whatever interval desired, until the rover wore out (started getting cranky, at least) and you needed to send a new one. It'd be the best way to do lunar science, and let you know pretty much everything you needed to know about "living" on the Moon, and if you found a place that had sufficient resources for a largely ISRU-supported base, then you could make a decision about that, too. In a way, this is a good analog for how I think Mars should be explored: from a man-tended supply depot on Phobos. Phobos would be the base camp from which rovers and CRVs would descend, and where the ERV would be parked. The LON CRV would always have to be there too, since rescue from Mars surface from Earth would be impossible in this architecture. To me, it's all about exploration at this point in history. Colonization (of a "virgin wilderness") is a hundred years away from the point where real exploration occurs, just as with North America in the 16th century (what happened in Central and South America with the other kind of colonization, i.e., conquest of an existing civilization).

Offline simon-th

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 1-launch lunar architecture with Ares V
« Reply #35 on: 07/17/2009 11:38 AM »

Even if they could, that would keep you from the farside, which has real nights, since earth is never in the sky. With regard to rovers in a long-range (and far ranging) LSR expeditionary scenario, I find myself wondering if a trailer loaded with nuclear thermal generators would be viable. You could periodically rendezvous with a cargo lander bearing a new trailer full of batteries, and swap out. A rover like that could explore farside. And so long as you *were* using LSR, if something went wrong, an unmanned CRV could be sent from Earth within a few days (provided you had a LON LV/CRV always on hand). The more I think about it, the more I think LSR and rovers is the right way to *explore* the Moon. If you're planning on a crew spending 6 months driving around on the Moon, there' no reason not to have a multi-launch scenario, where you send 2x launches (rover and powercart). You'd land those on dayside and rover would have backup solar power so it could drive over to the cart lander. Once the rover+cart were in place and working, you'd send the first CRV, then cart+supply landers at intervals, and new CRVs for crew rotation at whatever interval desired, until the rover wore out (started getting cranky, at least) and you needed to send a new one. It'd be the best way to do lunar science, and let you know pretty much everything you needed to know about "living" on the Moon, and if you found a place that had sufficient resources for a largely ISRU-supported base, then you could make a decision about that, too. In a way, this is a good analog for how I think Mars should be explored: from a man-tended supply depot on Phobos. Phobos would be the base camp from which rovers and CRVs would descend, and where the ERV would be parked. The LON CRV would always have to be there too, since rescue from Mars surface from Earth would be impossible in this architecture. To me, it's all about exploration at this point in history. Colonization (of a "virgin wilderness") is a hundred years away from the point where real exploration occurs, just as with North America in the 16th century (what happened in Central and South America with the other kind of colonization, i.e., conquest of an existing civilization).

I wonder whether this lunar exploration plan "nomad style" has ever been looked at in depth. That is, get a big lunar "trailer rover" to the lunar service - if required in two flights, one half the basic rover and the other half the supplies and the reactor and have your crew start traveling with it from one location of interest to the next. ISRU would more or less be out of the question with that scenario (also using regolith for radiation shelter purposes). But from a geological science point of view, it would be the best possible way to "roving Moon". Heck, I think the general public would love that too, with people watching astronauts on their extended 5-10 year long track from one place to the next on the Moon.

Tags: