Author Topic: A DIRECT type effort for a Lunar system using the FH  (Read 12094 times)

Offline mrmandias

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 506
  • US
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: A DIRECT type effort for a Lunar system using the FH
« Reply #20 on: 01/28/2012 01:59 am »
Pick an architecture that is compatible with depots, though not reliant on them.  I.E., staging in LEO/EML.  That's my suggestion.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9176
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 623
  • Likes Given: 339
Re: A DIRECT type effort for a Lunar system using the FH
« Reply #21 on: 01/31/2012 02:10 pm »
Thanks! If only I could draw people and animals...

Quote
Here's a guerilla Lunar Mission design I did earlier:
 
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25486.msg755692#msg755692

If only I could too.  Your sketches rock!
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline joertexas

  • Member
  • Posts: 50
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: A DIRECT type effort for a Lunar system using the FH
« Reply #22 on: 02/01/2012 05:03 pm »
http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/ELA.html

This vehicle design has a low enough mass that it could probably be done in one launch of a Falcon Heavy. The total mass listed is 25.72 tonnes for the lander plus 27 tonnes for the propulsion stage, for a total mass of 52.72 tonnes - just under the 53 tonne payload limit.

Maybe I'm missing something, but why not let the FH second stage perform the TLI? That way, you wouldn't need a separate propulsion stage.

I don't know what the TLI payload for the FH is - been asking around and haven't gotten a response.

JR

Online ChefPat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Earth, for now
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 1022
Re: A DIRECT type effort for a Lunar system using the FH
« Reply #23 on: 02/01/2012 07:17 pm »


I don't know what the TLI payload for the FH is - been asking around and haven't gotten a response.

JR
In the "Falcon Heavy Master Update Thread" it says Payload to TLI is 15 metric tons.
Playing Politics with Commercial Crew is Un-American!!!

Offline catiare

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Miami
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: A DIRECT type effort for a Lunar system using the FH
« Reply #24 on: 02/02/2012 05:59 pm »
I saw yesterday on the news that the Super Draco thrusters could land on another planet (they even had a picture landing on the Mars -  the red dragon). Given that, can we assume that just launching a "Moon Dragon" (perhaps attached to the trunk) would be able to land on the moon, take off and come back to earth? I guess the Trunk could stay in orbit while Dragon lands and then rendezvous for the trip back. How much delta-v is needed for this mission to work on these thrusters?

Also, if the whole system is less than 15 tons, TLI from FH would be possible.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3038
  • Liked: 294
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: A DIRECT type effort for a Lunar system using the FH
« Reply #25 on: 02/02/2012 06:25 pm »
"Moon Dragon"
...
How much delta-v is needed for this mission to work on these thrusters?

Something like 5 km/s, including TEI, or close to 4 km/s for just the round trip back to LLO.  Not happening.

It only works on Mars because Mars has an atmosphere for braking.  And even then it wouldn't be able to take off again without a booster.
« Last Edit: 02/02/2012 06:38 pm by 93143 »

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3568
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1994
  • Likes Given: 239
Re: A DIRECT type effort for a Lunar system using the FH
« Reply #26 on: 02/02/2012 06:35 pm »
I was doing a what if:
Using a vac optimized SD (ISP 290s) on a stretched Dragon Trunk with a 5,000 kg prop load on top of its normal Dragon and Trunk weight of 9,500kg bringing total weight to 15,000kg, the TLI payload weight of an FH, then this configuration would have a “CSM” like delta V of 1.15km/s. This is sufficient to dock with an EML1/2 Gateway and do the return burn to deliver cargo or crew to the Gateway (return is ~.7km/s leaving ~.4km/s for maneuvering to the Gateway, without burning any of the Dragon’s internal prop load except for RCS tasks.

This is just to show that the SD’s have a far greater possible use than just as a LAS in SpaceX’s future.

For the Moon Dragon to and from EML1/2 is the extent all the existing or soon too exist propulsion and spacecraft elements can do. If you’re looking to land a Dragon on the surface there is just not enough capability to do it with the existing or soon to exist systems.

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: A DIRECT type effort for a Lunar system using the FH
« Reply #27 on: 02/02/2012 07:00 pm »

Or, you could build your propellant depot in low earth orbit, assemble the full return vehicle/lander/injection stage at the depot, and the proceed on the moon for a direct landing of the lander and return vehicle. This is the Project Horizon option. ;)

Go figure.... "new" ideas usually originated 50 to 100 years earlier!
Project Horizon

"The lunar outpost is required to develop and protect potential United States interests on the moon; to develop techniques in moon-based surveillance of the earth and space, in communications relay, and in operations on the surface of the moon; to serve as a base for exploration of the moon, for further exploration into space and for military operations on the moon if required; and to support scientific investigations on the moon."

Online ChefPat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Earth, for now
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 1022
Re: A DIRECT type effort for a Lunar system using the FH
« Reply #28 on: 02/02/2012 07:51 pm »
I was doing a what if:
Using a vac optimized SD (ISP 290s) on a stretched Dragon Trunk with a 5,000 kg prop load on top of its normal Dragon and Trunk weight of 9,500kg bringing total weight to 15,000kg, the TLI payload weight of an FH, then this configuration would have a “CSM” like delta V of 1.15km/s. This is sufficient to dock with an EML1/2 Gateway and do the return burn to deliver cargo or crew to the Gateway (return is ~.7km/s leaving ~.4km/s for maneuvering to the Gateway, without burning any of the Dragon’s internal prop load except for RCS tasks.

This is just to show that the SD’s have a far greater possible use than just as a LAS in SpaceX’s future.

For the Moon Dragon to and from EML1/2 is the extent all the existing or soon too exist propulsion and spacecraft elements can do. If you’re looking to land a Dragon on the surface there is just not enough capability to do it with the existing or soon to exist systems.

Having all that prop in the Trunk isn't going to leave much mass for groceries. Is it?
Playing Politics with Commercial Crew is Un-American!!!

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3568
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1994
  • Likes Given: 239
Re: A DIRECT type effort for a Lunar system using the FH
« Reply #29 on: 02/02/2012 07:59 pm »
I was doing a what if:
Using a vac optimized SD (ISP 290s) on a stretched Dragon Trunk with a 5,000 kg prop load on top of its normal Dragon and Trunk weight of 9,500kg bringing total weight to 15,000kg, the TLI payload weight of an FH, then this configuration would have a “CSM” like delta V of 1.15km/s. This is sufficient to dock with an EML1/2 Gateway and do the return burn to deliver cargo or crew to the Gateway (return is ~.7km/s leaving ~.4km/s for maneuvering to the Gateway, without burning any of the Dragon’s internal prop load except for RCS tasks.

This is just to show that the SD’s have a far greater possible use than just as a LAS in SpaceX’s future.

For the Moon Dragon to and from EML1/2 is the extent all the existing or soon too exist propulsion and spacecraft elements can do. If you’re looking to land a Dragon on the surface there is just not enough capability to do it with the existing or soon to exist systems.

Having all that prop in the Trunk isn't going to leave much mass for groceries. Is it?

Normal Dragon with groceries is 9,500kg. So yes it would have a full load of groceries or full load of crew. The exception is for crew though with a trade of number of crew for increased radiation protection, cargo dosn't require the additional rad protection and if some of it does then the cargo item can carry its own additional rad protection.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28759
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8869
  • Likes Given: 5745
Re: A DIRECT type effort for a Lunar system using the FH
« Reply #30 on: 02/02/2012 08:01 pm »
I was doing a what if:
Using a vac optimized SD (ISP 290s) on a stretched Dragon Trunk with a 5,000 kg prop load on top of its normal Dragon and Trunk weight of 9,500kg bringing total weight to 15,000kg, the TLI payload weight of an FH, then this configuration would have a “CSM” like delta V of 1.15km/s. This is sufficient to dock with an EML1/2 Gateway and do the return burn to deliver cargo or crew to the Gateway (return is ~.7km/s leaving ~.4km/s for maneuvering to the Gateway, without burning any of the Dragon’s internal prop load except for RCS tasks.

This is just to show that the SD’s have a far greater possible use than just as a LAS in SpaceX’s future.

For the Moon Dragon to and from EML1/2 is the extent all the existing or soon too exist propulsion and spacecraft elements can do. If you’re looking to land a Dragon on the surface there is just not enough capability to do it with the existing or soon to exist systems.

Having all that prop in the Trunk isn't going to leave much mass for groceries. Is it?

Normal Dragon with groceries is 9,500kg. So yes it would have a full load of groceries or full load of crew. The exception is for crew though with a trade of number of crew for increased radiation protection, cargo dosn't require the additional rad protection and if some of it does then the cargo item can carry its own additional rad protection.
Radiation protection, to zeroth order, is just mass (especially mass with hydrogen, such as water). Use the cargo as radiation protection.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3568
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1994
  • Likes Given: 239
Re: A DIRECT type effort for a Lunar system using the FH
« Reply #31 on: 02/02/2012 08:04 pm »
I was doing a what if:
Using a vac optimized SD (ISP 290s) on a stretched Dragon Trunk with a 5,000 kg prop load on top of its normal Dragon and Trunk weight of 9,500kg bringing total weight to 15,000kg, the TLI payload weight of an FH, then this configuration would have a “CSM” like delta V of 1.15km/s. This is sufficient to dock with an EML1/2 Gateway and do the return burn to deliver cargo or crew to the Gateway (return is ~.7km/s leaving ~.4km/s for maneuvering to the Gateway, without burning any of the Dragon’s internal prop load except for RCS tasks.

This is just to show that the SD’s have a far greater possible use than just as a LAS in SpaceX’s future.

For the Moon Dragon to and from EML1/2 is the extent all the existing or soon too exist propulsion and spacecraft elements can do. If you’re looking to land a Dragon on the surface there is just not enough capability to do it with the existing or soon to exist systems.

Having all that prop in the Trunk isn't going to leave much mass for groceries. Is it?

Normal Dragon with groceries is 9,500kg. So yes it would have a full load of groceries or full load of crew. The exception is for crew though with a trade of number of crew for increased radiation protection, cargo dosn't require the additional rad protection and if some of it does then the cargo item can carry its own additional rad protection.
Radiation protection, to zeroth order, is just mass (especially mass with hydrogen, such as water). Use the cargo as radiation protection.

After I replied I thought of using the inevitable water cargo as rad protection of the other cargo or crew. Water at the Gateway has a lot of usage so extra water is always welcome.

Edit: P.S. You beat me to it. ;D
« Last Edit: 02/02/2012 08:05 pm by oldAtlas_Eguy »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: A DIRECT type effort for a Lunar system using the FH
« Reply #32 on: 02/02/2012 08:15 pm »
Having all that prop in the Trunk isn't going to leave much mass for groceries. Is it?

Six months worth of food would probably have to go up on a separate flight.  The same applies to the several tons of propellant needed by the lunar lander.

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: A DIRECT type effort for a Lunar system using the FH
« Reply #33 on: 02/02/2012 08:27 pm »


Normal Dragon with groceries is 9,500kg. So yes it would have a full load of groceries or full load of crew. The exception is for crew though with a trade of number of crew for increased radiation protection, cargo dosn't require the additional rad protection and if some of it does then the cargo item can carry its own additional rad protection.
Radiation protection, to zeroth order, is just mass (especially mass with hydrogen, such as water). Use the cargo as radiation protection.

After I replied I thought of using the inevitable water cargo as rad protection of the other cargo or crew. Water at the Gateway has a lot of usage so extra water is always welcome.

Edit: P.S. You beat me to it. ;D

Funny thing..if only things were this simple..adding mass can actually be detrimental and make things worse... ??? 

May be why it is at the top of the list.

Top Technical Challenges for Technology:  Space Radiation Health Effects: Improve understanding of space radiation effects on humans
and develop radiation protection technologies to enable long-duration space missions.

Missions beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) present an expanded set of health hazards for a crew and lifetime radiation exposure is already a limiting flight assignment factor for career astronauts on the ISS. Human health radiation models for predicting health risks are currently hampered by large uncertainties based on the lack of appropriate in situ data. Without the collection of in situ biological data to support the development of appropriate models, as well as the development of new sensors, solar even predictions and radiation mitigating designs, extended human missions beyond LEO may be beyond acceptable risk limits for both human health and mission success.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28759
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8869
  • Likes Given: 5745
Re: A DIRECT type effort for a Lunar system using the FH
« Reply #34 on: 02/02/2012 08:52 pm »
Because the rate of problems is so low, there are large error bars on the exact effects on humans for relatively low dose-rates of radiation. That's part of the reason for the research.

Magnetic shielding of radiation is more complicated and is almost impossible for high-energy GCRs (though could be useful for lower energy particles like solar energetic particles). Also, there are other ways to deal with radiation:
Quote
Transcript:
Our work has shown that several different agents, all characterized as dietary supplement agents, can affect space radiation-induced biologic endpoints, including cytotoxicity, the induction of malignant transformation in cells cultured in vitro, and the total antioxidant status of animals, which is a biomarker related to the ability of the animal to handle radiation-induced oxidative stress.

http://www.bioedonline.org/slides/slide01.cfm?tk=56&dpg=15
"Antioxidant Cocktail Protects Cells From Iron Ion (HZE Particle) Radiation-induced Cell Killing, with a 2-3 Fold Increase in Cell Survival"

http://www.bioedonline.org/slides/slide01.cfm?tk=56&dpg=14
"Antioxidant Cocktail, Bowman-Birk Inhibitor Concentrate (BBIC) and L-Selenomethionine (SeM) Inhibit Malignant Transformation In Vitro and Reduce Radiation-induced Oxidative Stress in Animals"

And also, better mission-planning tools for determining exactly the radiation doses would be received during a mission is also something that would be helpful.

(and if you're talking about secondary radiation... all things considered, the extra shielding almost ALWAYS reduces total radiation doses, including the secondaries, though it takes a little more effort to model the secondaries as well. hydrogen-rich substances, I believe, don't product as much secondary radiation compared to, say, aluminum. For the most dangerous case of big Solar Particle Events, secondaries aren't as important.)

There's plenty of research to still do to improve things, but adding extra mass definitely helps, especially for the sort of radiation relevant for short-to-medium-term (a week to 6 months) lunar missions.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Tags: