A Manned Moon program on a shoestrings Budget ?

[Michel Van]

Apollo had cost 131 Billion in 2012 U$Dollar (most spend on R&D the Hardware)

with existing Hardware, I wonder is this realizable with a favorable Budget?

there were proposal like using Gemini Hardware for Lunar Orbital rendezvous, with cost 30 Billion in 2012 U$Dollar
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/gemnilor.htm
or the "Human Lunar Return" with total cost of $3.6 billion in 2012 U$Dollar!
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/humeturn.htm

but are they better or are less saver as Apollo ?


Thought play for discussion:
The French President in attack of delusion of grandeure, pronounces to bring French cosmonaut to moon with Ariane 5 ;D

„Allons-y!“

 

[Grey Havoc]

Thought play for discussion:
The French President in attack of delusion of grandeure, pronounces to bring French cosmonaut to moon with Ariane 5 ;D

„Allons-y!“

They might be able to do a manned lunar circumnavigation of the moon, using a derivative of the ATV spacecraft, although even that would be tricky, and probably only have a two man crew when you take necessary logistics into account. A lunar landing on the other hand? [shucks teeth]

EDIT: From the European future space transport systems thread, here's an image pometablava posted of a proposed early 90's 'Super Ariane' variant of the Ariane 5 intended for lunar missions (righthand rocket):

 

[Michel Van]

a manned lunar circumnavigation of the moon with capsule, in begin yes
later the Ariane 5 could be used for Earth orbit rendezvous to bring Capsule and Lander* to Lunar Orbit

*= A minimum lander with unpressurized cockpit, not a LM

 

[Hanse]

Space shoestrings are made of carbon/kevlar fiber with iridium vapor deposited on them for extra slickness and cost $722,000 a pair.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Apollo had cost 131 Billion in 2012 U$Dollar (most spend on R&D the Hardware)

with existing Hardware, I wonder is this realizable with a favorable Budget?

Sure, for certain limits of "existing." I'd at least start planning with Falcon 9 and Bigelow space habitats. Earth return vehicles (or lunar-surface-to-lunar-orbit) and lunar surface habitats could be transported from LEO to luanr orbit by means of ion engines or similar low-thrust, high-efficiency propulsion systems... let them take three months rather than three days; automated systems would work well enough.

 

[Archibald]

The benchmark of "small" manned lunar missions, to me, is Early Lunar Access. On paper, it can be done with two launches, 22 tons of payload each, 44 tons IMLEO total. Ariane 5, Proton, the Space Shuttle, Delta IV Heavy.
I don't think one could go smaller than ELA. Not for a lunar landing at least. It boils down to the heaviest possible LOX/LH2 upper stage that can be launched on "existing"" launchers, plus the heaviest possible direct ascent lunar lander that upper stage can throw to TLI.
The rule of thumb with LOX/LH2 upper stages seems to be "they throw their own fuelled mass into TLI". If the stage weights 25 tons in LEO, then payload to TLI will be 25 tons. And on.

 

[Michel Van]

On Super Ariane, they are to expensive in R&D and Testing
although a standard Ariane 5 with 4 or 6 solid booster would be interesting improvement on Payload.
Theoretical: a Ariane 5 with 6 soild booster and strengthened ESC-B with 2 engine, could bring 50 Tons in Low orbit.

On ion engines, how much power they need to bring 20 or 50 tons payload into Moon orbit ?
so what better: a row of Solar array or one Nuclear reactor for the Ion engines Tug ?

 

[Hobbes]

ISTR there were Ariane 5 concepts with 4-6 boosters around the standard first stage as well.

With ion drives you can trade power for transit time, so a low-powered engine could bring 50t into lunar orbit, but it would take months. The ion drives built so far have minuscule thrust levels, and require up to 200 kW of power (VASIMR) to run. 200 kW means huge solar panels, so you may be better off using a nuclear reactor. But once you have a reactor up there anyway, using it to heat the propellant (NERVA) may be better than heat->electricity->accellerating ions.

 

[quellish]

There was this...
http://nss.org/settlement/moon/ELA.html

 

[Michel Van]

Here my proposal for french manned spacecraft

Propulsion system: EPS10 from Ariane 5 G+ (V∆ of 2742 meter/sec)
RCS and flight electronics: VEB-C from Ariane 5 ES
Capsule based on Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator, but enlarged to 4,2 meter ø x 4 meter. for 3 cosmonauts.
Power system: Solarcell array from SMART-1 with 1850 Watt
Total mass in orbit: 17300 kg (EPS10 11200kg VEB 1900 Capsule 4200kg)

Alternative the capsule is a manned version of Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator
with weight of 2800kg and squeeze two cosmonauts in it, as Gemini Analog

 

[Spark]

Note the UK/Empire Defence Policy included contingency plans in the fifties for “Far Space Control” i.e. Moon bases to counter possible Soviet expansion in that direction.
Note “Near Space Control” was earth orbit.
If one looks at the in place facilities at the time of cancellation July 1960 they would have sustained such a programme if necessary. The possibility of such a programme in a civil guise was mooted by the BBC with in a week of Kennedy’ Get to the Moon speech. When it was suggested that such a Programme should be re-instated and that it would take a minimum of seven / eight launches to assemble the Vehicle needed for such an expedition. A 4 RZ2 first stage gives 16 ton payload, possibly and 5 RZ2cluster gives 20 ton payload. Gives a maximum of 160tons to LEO This is the RZ2 at the expected service rating of 185,000lb thrust, The alternative RZ14 service rating sea level would give some 400,000lbf thrust plus.
But it was suggested that a small fleet of craft could be assembled and that this could be done before the USA and at a fraction of the Apollo cost. Look at Flight the estimates are for a saving of £5million 20% saving from a High Altitude equatorial East African Launch facility, £25 million total?
It was also suggested that the Blue Streak SLV could be adopted to make a Siamese twin vehicle with such a payload but that would need new test facilities/launch pads.
The truth is stranger than fiction.

Here my proposal for french manned spacecraft

Propulsion system: EPS10 from Ariane 5 G+ (V∆ of 2742 meter/sec)
RCS and flight electronics: VEB-C from Ariane 5 ES
Capsule based on Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator, but enlarged to 4,2 meter ø x 4 meter. for 3 cosmonauts.
Power system: Solarcell array from SMART-1 with 1850 Watt
Total mass in orbit: 17300 kg (EPS10 11200kg VEB 1900 Capsule 4200kg)

Alternative the capsule is a manned version of Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator
with weight of 2800kg and squeeze two cosmonauts in it, as Gemini Analog

 

[mz]

You could use Earth-Moon Second Lagrange point (EML2) behind the moon for minimum delta vee (you make 3 burns: LEO, Moon pass and L2, then 2 burns on the way back).
Stage both in LEO and at EML2. (The return stage can stay in EML2 while the lander visits the surface.)

LEO satellite launches are routine. And ISS supply too. Most of the mass in a lunar expedition stack is liquid oxygen (about half). The rest is small spacecraft. Count 1+1 *.

You'd probably be cheapest off by buying lots of Proton and/or Soyuz launches from the Russians. You might run into production limits though. Or even Falcon 9:s or Ariane V:s.
You'd only need to develop mild cryogenic propellant depot or multiple small tanks for long term in space storage. Deriving from existing upper stages or supply craft (Soyz/Progress/ATV/HTV or near Dragon and Cygnus) would work fine. HTV and Dragon use berthing so need a robot arm.

This of course would never work politically as it wouldn't build satisfying gigantic monuments of awe in Florida or Louisiana or Utah or...

If you want to do a one off you could use storable propellants. Need more rockets but easier to handle in space.

*2006 proposal for doing ESAS style stack from LEO onwards with many launches to LEO: http://users.tkk.fi/~tmaja/flex/flex.htm

 

[Orionblamblam]

A strawmanpalooza in opposition to an American manned space program:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/01/newt_gingrich_s_moon_colony_and_mars_plan_.html

It wasn't Obama that proposed it, therefore it's crazy and stupid.

 

[Demon Lord Razgriz]

Even I have to admit that's crazy...

US State on the Moon, a self-sustaining colony within 9 years, and some new super rocket to get us to Mars very quickly...

While I like his enthusiasm, I'd suggest to Newt to cut back on the happy juice. And then pick a sensible direction for NASA to go and stick to it.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Even I have to admit that's crazy...

US State on the Moon, a self-sustaining colony within 9 years, and some new super rocket to get us to Mars very quickly...

Which of these is crazy? Note that the "US state on the moon" does not fall within the 9 year timeframe, but "eventually."

While I like his enthusiasm, I'd suggest to Newt to cut back on the happy juice. And then pick a sensible direction for NASA to go and stick to it.
[/quote

And what direction woudl that be? Continue sucking down money and producing nothing?]

 

[chuck4]

Apollo had cost 131 Billion in 2012 U$Dollar (most spend on R&D the Hardware)

with existing Hardware, I wonder is this realizable with a favorable Budget?

Sure, for certain limits of "existing." I'd at least start planning with Falcon 9 and Bigelow space habitats. Earth return vehicles (or lunar-surface-to-lunar-orbit) and lunar surface habitats could be transported from LEO to luanr orbit by means of ion engines or similar low-thrust, high-efficiency propulsion systems... let them take three months rather than three days; automated systems would work well enough.

What's the point of circumnavigating or even landing on the moon without a crew? The Chinese and Indians have already circumnavigated the moon with robot probes, and the Chinese will certainly beat us to landing an unmanned probe on the moon, they've announced they would do it in 2013.
The whole point is to get another men there. I doubt ion engine efficiency can possibly make up for 3 month's worth of keeping a crew alive.

 

[Michel Van]

I doubt ion engine efficiency can possibly make up for 3 month's worth of keeping a crew alive.

the Ion engine tug are for Unmanned Cargo flight to moon, what takes month's
while manned flight take with Chemical engine 40 to 60 hours to moon.

there can make rendezvous with ion engine tug and dock with lunar lander Module

i found about Ion engine tug by Ernst Stuhlinger form 1959
Design 1 is 70 ton heavy
a two-megawatt nuclear reactor with 10 tons
structure: 3 tons
cesium propellant: 6.8 tons
cargo: 50 tons .
The ion thrust chamber would produce 5.2 kilograms of thrust.
The voyage from a 600-kilometer-high Earth orbit to the moon and back would last 116 days.
http://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/2010/05/lunar-ion-freighter-1959.html

 

[AAAdrone]

Don't you mean 5.2 kiloNewtons Michel Van?

 

[Orionblamblam]

the Ion engine tug are for Unmanned Cargo flight to moon

Exactly so. A cargo flight, such as a habitat, a nuclear reactor, a set of PV arrays, rovers, tractors, drill rigs, hardware, sheet aluminum, water, food, seeds, hydrogen... these neither need to be man-tended on the way to the moon nor do they need to get to the moon in periods less than months. Who cares if it takes *six* *months* to get there? If you need them there before the humans get there... launch them six months earlier. Humans need to get to the moon fast. Cargo needs to get to the moon *cheap.*

As Apollo showed, humans can survive just fine a three-day trip cooped up with minimal volume. While the lunar base should have the sort of per-person volume found in a house, for the few days getting to the moon, a bus or a jetliner model would work.

By the time you want to send *tourists* to the moon, you'd probably use a cycler. In effect this would be a space station with lots of volume, set on a free-return trajectory that would constantly swing back and forth around the earth and the moon. While it would take some serious propulsion to get this space station going, once it's going, it'll *keep* going, only requiring relatively minor nudges. You'd dock with the station with bus-like small and densely packed transports at Earth, and undock at the moon and brake into lunar orbit; at the same time another transport from the moon would boost from lunar orbit to dock with the cycler and drift back to Earth.

 

[Michel Van]

Don't you mean 5.2 kiloNewtons Michel Van?

nope actual thrust is 5.2 kilos or 115 lb, that must be 0.00112 kiloNewtons

 

[Hobbes]

no, it's 5.2*9.8=50 N, i.e. 0.05 kN

 

[Michel Van]

no, it's 5.2*9.8=50 N, i.e. 0.05 kN

Thx for correction Hobbes

 

[AAAdrone]

Don't you mean 5.2 kiloNewtons Michel Van?

nope actual thrust is 5.2 kilos or 115 lb, that must be 0.00112 kiloNewtons

Okay. Thanks for the clarification. The reason I asked was because kilograms is an SI unit of mass and as such isn't normally used as a unit of thrust which is a force. lbs. is an english unit of weight which is also a force. Force and mass are related but not the same thing according to Newton. I was just confused by the article's use of mass as a determinant of how much thrust is produced.

 

[Michel Van]

Okay. Thanks for the clarification. The reason I asked was because kilograms is an SI unit of mass and as such isn't normally used as a unit of thrust which is a force. lbs. is an english unit of weight which is also a force. Force and mass are related but not the same thing according to Newton. I was just confused by the article's use of mass as a determinant of how much thrust is produced.

the proposal was from year 1959, the definitions of the base units used in SI system is from 1960

 

[Arjen]

The SI system dates from 1960, but was preceded by the MKS-system of 1893, from which it inherited - among other things - the Newton as a unit of force.

1kgf (kilogram-force) equates to 9.8N. Sometimes thrust is presented in kgf, and the f is is carelessly forgotten.

 

[Spark]

Hi
Post 2nd WW We were first taught Imperial, foot pound second with c.g.s. centimetre gram second, then MKS and finally SI.
Continentals still used variations, degrees of arc, different temperature scales were taught, used.
I remember being told that in Brittany pre 2nd WW one could still find local carpenters using French feet and inches. With the “imposition” we were told circa 1952/3 that the Commonwealth/UK would adopt metric. Which the ANZACs did fully.

The SI system dates from 1960, but was preceded by the MKS-system of 1893, from which it inherited - among other things - the Newton as a unit of force.

1kgf (kilogram-force) equates to 9.8N. Sometimes thrust is presented in kgf, and the f is is carelessly forgotten.

 

[uk 75]

If there was really anything on the Moon worth going there for, you can be pretty sure the big private corporations would have developed their own Space programme by now. In an interview back in the 70s a NASA person told BBC Panorama that once the early Apollo missions had been analysed there was no "non-political" reason to go back to the Moon with people.

China and possibly other nations want to be able to boast that they can do what the USA did all those years ago for reasons of national prestige.

The most important missions for science will be the unmanned probes to places like Europa where there might be interesting life or further expeditions to Mars to find out what happened to its water and whether there is any left.

That leaves tourism. If the global economy ever sorts out the energy crisis and the new emerging economies show the same spirit as 50s America we might one day see Moon tourism. But first we need new power sources and means of compressing water and shielding against radiation.

I still love the Apollo follow on stuff that is on Mark Wade's Encyclopaedia Astronautica and in Stephen Baxter's Voyage novel. The 70s and 80s would have been fun if Von Braun had not been scotched by Nixon. Big Saturn Vs could even now be still launching from the Cape.

 

[Spark]

Hi
UK solar array circa 1967 specific weight about 20kg/kW. Us at that time about 50kg/kW, what are the figures today?

If there was really anything on the Moon worth going there for, you can be pretty sure the big private corporations would have developed their own Space programme by now. In an interview back in the 70s a NASA person told BBC Panorama that once the early Apollo missions had been analysed there was no "non-political" reason to go back to the Moon with people.

China and possibly other nations want to be able to boast that they can do what the USA did all those years ago for reasons of national prestige.

The most important missions for science will be the unmanned probes to places like Europa where there might be interesting life or further expeditions to Mars to find out what happened to its water and whether there is any left.

That leaves tourism. If the global economy ever sorts out the energy crisis and the new emerging economies show the same spirit as 50s America we might one day see Moon tourism. But first we need new power sources and means of compressing water and shielding against radiation.

I still love the Apollo follow on stuff that is on Mark Wade's Encyclopaedia Astronautica and in Stephen Baxter's Voyage novel. The 70s and 80s would have been fun if Von Braun had not been scotched by Nixon. Big Saturn Vs could even now be still launching from the Cape.

 

[Orionblamblam]

If there was really anything on the Moon worth going there for, you can be pretty sure the big private corporations would have developed their own Space programme by now.

Well, no. Space travel is quite expensive... plus, there's politics. While the notion of a PV-array covered moon is obviously a good one, in that theoretically all of mankinds power needs could be met that way, right now it would be non-competative with other power systems unless bootstrapped by government funds. Additionally, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty forbis national appropriation of extraterrestrial property; it would, for example, forbid Newt Gingrich's idea of a US state on the moon. Even worse if the loathsome 1979 Moon Treaty which the US has fortunately *not* signed on to, which explicitly bans private property rights in space.

While the Outer Space Treaty does not explicitly ban private property rights in space, but it does so *effectively* by this:
The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.

What this basically says is that if a corporation set up a PV array on the moon for commercial purposes... they might be forced to redistribute the weath they generate equally to all countries, regardless of whether that country spent one dime on the project.

And the fact that the US hasn;t signed the Moon Treaty doesn't preclude the possibility that it someday will.

Under these conditions... economic development of the moon by a corporation without the cover of the government would be highly insane. It would be akin to a major petrochemical company watching Hugo Chavev nationalise every oil company in Veneuela and then deciding that Venezuela would be a great place to invest in.

In an interview back in the 70s a NASA person told BBC Panorama that once the early Apollo missions had been analysed there was no "non-political" reason to go back to the Moon with people.

Sure. NASA has long been opposed to "non-political' space exploration... such would threaten their pre-eminance.

The 70s and 80s would have been fun if Von Braun had not been scotched by Nixon.

You mean "Johnson." Apollo was killed in 1968; it just drifted through on momentum. Nixon sadly did not reverse Johnsons's decisions.

 

[Michel Van]

Hi
UK solar array circa 1967 specific weight about 20kg/kW. Us at that time about 50kg/kW, what are the figures today?

Let's take the ones on ISS
one Panel is 35,05 meter long und 11,58 m wide. with 32.800 Solarcells and total weight of 1,1 tons and produce 32,8 kW power
Make 33,5kg/kW

on Design 1 by Ernst Stuhlinger need 2000 kW
so 61 Panels have to be install what increase the mass +67,7 tons make total 127,7 tons
and the solarcells will decrease in performance each time the Tug moves true Earth magnetic field ! ! !

If there was really anything on the Moon worth going there for, you can be pretty sure the big private corporations would have developed their own Space programme by now.

They will in Future, only they need a reason:

Drop nuclear waste on it like in "Space: 1999"
Mining:
next Helium-3 hype, there a real money of Future: Rare earth element
that stuff is needed for Ipad, Iphones, laptops, LCD tv's, electric cars and rechargeable batteries
and available only few county and in Future they will monopolize it like OPEC
the moon covered with Rare earth element

Manufacturing and Testing very dangerous stuff, like K.h. Scheer novel series "ZBV"
here the Moon is used as test site for Ultra heavy H-bomb, Biological experiments etc

and there also this: Tax Haven and Safe Haven
first it sound nut's the moon as a Tax Haven but with the fall of Switzerland, confidentiality in banking.
but the Moon is far far away

also concept of Safe Haven is similar Tax Haven but for Company and religious groups
like R.L. Forward "Timemaster" were the Company of Hero move out, after US GOP is embarrasses him
"sorry Senator Barkham but US judiciary end at Earth Atmosphere, and Mr Hunter move his Company HQ to... Proxima Centauri !"
also religious groups how are embarrasses and pursued will look for save place
Money rich groups like Scientology or Unification Church will be in future pursued by governments.
and suddenly the moon look like promised land...

 

[uk 75]

Orionblamblam and Michel Van

Thanks for the info. As usal one learns some interesting stuff here.

My main query with manned moon missions remains the manned part. Back in the 60s noone had the computing power we have today. Why send fragile and costly humans when a machine- or rather hundreds of the little critters if necessary can go? Apart from the romantic aspect (hence my references to 70s 80s missions and possible tourism) I am not convinced that sending ex-test pilots etc is worth the money. Nanobots seem to me a more sensible option.

 

[Spark]

Hi Michel,
Thanks for your help, who are now the suppliers of arrays? ISS and Satellites.

 

[Michel Van]

Orionblamblam and Michel Van

Thanks for the info. As usal one learns some interesting stuff here.

My main query with manned moon missions remains the manned part. Back in the 60s noone had the computing power we have today. Why send fragile and costly humans when a machine- or rather hundreds of the little critters if necessary can go? Apart from the romantic aspect (hence my references to 70s 80s missions and possible tourism) I am not convinced that sending ex-test pilots etc is worth the money. Nanobots seem to me a more sensible option.

Robots, Were is fun in that ?
hell i wanna go my self to Moon and dig my hands in lunar soil !

Hi Michel,
Thanks for your help, who are now the suppliers of arrays? ISS and Satellites.

my calculation has a little error the 64 Solarpanels missing the support truss
that 16 units each 15 tons what push the mass of Solarcells Ion tug to 367 tons !
the power system of ISS was build by Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_system_of_the_International_Space_Station

with this huge mass is solar thermal collector better in performance/weight ?
for US space station Dual-keel design had two 50 kW solar thermodynamic generators

 

[Orionblamblam]

Why send fragile and costly humans when a machine- or rather hundreds of the little critters if necessary can go?

Short term: because humans on-site can make decisions faster with better info than any robot. One human can do damn near any job, as opposed to relatively specialized robots.

Mid term: because humans on-site are more inspiring than robots. Inspiration is not just some warm and fuzzy rubbish... it's also a good motivator for innovation and economies.

Long term: because robots don't have babies.

 

[Hobbes]

The solar panel weights seem awfully high to me. The P3/4 truss segment weighs 15 tons, yes. But that includes lots of other equipment: the truss structure, two gimballing systems, a radiator, and infrastructure for experiments.

The wings themselves weigh 2400 lbs/1090 kg each.

 

[Michel Van]

The solar panel weights seem awfully high to me. The P3/4 truss segment weighs 15 tons, yes. But that includes lots of other equipment: the truss structure, two gimballing systems, a radiator, and infrastructure for experiments.

The wings themselves weigh 2400 lbs/1090 kg each.

it include also power lines, rechargeable nickel-hydrogen batteries (if ISS is in earth shadow)
A system what track the sun movement and orientate the Solar panels on it, with additional "gimbal" system that adjust for the angle of the space station's orbit to the ecliptic.
AFAIR, the Radiator cool also the Solar panels and batteries !

 

[Michel Van]

Show me the Money
How much cost a ESA Mission into Moon Orbit compare to Apollo 8 ?

Research and development cost
3000 mio. € R&D the ARD into working manned spacecraft with escape-system and VEB into Service module.
1100 mio. € R&D into Ariane ECB with Vinci engine
1000 mio. € R&D for 4 Booster Ariane 5 and modification of the launchpad
5100 million Euro for very optimistic R&D on this Lunar option

Mission cost
220 mio. € ESA Space capsule
130 mio. € Ariane 5 launch of Space capsule
170 mio. € Ariane 5 ECB with 4 booster
520 million Euro for 3 astronauts in Moon orbit


compair to Apollo 8 mission (2012 U$ Dollar)
Research and development cost
43990 mio. U$ R&D Saturn V rocket include launch pads
49720 mio. U$ R&D Apollo CSM
93710 mio. U$

Mission Cost
1100 mio. U$ Saturn V launcher
500 mio. U$ Apollo CSM
1600 mio. U$ for 3 astronaut in Moon orbit

That's 1194 mio. € vrs. 520 million €

NOTE:
Compare the R&D cost makes no sense
because much of developed hardware in Apollo program was new technology.
what ESA profited from that technology during there R&D on Ariane