A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

[RGClark]

Argues the SLS as early as 2017 can be used to launch manned lunar lander missions:

SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/10/sls-for-return-to-moon-by-50th.html


Bob Clark

 

[RGClark]

The argument for why this is doable is rather simple. The Early Lunar Access(ELA) proposal of the early 90's, which deserves to be better known actually, suggested that by using a lightweight 2-man capsule and all cryogenic in-space stages that a manned lunar lander mission could be mounted with only 52 mT required to LEO, half that previously thought necessary.
The only technical complaint about its feasibility was that it required a crew capsule of only 3 mT empty weight. But the kicker is NASA is planning a Space Exploration Vehicle(SEV) at that same low 3 mT empty weight. So the SLS at a 70 mT payload capability will be able to launch such a mission using the SEV as crew capsule following the ELA architecture with plenty of margin.

However, I believe it is likely this first launch of the SLS will even be able to carry the much heavier Orion capsule, at a ca. 9 mT empty weight, on a manned lunar lander mission. The reason is this first launch of the SLS of what is referred to as the Block 1 version, will use 5 segment SRB's, a stretched ET tank, and 4 SSME engines. This will amount to a 25% increase in both the size and thrust of the SRB's and a 33% increase in both the size and thrust of the core stage over those of the Block 0 version.
But the Block 0 was already supposed to have a 70 mT payload capability. It does not seem reasonable that you would increase the size and thrust of the launcher to this extent but the payload remain the same. And Ed Kyle on his SpaceLaunchReport page suggests the Block 1 will likely have a ca. 95 mT capability:

NASA's Space Launch System.
by Ed Kyle, 02/24/2012
http://spacelaunchreport.com/sls0.html

And the DIRECT teams analogue of the Block 1 SLS called the Jupiter 130 Heavy is also expected to have a ca. 95 mT payload capability:

http://www.directlauncher.org/documents/Baseball_Cards/J130H-41.5000.08100_CLV_30x100nmi_29.0deg_090608.jpg

That the Block 1 SLS will likely have a ca. 95 mT payload capability is important because that puts it in the range commonly thought needed to mount a manned lunar lander mission. In fact, by following the ELA architecture of all cryogenic in-space stages, you can launch a 9 mT Orion capsule on a lander mission to the Moon and back by using a 95 mT launcher.


Bob Clark

 

[Byeman]

This doesn't belong here either. It doesn't meet the scope of this forum. And creating threads with links to your website is the definition of spamming.

 

[blackstar]

He appears to be harmless. And traffic on the space section of this site is incredibly low.

Put another way, without the kooks, none of us would be here...

 

[RGClark]

This doesn't belong here either. It doesn't meet the scope of this forum. Go find another street corner to shout your nonsense. And creating threads with links to your website is the definition of spamming.

You have no response to the question of whether the increased performance specifications of the Block 1 launcher over the Block 0 will result in an increase in the payload to 90+ mT?


Bob Clark

 

[RGClark]

He appears to be harmless. And traffic on the space section of this site is incredibly low.
Put another way, without the kooks, none of us would be here...

I've read your articles on The Space Review page. Why not use your excellent journalism skills to bring further to light the Early Lunar Access proposal of 1993?
This only required 52 mT to LEO, at 1/10th the cost of Apollo, in the range of $10 billion. To put this in perspective the Constellation program to return us to the Moon would have cost $100 billion, which high cost led to it being cancelled. Imagine if we could accomplish manned return to the lunar surface for only $10 billion.
As a starting point you could interview the NASA scientists and engineers including for example Michael Griffin who discussed its feasibility in contemporary articles when it was proposed. See the list of articles at the bottom of this page:

Lunar Base Studies in the 1990s.
1993: Early Lunar Access (ELA)
by Marcus Lindroos
http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/ELA.html


Bob Clark

 

[Byeman]

ELA was never validated in terms of cost or performance, therefore your argument is not valid. You can not use it as a basis for other work.

Also. SEV is a space only vehicle and not a entry or crew return vehicle.

 

[RGClark]

ELA was never validated in terms of cost or performance, therefore your argument is not valid. You can not use it as a basis for other work.
Also. SEV is a space only vehicle and not a entry or crew return vehicle.

True, the cost estimates were from General Dynamics not NASA, but since you would not need to develop an entire new heavy lift launcher like the Saturn V for Apollo or the Ares 5 for Constellation, likely the cost would have been significantly less. Reading the responses of NASA officials interviewed about the proposal in the articles ref'd at the bottom of the web page, the question aside from that of the capsule size was not about its technical feasibility but of the cost estimates to get the low $10 billion number.
In any case at the present time, when you consider what would be its development cost, a reasonable approach would be to separate the cost of the launcher from that of the in-space stages and crew capsule. The reason is that the possible launchers the Falcon Heavy and the SLS are already being built. Now consider that the Centaur stage for the trans Lunar injection stage, referred to now in the current parlance as an Earth departure stage, already exists, at the few tens of million dollar cost range. And a Centaur-like stage for the lander could also be had for a similar cost.
You would have a cost for integrating the two Centaur stages into a single vehicle and adding lander legs to the lander stage. However considering the possible cost saving over a full Constellation style return to the Moon scenario, I think cost studies should be done on the using the ELA architecture with the upcoming, large payload capable launch vehicles.
For the SEV you would have to add a heat shield but this is just a small proportion of the mass of the crew capsule, and since the SLS at 70 mT has quite a bit of margin over the 52 mT needed for the ELA this should still be doable with the SLS.


Bob Clark

 

[Byeman]

For the SEV you would have to add a heat shield but this is just a small proportion of the mass of the crew capsule, and since the SLS at 70 mT has quite a bit of margin over the 52 mT needed for the ELA this should still be doable with the SLS.

Huh? again, I said the performance numbers, i.e. 53mt, was never validated and therefore can not be used as a basis for others.
Also, you show that you don't know what you are talking about if you thing SEV only needs just add a heat shield to make it a crew return vehicle.

 

[RGClark]

Because of the possible low cost and short time frame such a mission architecture can be accomplished at, the lightweight estimates of General Dynamics should be validated.
One of the uses proposed for the SEV is as a lander/rover module on the lunar surface. So it would have additional capabilities beyond that of a LEO capsule such as thermal control in the wide temperature swings on the lunar surface and communication capabilities over such a large distance from Earth.
What other capabilities do you think it should have to serve as a crew module both to the Moon and back?

Bob Clark

 

[Byeman]

Because of the possible low cost and short time frame such a mission architecture can be accomplished at, the lightweight estimates of General Dynamics should be validated.

That isn't enough reason to do it.

 

[pathology_doc]

"Because it's there" used to be enough reason to do it. Back when the human race was driven by ambition to achieve instead of fear of risk.

 

[RGClark]

Just saw this:

Exploration Alternatives: From Propellant Depots to Commercial Lunar Base.
November 15th, 2012 by Chris Bergin

NASA managers have since created an option for a return, listed as a Lunar Surface Sortie (LSS) mission via the Exploration Systems Development Division (ESD) Concept Of Operations (Con Ops) document (L2), allowing it to become a Design Reference Mission (DRM) alternative, potentially at the expense of a NEA mission in the early to mid 2020s.
While this option remains on the cards, source information acquired by L2 this week revealed plans for a “game-changing” announcement as early as December that a new commercial space company intends to send commercial astronauts to the moon by 2020.
According to the information, the effort is led by a group of high profile individuals from the aerospace industry and backed by some big money and foreign investors. The company intends to use “existing or soon to be existing launch vehicles, spacecraft, upper stages, and technologies” to start their commercial manned lunar campaign.
The details point to the specific use of US vehicles, with a basic architecture to utilize multiple launches to assemble spacecraft in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). The details make direct reference to the potential use of propellant depots and fuel transfer technology.
Additional notes include a plan to park elements in lunar orbit, staging a small lunar lander that would transport two commercial astronauts to the surface for short stays. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/11/exploration-alternatives-propellant-depots-commercial-lunar-base/

I first thought the commercial plan was going to follow the Early Lunar Access (ELA) proposal because it mentioned landing two commercial passengers on the Moon. ELA was a lightweight architecture that used a small two-man capsule:

Encyclopedia Astronautica.
Early Lunar Access. http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm

But it is unlikely in the commercial plan they mean the passengers are to fly alone without one or more professional pilots. And also the article mentions the commercial plan is to use on orbit assembly. But by using the Falcon Heavy or the SLS you could launch the ELA architecture with a single launch.

Still, using two launches of the Delta IV Heavy both at its maximum payload to orbit of 25 mT we could launch the ELA architecture. Even if the Delta IV Heavy is not man rated, we could use separate launchers to take the astronauts to orbit and transfer them to the Moon vehicle after it is assembled.

For the NASA proposal, the article mentions the Lunar Surface Sortie (LSS) proposal. But this was still to use a 4 man capsule, which likely means the large, heavy Orion. It also would involve a separate lunar crew module, also at variance with the lightweight ELA architecture.

This lunar lander of the LSS proposal would then likely be akin to the large, expensive Altair lunar lander. So this proposal would be similar to the Constellation program whose high expense caused it to be cancelled. Better would be if NASA went small following the ELA architecture to use a single, small capsule that would carry the astronauts all the way from LEO to the lunar surface and back again. This would allow a NASA return to the Moon with a proportionally small additional cost above that of the SLS itself, and in less than a decade.

These commercial or NASA missions, if carried through, would allow a return to the Moon by the 50th anniversary of the Apollo missions if not of Apollo 11 itself.


Bob Clark

 

[RGClark]

Just saw this article by legendary Apollo manager Chris Kraft mentioned on the NasaSpaceFlight.com forum:

Space Launch System is a threat to JSC, Texas jobs
By Chris Kraft and Tom Moser | April 20, 2012 | Updated: April 20, 2012 8:20pm

We are wasting billions of dollars per year on SLS. There are cheaper and nearer term approaches for human space exploration that use existing launch vehicles. A multicenter NASA team has completed a study on how we can return humans to the surface of the moon in the next decade with existing launch vehicles and within the existing budget. This NASA plan, which NASA leadership is trying to hide, would save JSC and create thousands of jobs in Texas.
http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Space-Launch-System-is-a-threat-to-JSC-Texas-jobs-3498836.php

Since Kraft is opposed to the SLS and he says this plan uses existing launch vehicles, it can't use the SLS or the Falcon Heavy. It must then use something similar to the Early Lunar Access plan that uses orbital assembly, perhaps using two launches of the Delta IV Heavy.
Like the suppressed report that suggested orbiting propellant depots could accomplish the goals of the SLS at lower cost, this report will eventually also come out. So who's got the inside scoop?


Bob Clark

 

[RGClark]

This article by Amy Shira Teitel about the Chris Kraft piece discusses and links to a NASA report showing propellant depots can allow BEO missions without the SLS, saving billions:

EX-FLIGHT DIRECTOR URGES NASA TO KILL NEXT ROCKET SYSTEM.
Analysis by Amy Shira Teitel
Wed Apr 25, 2012 01:00 PM ET
http://news.discovery.com/space/mercury-flight-director-urges-nasa-to-kill-sls-120425.html

So this is probably the report referred to by Chris Kraft:

"Propellant Depot Requirements Study Status Report"
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/21.jul2011.vxs.pdf

The report discusses several scenarios for lunar, asteroidal, or Mars missions without using heavy lift vehicles by using propellant depots. It does discuss use of the Falcon Heavy in some scenarios, but others use the Delta IV Heavy. About this last, it's interesting they give the max payload of the Delta IV Heavy as 28 mT. But the highest I ever read it having was 25 mT. Anyone know what modifications to the Delta IV Heavy would allow it to have this high a payload capability?
A disadvantage of the approaches discussed however is the large number of launches required even for the lunar missions, 6 for the Falcon Heavy and 10 for the Delta IV Heavy. This is because the scenarios use the large, heavy Orion capsule, the service module, and a separate, large lunar lander, likely akin to the Altair lunar lander.
On the other hand if instead the Early Lunar Access (ELA) architecture were used it could be done with a <i>single</i> launch of the Falcon Heavy or two with the Delta IV Heavy:

Encyclopedia Astronautica.
Early Lunar Access.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm


Bob Clark

 

[RGClark]

The "Golden Spike" commercial return to the Moon plan will have its unveiling at a news conference at the National Press Club on Dec. 6th

Golden Spike to Unveil Plans Next Thursday
Posted by Doug Messier on December 1, 2012, at 5:27 am in News
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/12/01/golden-spike-to-unveil-plans-next-thursday/


Bob Clark

 

[RGClark]

Proposes using the unmanned test flights of the Falcon Heavy to test low cost BEO missions to the lunar surface, near Earth asteroids, and the Lagrange points:

SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon, page 3: Falcon Heavy for BEO test flights.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/spacex-dragon-spacecraft-for-low-cost.html

Bob Clark

 

[ADVANCEDBOY]

You could call me ignorant, stupid, conceited, whatever pleases you, but there is no way that a manned moonlanding is possible with the current technology, yet alone in 2017 timeframe. I don`t want to be banned , that is why I am not going into the subject, I am not going into discourse about Vsevolod Yakubovich` and his exact findings and what his colleagues have said about it, etc.. If you don`t believe me, just retrieve this comment in 2017. There is no power in the world that will make me change my opinion, and I do have rights to my own opinions, irregardless of what the general assumption is. I spent about 4 years researching this topic, detail by detail. A real manned moonlanding could probably happen in 2040 timeframe with a joint Russian -Chinese project, although it is very , very unlikely. Mission to Mars.- cancelled indefinitely, due to fact that US economy is not generating real added value to the economy, from which to deduct taxes for such a mission.

 

[Byeman]

I do have rights to my own opinions,

But not to your own facts. And it is a fact that it is possible with current technology, in fact, it was possible with 1960's technology. Current technology was used to land on Mars 4 times in the last decade.
Looks like you wasted 4 years researching something that was already known.
Also, the next landing may not be by 2017, but it is going to before 2025 and not 2040.

 

[RGClark]

You could call me ignorant, stupid, conceited, whatever pleases you, but there is no way that a manned moonlanding is possible with the current technology, yet alone in 2017 timeframe. I don`t want to be banned , that is why I am not going into the subject, I am not going into discourse about Vsevolod Yakubovich` and his exact findings and what his colleagues have said about it, etc.. If you don`t believe me, just retrieve this comment in 2017. There is no power in the world that will make me change my opinion, and I do have rights to my own opinions, irregardless of what the general assumption is. I spent about 4 years researching this topic, detail by detail. A real manned moonlanding could probably happen in 2040 timeframe with a joint Russian -Chinese project, although it is very , very unlikely. Mission to Mars.- cancelled indefinitely, due to fact that US economy is not generating real added value to the economy, from which to deduct taxes for such a mission.

Well you could be convinced if you went yourself.
It will be interesting to find out what the "Golden Spike" architecture looks like.

Bob Clark

 

[RGClark]

"Golden Spike" revealed their architecture for a commercial return to the Moon this week:

How Golden Spike's Moon Landing Plan Works (Infographic )
http://www.space.com/18805-golden-spike-private-moon-landing-graphic.html

They estimated development costs in the $7 to $8 billion dollar range, less than 1/10 the cost of the Apollo or Constellation programs. However, even these numbers may be over inflated. The origin of the presented cost numbers were from NASA guys using NASA costing models. However, SpaceX has shown by following a commercial approach development costs can be cut by 1/5th to 1/10th that of NASA’s.

So what I think Golden Spike should do is bring SpaceX on board. With the development costs reduced to this extent, then we would have the really exciting possibility of the flight costs being brought down perhaps to the $200 million range, especially if using the Falcon Heavy launcher. This clearly would have a major impact on the prospect of profitability.

The only problem might be is that Elon appears to have no interest in the Moon, being focused on Mars as the ultimate goal. However the profitability motive may sway him. There is also the fact that these missions could serve to prove the capabilities of the Dragon even for BEO missions. It could also serve to prove the value of the Falcon Heavy for launching large payload at low cost, something Elon definitely wants for getting Air Force contracts.

As I discussed here the importance of what SpaceX has accomplished is that it will make clear that manned space flight can be accomplished at a fraction of what was thought necessary, thus making manned space flight routine world-wide. Combining this with small, low cost approaches to BEO flight, suggests such missions can also happen on a regular basis.

We are returning to the Moon, this time to stay.

Bob Clark

 

[RGClark]

SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11, page 2: Orion + SEV design.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/sls-for-return-to-moon-by-50th.html

Argues the first version of the SLS will have a 95+ mT payload capacity, not just 70 mT, enough to do a manned lunar landing by its first launch in 2017. And moreover addition of a small propulsive stage a fraction of the size of the upper stage on an EELV can raise the payload to 130 mT at minimal additional cost.


Bob Clark

 

[Byeman]

SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11, page 2: Orion + SEV design.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/sls-for-return-to-moon-by-50th.html

Argues the first version of the SLS will have a 95+ mT payload capacity, not just 70 mT, enough to do a manned lunar landing by its first launch in 2017. And moreover addition of a small propulsive stage a fraction of the size of the upper stage on an EELV can raise the payload to 130 mT at minimal additional cost.


Bob Clark

Spamming another forum with your garbage

 

[RGClark]

Spamming another forum with your garbage

You still haven't given an opinion on the notion that the Block 1 SLS having scaled up SRB's by 25% and a core stage scaled up by 33% over the Block 0 SLS, results in the payload remaining exactly the same at 70 mT.

Bob Clark

 

[RGClark]

A recent report suggests using the hydrogen tank of an upper stage for the SLS as a space station:

Skylab II: A NASA 'Back to the Future' Concept to Open Up Space Exploration
By Mark Whittington | Yahoo! Contributor Network – Fri, Dec 21, 2012
http://news.yahoo.com/skylab-ii-nasa-back-future-concept-open-space-170200842.html

Note there had been suggestions before of using the space shuttle external tank(ET) as a space station:

The Space Island Project
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYIo-0qo9FA

STS External Tank Station
www.astronautix.com/craft/stsation.htm

The External Tank Torus.
A Technical Review by David Buth
http://freemars.org/studies/torus/ettoru2.html

Using the External Tank From the Space Shuttle as a Space Station ...
aeromaster.tripod.com/grp.htm

At an empty tank mass of 26.5 metric tons(mT) this would be well within the
capability of the 70 mT SLS of getting this to LEO, as at least an outer hull
of a space station. Note for this purpose we could remove the ET bulkheads so
it would even weigh less than this.
This would have two and a half times the volume of the ISS.
And at the 130 mT payload capacity of the later SLS version, using Centaur
style in-space stages we could even transport this to the Moon.


Bob Clark

 

[RGClark]

Interesting articles:

NASA MSFC Says That SLS Performance Specs Fall Under ITAR.
http://spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1697

Report: NASA in Huntsville won't release performance specifications for new rocket.
By Lee Roop | ****@al.com
on January 25, 2013 at 3:23 PM, updated January 25, 2013 at 3:51 PM
blog.al.com/breaking/2013/01/report_nasa_in_huntsville_wont.html

Rand Simberg suggested to me the reason why NASA keeps saying the Block 1 version of the SLS will only have a payload of 70 mT, same as for the Block 0, is to maintain the pork of the expensive upper stage.

Citing ITAR for the current Block 1 version makes no sense since they were willing to give the 70 mT capability of the Block 0. Also, another conclusion you can draw from this is the payload capability of the Block 1 will not really just be 70 mT otherwise they would have just given this number again for the FOIA request.

My guess about why NASA kept giving the 70 mT number of the Block 0 and not the real number of the Block 1 was because they just didn't take the time and effort to do the analysis on the capability of the upgraded rocket. It was easier to just cite 70 mT because they knew the new version would at least reach this. But now I'm beginning to think perhaps Simberg was right.

Certainly the cite of the ITAR restrictions just raises more questions.

Bob Clark

 

[Tony Williams]

"Because it's there" used to be enough reason to do it. Back when the human race was driven by ambition to achieve instead of fear of risk.

But it's been done already - several times.

There has to be a powerful reason to invest the resources involved in getting back there, rather than just visiting for the sake of it.

Of course, if very rich people want to pay the cost of getting there for their own satisfaction, that's up to them. I can't see any sound reason for spending public funds on it, though.

 

[Jemiba]

""Because it's there" used to be enough reason to do it."
Perhaps we shouldn't forget, that the "Race to the moon" actually wasn't just a scientifical, or technological,
but above all a political aim. If the Soviets would have sent the first men to, say, the Mariana Trench, with the
same propaganda activities, who knows, when the first men would have walked on the moon ?

 

[RGClark]

Interesting articles:

NASA MSFC Says That SLS Performance Specs Fall Under ITAR.
http://spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1697

Report: NASA in Huntsville won't release performance specifications for new rocket.
By Lee Roop | ****@al.com
on January 25, 2013 at 3:23 PM, updated January 25, 2013 at 3:51 PM
blog.al.com/breaking/2013/01/report_nasa_in_huntsville_wont.html

Rand Simberg suggested to me the reason why NASA keeps saying the Block 1 version of the SLS will only have a payload of 70 mT, same as for the Block 0, is to maintain the pork of the expensive upper stage.

Citing ITAR for the current Block 1 version makes no sense since they were willing to give the 70 mT capability of the Block 0. Also, another conclusion you can draw from this is the payload capability of the Block 1 will not really just be 70 mT otherwise they would have just given this number again for the FOIA request.

My guess about why NASA kept giving the 70 mT number of the Block 0 and not the real number of the Block 1 was because they just didn't take the time and effort to do the analysis on the capability of the upgraded rocket. It was easier to just cite 70 mT because they knew the new version would at least reach this. But now I'm beginning to think perhaps Simberg was right.

Certainly the cite of the ITAR restrictions just raises more questions.

Bob Clark

I've been informed by knowledgeable individuals that the Block I SLS likely will have greater payload than just 70 mT, though not as high as what I was estimating. The problem is with designing any new rocket there is always weight growth so you put some error bars around your mass estimates. NASA frequently takes a conservative approach to those mass growth estimates which can drive down your payload estimates.
In any case I don't believe there was anything untoward in the decision not to release the SLS specifications. I think as the SLS comes closer to completion, hopefully by 2017, more accurate numbers for its capabilities will be released.
However, it should be noted that many industry insiders do not believe the final Block II version of the SLS will ever fly, because of its long time lag, 20 years, and high cost. Then I think it would be prudent for NASA to investigate weight saving techniques on the Block I SLS core to maximize its payload capability. Then even if the Block II is never completed we can still perform BEO missions even with just the Block I scheduled to launch in 2017.

Some suggestions for lightweighting the SLS core discussed here:

SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11, page 3: lightweighting the SLS core.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/02/sls-for-return-to-moon-by-50th.html


Bob Clark

 

[RGClark]

A manned lunar landing flight for less than $100 million in launch cost, assuming the Falcon Heavy really does hit the $1,000 per pound price point:

Budget Moon flights.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/03/budget-moon-flights.html

Notably it uses European stages for the translunar injection and lander stages. Then you could have an all European mission if using an Ariane 5 ME and a separate human-rated European launcher for crew instead of a Falcon Heavy.
As I discussed before, a European human-rated launcher is doable by just selecting for the Ariane 6 the all-liquid fueled version. This could also be ready by the same 2017-2018 time frame for the Ariane 5 ME.
This is another advantage of the liquid-fueled version of the Ariane 6. It could also allow low cost European manned lunar flights around the same time as the Americans.


Bob Clark

 

[ouroboros]

ESA seems like they blew a good chance to get operational astronaut experience when they built the Soyuz pad at Kourou. Building a cargo specific VAB like they did, rather than the tried and true rail erector type setup with human access launch support arms, means no human launch experience. Though who knows, that might have been a condition of access to Soyuz rockets and gear, to keep ESA from selling Soyuz seats.

 

[Byeman]

ESA seems like they blew a good chance to get operational astronaut experience when they built the Soyuz pad at Kourou. Building a cargo specific VAB like they did, rather than the tried and true rail erector type setup with human access launch support arms, means no human launch experience.

There is nothing in the current setup that precludes a manned launch from the pad, nor does the rail erector with human access arm provide an advantage. The crew can be inserted in the capsule via the VAB and then it is rolled back, much like Mercury Redstone. Or a crew access tower can be added.

 

[RGClark]

A manned lunar landing flight for less than $100 million in launch cost, assuming the Falcon Heavy really does hit the $1,000 per pound price point:

Budget Moon flights.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/03/budget-moon-flights.html

Notably it uses European stages for the translunar injection and lander stages. Then you could have an all European mission if using an Ariane 5 ME and a separate human-rated European launcher for crew instead of a Falcon Heavy.
As I discussed before, a European human-rated launcher is doable by just selecting for the Ariane 6 the all-liquid fueled version. This could also be ready by the same 2017-2018 time frame for the Ariane 5 ME.
This is another advantage of the liquid-fueled version of the Ariane 6. It could also allow low cost European manned lunar flights around the same time as the Americans.


Bob Clark

Calculations for the all-liquid fueled Ariane 6 core as a SSTO:

FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 2013
The Coming SSTO's: multi-Vulcain Ariane.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-coming-sstos-multi-vulcain-ariane.html

Bob Clark

 

[RGClark]

A manned lunar landing flight for less than $100 million in launch cost, assuming the Falcon Heavy really does hit the $1,000 per pound price point:

Budget Moon flights.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/03/budget-moon-flights.html

Notably it uses European stages for the translunar injection and lander stages. Then you could have an all European mission if using an Ariane 5 ME and a separate human-rated European launcher for crew instead of a Falcon Heavy.
As I discussed before, a European human-rated launcher is doable by just selecting for the Ariane 6 the all-liquid fueled version. This could also be ready by the same 2017-2018 time frame for the Ariane 5 ME.
This is another advantage of the liquid-fueled version of the Ariane 6. It could also allow low cost European manned lunar flights around the same time as the Americans.


Bob Clark

Calculations for the all-liquid fueled Ariane 6 core as a SSTO:

FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 2013
The Coming SSTO's: multi-Vulcain Ariane.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-coming-sstos-multi-vulcain-ariane.html

Bob Clark

Discussion of a low cost European crew capsule:

Budget Moon flights: lightweight crew capsule.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/04/budget-moon-flights-lightweight-crew.html

Bob Clark

 

[luke strawwalker]

SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11, page 2: Orion + SEV design.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/sls-for-return-to-moon-by-50th.html

Argues the first version of the SLS will have a 95+ mT payload capacity, not just 70 mT, enough to do a manned lunar landing by its first launch in 2017. And moreover addition of a small propulsive stage a fraction of the size of the upper stage on an EELV can raise the payload to 130 mT at minimal additional cost.


Bob Clark

Manned lunar landing WITH WHAT?? Hand the astronauts an umbrella and let them float down like Mary Poppins?? LOL

To land on the moon, first you have to develop a MOON LANDER. Hello-- Altair was canceled YEARS ago... long before even the bloated Constellation was put out of its misery-- canceled in fact to free up money to waste on Constellation. I was no huge fan of Altair (the design seemed very "kludged" to me) but simple fact is, without a LANDER you're not LANDING ANYWHERE...

To have a lander designed and ready to do would mean it would have needed to be started about 4 years ago, at least... it should be well into development by now to have ANY hope of meeting a 2017 landing date... heck even if you got a lander funded and in development TOMORROW you'd be hard pressed to have it ready for a mission date in the early 2020's...

The SEV is basically a multipurpose pressurized rover, when mated to a vehicle chassis like ATHLETE, or another type of running gear of whatever type, or when used in space alone, basically it's a crew compartment for working in space. It is NOT designed for return to the Earth in any way, shape, or form, or to carry crews on launch and ascent from Earth. Your statements about SEV being possibly used for a crew return vehicle are simply incorrect. It's about like saying how much weight you could save by launching the Apollo crews in another LEM on top of the stack instead of the Apollo, and using that second LEM to return the crews to Earth after the mission-- IOW it's simply impossible-- two different spacecraft for two VERY different functions.

You ARE correct in your assertions that NASA has basically CHOSEN to do things the hardest and most expensive way possible-- Orion is too big and heavy (and thus expensive) for a sustainable rate of missions, as was Ares V and Altair... and now SLS is following that same path. As for the assertions of Kris Kraft, well, he's correct, not that it will do him a bit of good... it's just the same old "turf wars" between JSC and MSFC showing up again. Dr. Kraft is correct that SLS ALONE does NOTHING to further our exploration of space-- and Orion does little more to help either... it's important, sure, but NEITHER stand alone... again, without a lander, you're not landing ANYWHERE. That is one reason why the politicians keep beating the "touch an asteroid" drum, despite the fact that basically NASA doesn't even REALLY care about performing that mission and most scientists could care less about... BUT, it saves the costs of developing a lander, which the politicians don't want to have to pay for.

As for the pronouncements of these commercial outfits like "Golden Spike"-- talk is cheap... I'll believe it when I see it. Til then it's all hot air.

I've seen potential upgrades to Delta IV Heavy that would add up to six GEM-like solid boosters to one side of the core and boosters, each carrying two boosters... it would require pad mods IIRC though, which would have to be paid for by someone. Perhaps this is how they plan to get the additional boost mentioned that you quoted... Of course, this does NOTHING for that whole pesky "man-rating" thing that Delta IV does not have (and there's no plans to develop).

Later! OL JR

 

[luke strawwalker]

A recent report suggests using the hydrogen tank of an upper stage for the SLS as a space station:

Skylab II: A NASA 'Back to the Future' Concept to Open Up Space Exploration
By Mark Whittington | Yahoo! Contributor Network – Fri, Dec 21, 2012
http://news.yahoo.com/skylab-ii-nasa-back-future-concept-open-space-170200842.html

Note there had been suggestions before of using the space shuttle external tank(ET) as a space station:

The Space Island Project
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYIo-0qo9FA

STS External Tank Station
www.astronautix.com/craft/stsation.htm

The External Tank Torus.
A Technical Review by David Buth
http://freemars.org/studies/torus/ettoru2.html

Using the External Tank From the Space Shuttle as a Space Station ...
aeromaster.tripod.com/grp.htm

At an empty tank mass of 26.5 metric tons(mT) this would be well within the
capability of the 70 mT SLS of getting this to LEO, as at least an outer hull
of a space station. Note for this purpose we could remove the ET bulkheads so
it would even weigh less than this.
This would have two and a half times the volume of the ISS.
And at the 130 mT payload capacity of the later SLS version, using Centaur
style in-space stages we could even transport this to the Moon.


Bob Clark

Oh here we go again... wondered how long it would be before they dusted this old idea off again...

This has been proposed all the way back to the beginning of the shuttle program-- using the ET as a "wet workshop" idea which itself predated the ET by at least a decade. The problem is in converting the spent tank to use in space. The other problem is, the insulation is NOT designed for long-term exposure in space and "popcorns" off the tank surface, creating a cloud of space debris drifting away from it that presents and orbital debris hazard to other spacecraft.

Now, if you were talking about using the tank hull and converting it into a space station ALA Skylab, then you might have something... launching that "dry workshop" atop an SLS would get you a nice size station in orbit, already outfitted with plenty of equipment on the ground, ready to go to work-- essentially "turn key". BUT, if you're talking about reusing the spent booster tanks themselves, not worth the time or effort-- it's more a PR stunt to drum up support among the unitiated and uninformed than a serious proposal gaining any traction...

Problem is, what need is there of it?? We already have ISS and it's underutilized as it is. There's no serious plans for an "ISS 2" or a replacement for ISS when it's finally gone. Even talk of the "Gateway station" in LLO or EML2 hasn't gotten approval yet. Plus, for deep space environments, an aluminum hull space station is a lot less desirable than say an inflatable station like Bigelow's modules... the aluminum hull requires a lot of PE shielding to mitigate secondary radiation from heavy nuclei impacting the aluminum hull and sending a spray of high-energy particle radiation through the spacecraft and its occupants. An inflatable structure would be FAR less prone to this sort of problem, in fact, if it's constructed of high-density polymers in its inflatable shell, it would provide it's own shielding, and be lighter to boot.

Try again... OL JR

 

[luke strawwalker]

Interesting articles:

NASA MSFC Says That SLS Performance Specs Fall Under ITAR.
http://spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1697

Report: NASA in Huntsville won't release performance specifications for new rocket.
By Lee Roop | ****@al.com
on January 25, 2013 at 3:23 PM, updated January 25, 2013 at 3:51 PM
blog.al.com/breaking/2013/01/report_nasa_in_huntsville_wont.html

Rand Simberg suggested to me the reason why NASA keeps saying the Block 1 version of the SLS will only have a payload of 70 mT, same as for the Block 0, is to maintain the pork of the expensive upper stage.

Citing ITAR for the current Block 1 version makes no sense since they were willing to give the 70 mT capability of the Block 0. Also, another conclusion you can draw from this is the payload capability of the Block 1 will not really just be 70 mT otherwise they would have just given this number again for the FOIA request.

My guess about why NASA kept giving the 70 mT number of the Block 0 and not the real number of the Block 1 was because they just didn't take the time and effort to do the analysis on the capability of the upgraded rocket. It was easier to just cite 70 mT because they knew the new version would at least reach this. But now I'm beginning to think perhaps Simberg was right.

Certainly the cite of the ITAR restrictions just raises more questions.

Bob Clark

All about funding and Congressional oversight...

NASA was instructed to build the SLS with an INITIAL capability of 70 tons, UPGRADABLE to 130 tons.

If they're planning to come out with their Block 1 with an INITIAL capability of 95 tonnes, then that could raise some ugly questions as to WHY the excess capability that Congress DIDN'T ORDER... especially since they're already designing the thing for more capability anyway due to the "tonnes" versus "tons" debate (metric versus imperial).

By keeping the nosy reporters away under ITAR, it keeps the questions from being brought up before the public eye, and thus eventually by Congress, until after it's all a done deal anyway...

Of course the most important question remains unanswered-- with no lander or payloads other than Orion, what exactly is this super-rocket supposed to be used for?? Not much that I can see...

Later! OL JR

 

[RanulfC]

Oh here we go again... wondered how long it would be before they dusted this old idea off again...

This has been proposed all the way back to the beginning of the shuttle program-- using the ET as a "wet workshop" idea which itself predated the ET by at least a decade. The problem is in converting the spent tank to use in space. The other problem is, the insulation is NOT designed for long-term exposure in space and "popcorns" off the tank surface, creating a cloud of space debris drifting away from it that presents and orbital debris hazard to other spacecraft.

Now, if you were talking about using the tank hull and converting it into a space station ALA Skylab, then you might have something... launching that "dry workshop" atop an SLS would get you a nice size station in orbit, already outfitted with plenty of equipment on the ground, ready to go to work-- essentially "turn key". BUT, if you're talking about reusing the spent booster tanks themselves, not worth the time or effort-- it's more a PR stunt to drum up support among the unitiated and uninformed than a serious proposal gaining any traction...

FYI the idea is exactly as the title says "Skylab-II" or a converted tank (prior to launch) space station as a payload. It's an interesting concept all around so if anyone hasn't read it I suggest they do.

Problem is, what need is there of it?? We already have ISS and it's underutilized as it is. There's no serious plans for an "ISS 2" or a replacement for ISS when it's finally gone. Even talk of the "Gateway station" in LLO or EML2 hasn't gotten approval yet. Plus, for deep space environments, an aluminum hull space station is a lot less desirable than say an inflatable station like Bigelow's modules... the aluminum hull requires a lot of PE shielding to mitigate secondary radiation from heavy nuclei impacting the aluminum hull and sending a spray of high-energy particle radiation through the spacecraft and its occupants. An inflatable structure would be FAR less prone to this sort of problem, in fact, if it's constructed of high-density polymers in its inflatable shell, it would provide it's own shielding, and be lighter to boot.

This is addressed a bit in the presentation also. A major reason the ISS is "underutilized" is the because a) its in LEO which requires propulsive adjustments for orbit and attitude and b) its constantly "manned" both of which limit research capability because of all the movement and vibrations generated. Skylab-II can be "man-tended" and in higher orbit(s) instead making this less of a problem.

Another "issue" with the ISS is that its volume limited whereas Skylab-II would not be as bad. Radiation was addressed in context of using Skylab-II as the core of a Gateway at L2. You COULD actually fit an ISS module inside the propellant tank with enough volume left over for several tons of water as shielding, though that's NOT a "serious" suggestion

More serious they talk about an inflated "habitat" space surrounded by multiple layers of poly surrounding it. I see the main issue as being that there are not going to be a great many SLS tanks sets built with the projected low flight rate and there probably won't be much support for increasing production to make any Skylab-II modules.

Randy

 

[RGClark]

A manned lunar landing flight for less than $100 million in launch cost, assuming the Falcon Heavy really does hit the $1,000 per pound price point:

Budget Moon flights.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/03/budget-moon-flights.html

Notably it uses European stages for the translunar injection and lander stages. Then you could have an all European mission if using an Ariane 5 ME and a separate human-rated European launcher for crew instead of a Falcon Heavy.
As I discussed before, a European human-rated launcher is doable by just selecting for the Ariane 6 the all-liquid fueled version. This could also be ready by the same 2017-2018 time frame for the Ariane 5 ME.
This is another advantage of the liquid-fueled version of the Ariane 6. It could also allow low cost European manned lunar flights around the same time as the Americans.

Calculations for the all-liquid fueled Ariane 6 core as a SSTO:

FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 2013
The Coming SSTO's: multi-Vulcain Ariane.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-coming-sstos-multi-vulcain-ariane.html

Discussion of a low cost European crew capsule:

Budget Moon flights: lightweight crew capsule.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/04/budget-moon-flights-lightweight-crew.html

According to NASA administrator Charles Bolden, NASA will not be
returning us to the Moon(*) but may engage in partnerships with other
space agencies or private entities who could.
Then it's interesting the ESA has the required lightweight in-space
stages and lightweight capsule in the Cygnus to accomplish this at low
cost.
Another key fact is that NASA has shown with SpaceX and now with
Orbital Sciences that development costs can be cut drastically (by 80
to 90% !) by following a commercial approach.
Then this could be a project NASA could encourage, at low cost to
NASA, by partnering with ESA and private entities like Golden Spike,
while at the same time satisfying the critics who want us to return to
the Moon.

Bob Clark

(*)US Won't Lead New Manned Moon Landings, NASA Chief Says.
by Miriam Kramer, SPACE.com Staff Writer
Date: 08 April 2013 Time: 01:41 PM ET
http://www.space.com/20557-nasa-moon-missions-bolden.html

 

[Byeman]

Then it's interesting the ESA has the required lightweight in-space
stages and lightweight capsule in the Cygnus to accomplish this at low
cost.

Cygnus is neither a capsule nor ESA's. It is a OSC spacecraft with an Thales Alenia Space pressurized module that has no reentry capability (or crew capability)