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

[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.
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.

Once again, you take unrelated items and make nonsensical ideas with them.
Also, ESA does not have have such stages.

 

[RGClark]

Also, ESA does not have have such stages.

How do you know that? Have you looked at every single stage the ESA has? One again it is you that is making unsubstantiated (and wrong) statements.

Bob Clark

 

[Byeman]

How do you know that? Have you looked at every single stage the ESA has? One again it is you that is making unsubstantiated (and wrong) statements.

Bob Clark

It is my job to know that and they don't have " required lightweight in-space stages". And again it is you that is making unsubstantiated (and wrong) statements.

 

[RGClark]

The cost to NASA for lunar or other BEO missions can be cut drastically, perhaps by three orders of magnitude, by following a combination of four cost-cutting approaches.

1.)Commercial space approach. SpaceX and now Orbital Sciences have shown that as much as 90% can be cut from the development costs by the cost-sharing of the commercial space approach.

2.)Go small. NASA’s SEV weighs about a third that of Orion. Orbital’s Cygnus weighs about a quarter. Imagine how small, and low cost, your lunar mission could be if you only had to transport a quarter of the mass to the Moon.

3.)Use existing components. The huge development costs for the Apollo program and of Constellation were because they had to use all newly developed components. Those costs would be reduced greatly if you only had to adapt already existing components. No Saturn V, Ares V, or SLS, and their huge development costs, required.

4.)Use international partners. The cut in development cost by engaging in cost-sharing is already included in the commercial space approach. However, the cost to NASA can be cut even further by sharing development costs with our international space partners such as the ESA and Japan.


Bob Clark

 

[Byeman]

The cost to NASA for lunar or other BEO missions can be cut drastically, perhaps by three orders of magnitude, by following a combination of four cost-cutting approaches.

1.)Commercial space approach. SpaceX and now Orbital Sciences have shown that as much as 90% can be cut from the development costs by the cost-sharing of the commercial space approach.

2.)Go small. NASA’s SEV weighs about a third that of Orion. Orbital’s Cygnus weighs about a quarter. Imagine how small, and low cost, your lunar mission could be if you only had to transport a quarter of the mass to the Moon.

3.)Use existing components. The huge development costs for the Apollo program and of Constellation were because they had to use all newly developed components. Those costs would be reduced greatly if you only had to adapt already existing components. No Saturn V, Ares V, or SLS, and their huge development costs, required.

4.)Use international partners. The cut in development cost by engaging in cost-sharing is already included in the commercial space approach. However, the cost to NASA can be cut even further by sharing development costs with our international space partners such as the ESA and Japan.

More unsubstantiated nonsense.

1. Wrong, it is no where close to 90%
2. SEV is not an entry vehicle, and there for useless as an Orion replacement. Same goes for Cygnus and additionally, it has no life support capability.
4. wrong again. IP increased the cost of the ISS

 

[NERVA]

The cost to NASA for lunar or other BEO missions can be cut drastically, perhaps by three orders of magnitude, by following a combination of four cost-cutting approaches.

1.)Commercial space approach. SpaceX and now Orbital Sciences have shown that as much as 90% can be cut from the development costs by the cost-sharing of the commercial space approach.

2.)Go small. NASA’s SEV weighs about a third that of Orion. Orbital’s Cygnus weighs about a quarter. Imagine how small, and low cost, your lunar mission could be if you only had to transport a quarter of the mass to the Moon.

3.)Use existing components. The huge development costs for the Apollo program and of Constellation were because they had to use all newly developed components. Those costs would be reduced greatly if you only had to adapt already existing components. No Saturn V, Ares V, or SLS, and their huge development costs, required.

4.)Use international partners. The cut in development cost by engaging in cost-sharing is already included in the commercial space approach. However, the cost to NASA can be cut even further by sharing development costs with our international space partners such as the ESA and Japan.

More unsubstantiated nonsense.

1. Wrong, it is no where close to 90%
2. SEV is not an entry vehicle, and there for useless as an Orion replacement. Same goes for Cygnus and additionally, it has no life support capability.
4. wrong again. IP increased the cost of the ISS

Good points, Byeman. Especially point 4. Space Station Freedom was budgeted at app. 14 billion dollars in the late 1980s. International participation on Freedom was ESA, Canada and Japan. Freedom was to have six American astronauts and two international astronauts on board permanently, upon completion.


ISS... who knows how much it cost? ESA estimates 100 billion euros. Bringing the Russians on board did not make anything about building a space station cheaper. And the irony... bringing the Russians along probably saved the space station project from Congressional cancellation.

 

[RGClark]

I’m fairly sure looking at the capabilities of the Delta IV Heavy with the upgraded RS-68a engine, about 28 metric tons to LEO, that it could launch the Orion on that 2014 test launch on an actual circumlunar flight, not just to 3,600 miles out as currently planned. A circumlunar flight would result in a much more capable test of the Orion.

The Orion test is planned to only carry a dummy service module, so that will be much lighter. The flight is planned though to carry the launch abort system (LAS) so that detracts from the weight that can be launched.

Without the LAS the DIVH could definitely send the Orion on a circumlunar flight. With the LAS, it makes it a little more difficult to estimate since it is jettisoned before reaching orbit.

This makes the use of the SLS for that unmanned circumlunar test flight in 2017 even more dubious, since the DIVH could do that, even if removing the LAS is required. That is another reason why I say NASA should be aiming for an actual unmanned lunar landing test with that 2017 SLS flight.

ULA has done studies on adapting the Centaur upper stage as a lunar lander stage so you would not need a huge, and hugely expensive, Altair lander. We already even have a crew module that could be used for such a lander in NASA’s SEV, which can be ready by 2017 for test flights:

Inside NASA’s New Spaceship for Asteroid Missions | Space.com.
by Clara Moskowitz, SPACE.com Assistant Managing Editor
Date: 12 November 2012 Time: 02:30 PM ET

If the current schedule holds, NASA could test-drive a version of the SEV at the International Space Station in 2017.
http://www.space.com/18443-nasa-asteroid-spacecraft-sev.html

Bob Clark

 

[Byeman]

1. I’m fairly sure looking at the capabilities of the Delta IV Heavy with the upgraded RS-68a engine, about 28 metric tons to LEO, that it could launch the Orion on that 2014 test launch on an actual circumlunar flight, not just to 3,600 miles out as currently planned. A circumlunar flight would result in a much more capable test of the Orion.

2. . We already even have a crew module that could be used for such a lander in NASA’s SEV, which can be ready by 2017 for test flights:
If the current schedule holds, NASA could test-drive a version of the SEV at the International Space Station in 2017.
http://www.space.com/18443-nasa-asteroid-spacecraft-sev.html

More nonsense.

1. The Orion on the Delta IV mission has no capability for independent free flight in LEO, much less going to the moon and even less returning. It stays attached to the Delta IV second stage for the duration of the mission until reentry

2. No, there is no crew module for a lander. The SEV is not a flight project. It has no formal funding. Space.com fluff articles are not relevant sources, much like PopSci are either. NASA is not a monolithic organization so the thoughts of a small group working on a concept are not the agency's official policy. Nor do the people on this project have any experience in launch vehicle procurement or ISS integration. So, 2017 is just pure fanstasy The Space.com article is for clueless masses, which you seem to be a charter member

 

[RGClark]

More nonsense.

1. The Orion on the Delta IV mission has no capability for independent free flight in LEO, much less going to the moon and even less returning. It stays attached to the Delta IV second stage for the duration of the mission until reentry

2. No, there is no crew module for a lander. The SEV is not a flight project. It has no formal funding. Space.com fluff articles are not relevant sources, much like PopSci are either. NASA is not a monolithic organization so the thoughts of a small group working on a concept are not the agency's official policy. Nor do the people on this project have any experience in launch vehicle procurement or ISS integration. So, 2017 is just pure fanstasy The Space.com article is for clueless masses, which you seem to be a charter member

For a circumlunar flight you can put the craft on a free return trajectory from LEO. This was done usually with the Apollo missions. Then you just need a stage in Earth orbit to send the spacecraft on a trajectory towards the Moon. The original Delta IV Heavy could send about 23,000 to LEO and about 10,000 kg to translunar injection (TLI), already sufficient for the Orion capsule. With the upgrade of the engine it can send about 28,000 kg to LEO, about 20% more than before. So we might estimate it can send about 12,000 kg to TLI with the upgrade.
A recent report is that NASA wants to speed up the time table for the SLS in regards to asteroid missions:

EM-1: NASA managers request ambitious changes to debut SLS/Orion mission.
July 2, 2013 by Chris Bergin
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/07/em-1-nasa-request-changes-debut-slsorion-mission/

Since the SEV was intended to be used with a manned asteroid mission, NASA could accelerate the pace of the SEV development as well, such as when an in space test could be made.


Bob Clark

 

[Byeman]

1. For a circumlunar flight you can put the craft on a free return trajectory from LEO. This was done usually with the Apollo missions. Then you just need a stage in Earth orbit to send the spacecraft on a trajectory towards the Moon. The original Delta IV Heavy could send about 23,000 to LEO and about 10,000 kg to translunar injection (TLI), already sufficient for the Orion capsule. With the upgrade of the engine it can send about 28,000 kg to LEO, about 20% more than before. So we might estimate it can send about 12,000 kg to TLI with the upgrade.
A recent report is that NASA wants to speed up the time table for the SLS in regards to asteroid missions:


2. Since the SEV was intended to be used with a manned asteroid mission, NASA could accelerate the pace of the SEV development as well, such as when an in space test could be made.

1. Wrong, 12,000 kg is not enough for Orion. It is much heavier, more than 20,000 kg. And who is "we"? Who else is making up this nonsense?

2. There is no manned asteroid mission. It was only an idea on paper and in data storage. It is not going any further since congress isn't going to fund it. SEV is only a concept that is being played around as mockups (which are cheap and simple now days due to the state of computers). SEV is not in any kind of hardware development program. Therefore, it can't be accelerated.

 

[RGClark]

Musk Says SpaceX Being “Extremely Paranoid” as It Readies for Falcon 9’s California Debut.
By Irene Klotz | Sep. 6, 2013

Once the payloads are put into orbit, SpaceX may try to restart the rocket’s upper-stage motor, depending on how much fuel is left. Also on tap is a highly experimental restart of the Falcon’s boost stage to slow its crash landing into the sea.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/37094musk-says-spacex-being-%E2%80%9Cextremely-paranoid%E2%80%9D-as-it-readies-for-falcon-9%E2%80%99s

Because of its light payload on this test flight, SpaceX probably could send the second stage on a circumlunar flight on restart. The original Falcon 9 had a payload capability to translunar injection (TLI) of about 2,000 kg. Since the F9 v1.1 is about 60% larger, we might estimate its capability as 3,000 kg to TLI.
However, SpaceX has quoted the F9 v1.1 payload to LEO as 13,000 kg instead of the expected 16,000 kg, based on its larger size. Perhaps its longer length at a fixed diameter caused it to lose some mass efficiency due to further strengthening.
So instead, estimate the F9 v1.1 capability to TLI as 2,400 kg. This would be enough to send Orbital Sciences Cygnus capsule on a circumlunar flight though not the Dragon. In fact other medium lift launchers such as the Atlas V and Delta IV Medium could also send the Cygnus on a circumlunar flight. Then the Cygnus given a heat-shield and life-support could provide a capsule for a low cost circumlunar manned mission.
The F9 v1.1 could still send the Dragon on a circumlunar flight if it used an additional, hydrogen fueled stage. One of the appropriate size exists in the hydrogen fueled Ariane 5 second stage.
Such medium-class manned circumlunar flights are important to do since they would be supportive of the fact that manned lunar landing flights can be done much more cheaply than currently thought. In fact using twice the payload size of the medium class launchers and using all hydrogen-fueled in-space stages, a manned lunar landing mission can be done with a Cygnus-sized crew capsule.

Bob Clark

 

[Byeman]

Then the Cygnus given a heat-shield and life-support could provide a capsule for a low cost circumlunar manned mission.
One of the appropriate size exists in the hydrogen fueled Ariane 5 second stage.
Such medium-class manned circumlunar flights are important to do since they would be supportive of the fact that manned lunar landing flights can be done much more cheaply than currently thought. In fact using twice the payload size of the medium class launchers and using all hydrogen-fueled in-space stages, a manned lunar landing mission can be done with a Cygnus-sized crew capsule.

Bob Clark

Cygnus can not be converted to a manned capsule. It is a cylinder and totally the wrong shape for a capsule.

 

[Jemiba]

Folks, aside from the fact, that here we are in a section, which more or less is devoted to themes,
that at least now are still far away from reality, I would like to ask for more objectivity. There's
nothing wrong in pointing to errors or faults, but please, as said above : Objective !
Personal aversions should be left outside of posts here and if you think it's necessary you still can
tell your opinion via PM. Or, to my opinion the better way in most cases: Just ignoring !

 

[RGClark]

Orbital Sciences is considering giving the Cygnus the inflatable heat shield NASA is developing. See for example the video here:

HEART (High Energy Atmospheric Reentry Test) — NASA (video)
on February 10, 2013 at 8:54 am

http://missiontomorrow.tv/heart-high-energy-atmospheric-reentry-test-nasa-video/

And see here:

Flexible TPS Development.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/626775main_November_2011_Cheatwood.pdf

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

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

Finally someone at NASA acknowledging that the first version of the SLS to launch in 2017 will have a 90+ mT payload capacity not the 70 mT always cited by NASA:

SLS Dual Use Upper Stage (DUUS).
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130013953_2013013757.pdf

This is important since it means we will have the capability to do manned lunar landing missions by the 2017 first launch of the SLS.

Bob Clark

 

[Byeman]

Orbital Sciences is considering giving the Cygnus the inflatable heat shield NASA is developing. See for example the video here:

OSC is not "considering" it. Much like most things on this forum, it was just a study. Just because you can find something on the internet, doesn't mean it is happening. There is no intent for OSC to do this on their own nor is NASA funding it. Studies are a way of trying to sell existing hardware by showing potential customers what can be done. The fact that the company did the study in no way means there is "consideration" by the company to go forward with it.

Also, it doesn't mean it can be manned.

 

[RGClark]

Opening ourselves up to alternative ways of doing things may lead us back to the Moon:

Saturday, September 28, 2013
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/09/free-your-mind-and-rest-will-follow.html

Bob Clark

 

[luke strawwalker]

Then the Cygnus given a heat-shield and life-support could provide a capsule for a low cost circumlunar manned mission.
One of the appropriate size exists in the hydrogen fueled Ariane 5 second stage.
Such medium-class manned circumlunar flights are important to do since they would be supportive of the fact that manned lunar landing flights can be done much more cheaply than currently thought. In fact using twice the payload size of the medium class launchers and using all hydrogen-fueled in-space stages, a manned lunar landing mission can be done with a Cygnus-sized crew capsule.

Bob Clark

Cygnus can not be converted to a manned capsule. It is a cylinder and totally the wrong shape for a capsule.

Oh, but you're just refusing to look through the telescope-- Cygnus COULD be turned into a space capsule... reshape the hull into the proper reentry vehicle truncated cone shape (bonus points for going for the Soyuz "headlight" shape) and equipping it with seats, controls and displays, an environmental/life support system, stowage for equipment and provisions, the necessary redundancies required for a manned spacecraft, a heat shield, modification of the propulsion and onboard systems to account for the extra mass, etc. etc. etc...

I COULD be turned into a lightweight manned spacecraft capable of a lunar trajectory... (if you basically started from square one all over again and the final result bore no resemblance to the original whatsoever and ended up as heavy and expensive as any other manned spacecraft...)

Never let facts get in the way of good speculation... LOL You seriously need to "look through the telescope"... LOL

Later! OL JR

Later! OL JR