SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

Impaler · 2015-01-04 23:27:59

Additional though, when a resuable lander drops off Cargo to lunar base it has such a reduced take off mass compared to the launch of the crew-cabin. This can either result in higher cargo mass delivery OR offloading of propellent at the moon. As the propellent transfer missions for a cargo or crew landing are the same it implies that Propellent will be in excess and transfer on the moon is viable. With two landers simultaneously on the moon a lander-2-lander transfer may be done, or if only one lander is used or two are not simultaneously present then storage at the base would be required.

If our lunar base is in permanently shadowed craters then cryogenic propellent storage inside low-insulation landing craft seems viable, possibly even Hydrogen for long periods of time, this would be attractive as it would allow the crew to evacuate at any time. But cryo-damage to the lander itself may make this untenable and it would need to be actively warmed to retain the needed life-span. Temporary offloading of propellent into uninsulated storage tanks right beside the lander would then be necessary, this would preserve the evacuation capability with only the delay of pumping the propellent back into the lander before departing, a task that should take less then a day and is thus not significant compared to the transit time back to Earth in the Orion.

What is not desirable is having the lander return to orbit (and which will now need refueling to descend again) while crew remain on the moon without a ready return to lunar orbit where the Orion awaits. Thus landers capable of enduring on the lunar surface for 3 months would be the goal, with a return to orbit on no more then 48 hours notice utilizing no more then 12 man-hours of EVA. A yearly visitation would go as follows.

Day 0, Launch of Propellent to lunar orbit Node
Day 5, Arrival Propellent lunar orbit, docks with Node
Day <25 Launch of Orion to lunar orbit
Day <30 Arrive of Orion lunar orbit, docks with Node, propellent transfer by crew
Day <33 Decent of crewed Lander to lunar surface, 90 day surface stay begins

Day 70, Launch of Propellent to lunar orbit
Day 75, Arrival Propellent lunar orbit, docks with Node
Day <100 Launch of Cargo
Day <105 Arrive of Cargo lunar orbit, docks with Node, propellent transferred autonomously?
Day <103 Decent of Cargo to lunar surface, crew unloads and stows consumables and equipment for next crew

Day 123 Crew returns to orbit, docks with Node
Day 124 Empty Cargo lander returns to orbit, docks with Node, crew checks out conditions of both landers
Day 127 Orion departs for Earth
Day 132 Orion arrives at Earth

Propellent always precedes the mas it will be helping to land on the moon with the payload needing to rendezvous within 30 days to keep boil-off acceptable, this may be an issue for the launch vehicle tempo. It is 4 launches within 100 days in pairings that are within 25 days.

Crews preceded the cargo in each year, but each crew is utilizing consumables and cargo that are a year old and were placed their by the last crew so failure of a cargo mission never endangers the crew, it simply falls to the next year to launch a double cargo or scrub the next years visit. If the crew-cabin atop the lander can be removed (long ramp and some small wheels, which is the same way the Cargo modules should be removed) then the crew can utilize either lander to return to orbit. And it would be preferable to always use the 'fresh' lander to minimize the risk of some kind of cryo-damage at least until were more confident of the landers life-span.

RobertDyck · 2015-01-05 12:57:40

Nothing but SLS can lift Orion. The Orion capsule and service module is so heavy that the only launcher capable of lifting it to LEO is Delta IV Heavy. And even that can't throw it to TLI. Even SLS block 1 couldn't, it would take SLS block 1B. If you want to send crew with a smaller launcher, you would need a smaller capsule. Dragon was originally designed as the SpaceX bid for CEV, so it was intended for the Moon. To do that now would require a real service module, not just a "trunk". And throwing that to TLI would require Falcon Heavy.

Don't obsess about the Augustine Report. It's dead. The principle of "separate cargo from crew" made sense, but no longer relevant. Remember, the Shuttle was originally intended to lift 7 crew plus 11 metric tonnes of supplies to an international space station in LEO. Construction was going to be via Saturn 1B. President Nixon gutted NASA, and told the military and NASA they couldn't have separate launchers. The military were building separate unmanned launchers for satellites. With funding slashed, the Shuttle had to serve everything. And additional expense for reliability of a manned vehicle was not cost effective for heavy cargo. It was more cost effective to use less expensive launch technology and just let one in 50 blow up. Budget for replacements. Obviously you can't do that with crew.

Not really relevant for the Moon, because there won't be enough happening there to justify multiple systems.

But the real point: realize what this is. President Obama cancelled Constellation. Congress brought it back to support jobs in their electoral districts. This isn't about getting anything done, it's about pork barrel. That means Congress is looking for an excuse to use SLS and Orion, and the NASA centers that support them. They aren't looking to do anything. If you want to go to the Moon, then you have to use SLS and Orion. Otherwise Congress does not have a reason to do it.

kbd512 · 2015-01-05 22:19:07

Apart from testing the ability of the Mars landing craft to make a landing on another body, verifying that the Mars habitat and power supply can be reliably run for a period of two to four years afterwards with autonomy, and testing of crew environmental support solutions, I see no other purpose for lunar missions.

It's obvious that no spacecraft with a few weeks worth of supplies onboard is ever going to take humans to Mars. Degrading the capability of the service module to hit mass targets for Ares I severely restricted its capabilities for lunar missions. Apart from taking humans to ISS, Orion/SLS has no practical utility at this point with the Altair program cancellation and a Block I SLS configuration that can't put that much mass into TLI anyway, so it's no better than the Space Shuttle in terms of cost and can't even perform the mission it was built for.

If NASA insists on launching Orion on a flying pork barrel, I mean SLS, then there was no reason to retire the Space Shuttle. The cost of an Orion/SLS mission will be the same as a STS mission and there's no landing craft to land on anything with, so what's the point?

NASA's Space Shuttle was not unreliable, the humans involved simply ignored the problems and the result was destruction of flight hardware.

Given the cost differential between Orion/SLS and Dragon/Falcon 9, I'd rather NASA did the following:

- Continue work on SLS, absent any other launch system with comparable capabilities; SpaceX BFR is a paper rocket at this point
- Work with SpaceX to man rate Dragon, a system proven sufficient for LEO taxi service; if Orion is man rated before Dragon I'll be suitably impressed
- Cancel Orion, as it's not required and there's no compelling reason to drag a capsule all the way to the moon or Mars and back
- Restart work on Altair and EDS with an eye towards lander and/or EDS reusability and refueling from propellant depots
- Use SLS to launch the Altair/EDS combination and propellant depots
- Put a small inflatable habitat module atop Altair instead of a confining tin can
- Work on EOR with Altair for lunar missions

If there's still money burning a hole in NASA's pockets:

- Composite tanks for SLS
- Composite SRM casings

GW Johnson · 2015-01-06 16:58:15

Add to the mix for SRM's: learn (finally) how to do a one O-ring segment joint design, and more importantly, why. Learn also how to do combustion stability analyses in SRM's. NASA's 5-segment version of the shuttle 4-segment design is not only worthless, it's actually quite dangerous. As is their 3 O-ring joint design.

GW

RobertDyck · 2015-01-06 17:44:03

Graphics of advanced SRB do not show segments. How would they transport an SRB that big from Utah to KSC? Manufacture at a different site with barge access? Or are the graphics just inaccurate?

Impaler · 2015-01-06 18:35:26

Welcome to the forums kb

RGClark · 2015-01-07 00:30:22

RobertDyck wrote:

...
Let's see. Mass numbers in Table 1 from the article doesn't add up. If you add up the components for LEV, it adds up to 20,040 kg, but the table lists total mass of 20,140 kg. And total for the Capsule is 3,688 kg, LEV is 20140 kg, and payload adapter is 6,000 kg, but total Shuttle payload is 25,723 kg. I don't even know how they calculated that total Shuttle payload. But let's take the 20,040 kg figure for the LEV, and add the total capsule weight, and assume Isp for RS-44 engines = 481 s. A delta-V calculator says this gives 5634.09 m/s. Tried to find delta-V to directly land on the Moon; Google returned a result from another forum posted by RGClark. He linked a Wikipedia article here. That has a table, LEO-Ken to Moon is 5.93 km/s. "LEO-Ken" means Low Earth Orbit with an inclination equal to the Kennedy Space Center. But the article talks about an upgraded Centaur G stage for TLI. Ok. The Wikipedia table lists return from the Moon to LEO with aerobraking as 2.74 km/s. From lunar surface to Earth-Moon Lagrangian point 5 is 2.58 km/s, which is the gravitational mid-point, so presumably direct entry would involve falling to Earth. Hmm. These numbers aren't clear.

About those mass numbers, the payload adapter mass is a typo. It should be 2,000 kg. See for instance this Astronautix page:

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

But then the Astronautix page has its own typo. The total fueled crew capsule mass is listed there as 6,688 kg but should be 3,688 kg.

Bob Clark

Last edited by RGClark (2015-01-07 00:31:46)

RGClark · 2015-01-07 01:15:04

GW Johnson wrote:

I agree, landing the big, heavy Earth reentry capsule on the moon as part of a lander design is a stupid idea, based on what we learned from Apollo. That land-the-whole-ship idea was where NASA was with the Apollo design in 1963. It took two Saturn-5 launches per moon mission, plus cryogenic refueling from one 3rd stage to the other in Earth orbit, to make such a cluster landing possible back then.
The breakthrough idea came from outside NASA, and was resisted very strongly due to "not invented here" attitudes already in place at NASA that early. That idea was "lunar orbit rendezvous", which translates to "take only what you need to the surface, leave the rest in orbit about the moon". That got them down to one Saturn-5 per mission. By 1965 they had broken down and accepted lunar orbit rendezvous as the only way forward.
Strangely enough, using that plus LEO rendezvous and docking assembly could have gotten a moon mission down to 3 or 4 Saturn-1 launches, but they didn't need to do that , they had the Saturn-5 available.

Remember the Early Lunar Access (ELA) proposal uses all lightweight hydrolox propulsion for the in-space stages. This makes it much lighter than the Apollo approach, which used dense hypergolic propellants in space. Total mass required to LEO was ca. 50 metric tons for ELA compared to the 130 mT of Apollo.
The capsule for ELA was also only half-size of the Apollo command module. And at 3 mT dry mass it was only 1 mT heavier than the dry mass of the Apollo lunar module anyway, without needing the extra 6 mT of the command module.

Bob Clark

Impaler · 2015-01-07 18:08:16

Most of that savings would have been the smaller Command module not the propellent, the mass fraction just dose not change enough between HydroLox and Hypergolic for the DeltaV of a service modules which is only around 3-4 kms total, it is just not far enough up the curve for the lines to diverge much. Add in the difficulty of storing the Hydrogen for the duration of the trip and it's clear they made the correct choice in the Apollo service module, it was the terribly heavy Command Capsule that was the problem in Apollo and Orion has done it's best to be "Apollo capsule on Steroids" which compounds the biggest problem with that capsule.

RobertDyck · 2015-03-03 13:50:27

Looking at old Russian designs for the Moon. They had a similar, but slightly different mission architecture. Could we adapt some principles?

They would use a Soyuz spacecraft instead of Apollo CSM. The Soyuz 7K-LOK was to have a larger service module, with enough fuel to get back to Earth from LEO. But it didn't have fuel to enter lunar orbit. That made me think of Orion.

They use a separate rocket stage for lunar orbit insertion: Block D. LK stands for the Russian words for "Lunar Craft". Their mission plan used the same Block D stage to de-orbit the LK. The LK itself had only one propulsion stage: Block E. That was used for landing, with enough fuel for ascent back to lunar orbit. Comparison: American LM used a descent stage for de-orbit and landing, then ascent stage to return to orbit. Russian LK used Block D for de-orbit, then the LK propulsion stage for landing and ascent back to orbit. Each vehicle has 2 stages, just arranged differently.

In post #8 and #20, I calculated mass that SLS could throw to TLI. Assuming the American built Orion 606 SM, so astronauts can actually get home, and assuming the extended duration Apollo LM used for Apollo 15 and later, that leaves 6,767kg for a rocket stage for lunar orbit insertion. The Orion capsule + SM plus Apollo LM will total 37,313kg at lunar orbit insertion. Using an old Apollo chart, lunar orbit insertion requires delta-V of 3,200 feet per second. What stage could do that?

kbd512 · 2015-03-03 17:36:58

Are you asking what available upper stage/engine combination could throw 37t to TLI or if there's an upper stage that only weighs ~7t that could throw 37t to TLI? If it's the latter, then there is no upper stage that only weighs ~7t that can throw 37t to TLI.

SLS doesn't have the performance required to throw Orion and a lander to TLI because it wasn't properly designed to begin with.

There's no way to "fix" SLS, short of redesigning the damn thing to be what it was intended to be in the first place. Composite tanks, lighter SRM casings, and using a more energetic propellant for the SRM's may get 115t to LEO or so, but that's where the design tops out at. The 150t to LEO was a requirement that came from multiple studies of what type of throw a heavy lift rocket needed for it to be of utility for a lunar or Mars program. The plan to use 5 or even 6 RS-25's on a 10M core stage wasn't something random that an engineer pulled out of his butt.

Obviously that's not what NASA designed, so launching a capsule and an usable lander to TLI is out of the question.

RobertDyck · 2015-03-03 17:54:47

I asked for an upper stage that can settle Orion + SM + LM into lunar orbit. That assumes SLS can throw the stack into trans-lunar trajectory. It's called Lunar Orbit Insertion. But never mind, I did a short calculation and came up with less delta-V than the Orion SM. And since a new SM is required anyway, may as well stick with the original plan of a larger SM to do the same job as the Apollo SM. That is Lunar Orbit Insertion for CSM + LM, as well as Trans-Earth Injection for CSM only. Of course in this case it's Orion + SM instead of CSM.

As for SLS: again that assumes SLS Block 2, with the upper stage that uses a pair of J-2X engines.

RobertDyck · 2015-03-03 19:47:17

The issue with Tom's original idea is not that any Apollo LM is old, it could undergo a thorough overhaul and replace computers. The issue is the Apollo LM only holds 2 astronauts. Orion is designed for 4, and designed to maintain itself unattended in lunar orbit. Ok, so here's another idea.

Build the Orion SM using liquid methane and LOX, and sized to just insert the Orion capsule + SM into trans-Earth trajectory (TEI). Add another stage for Lunar Orbit Insertion, and as the Russians did, use that same stage to de-orbit the lunar module. Build a lunar module with pressurized cabin using the same technique as the Dragon capsule, which is aluminum alloy isogrid. That's the same as ISS modules. But this will have a single propulsion stage, like the Russian LK. That propulsion stage will also use LCH4/LOX, and use all composite tanks. LOX requires a polymer liner to ensure the carbon fibre doesn't burn in contact with LOX. In 2005 I spoke with someone from XCOR who said they were working on just that. He said they went through Dupont's entire catalogue to find the best polymer for the liner; I suggested they use Clarus from Honeywell instead. So XCOR is working on it. Their website: Nonburnite. Composite LH2 tank has already been demonstrated on DC-XA, and didn't require a liner. Use that for LCH4. Also use composite landing gear. And like the LK, eject landing gear during ascent.

SpaceNut · 2015-03-03 22:13:13

So far the only thing that Orion seems capable of is Earth reentry from any return path. Hopefully once Lockheed reviews all the test data they will make some major changes to it.

kbd512 · 2015-03-03 23:09:01

Rob,

By overhaul do you mean complete redesign? That's what it would take to fly one. There's but a handful of people alive who have any experience with the design. If NASA doesn't permit the contractors to devise some type of impossibly massive craft or issue design requirements that are impossible to meet, it would be simpler to start from scratch and devise a lander with the features you proposed.

SpaceNut,

There is no "fixing" Orion. It's too damn heavy for any launch system we'll have in the near future to send it and a payload that can do something other than carry astronauts into LEO. Ares I and Ares V had to be operated in conjunction with each other to do anything useful. Someone at NASA must have a manual that delineates how to make otherwise simple tasks impossibly complex and expensive. It's either that or entertainment for engineers. Simpletons, like myself, just scratch their heads and wonder what they're smoking. Whatever it is, it must be good.

RobertDyck · 2015-03-04 01:03:37

kbd512 wrote:

By overhaul do you mean complete redesign? That's what it would take to fly one. There's but a handful of people alive who have any experience with the design.

The old tiresome argument. It isn't new, so it has to be crap. Bullshit. There are 3 Apollo LMs in museums; one fully complete, one missing a flight computer but otherwise complete. The third was never completely assembled, but delivered to the museum in pieces. The museum hired the engineers and technicians who built LMs for NASA, available at that time, so they completed assembly. Reports are that one is missing its computer and star sight telescope. Again, it was completed by the guys qualified. The Apollo LM can do exactly what it did before. Corporate executives for "Old Space" companies will again make that same tired old argument, that it has to be completely redesigned, and they don't have people qualified to do it. More crap just to gouge the American taxpayer.

However, the LM was only able to withstand 5 depressurize/repressurize cycles. One Apollo astronaut said if you dropped a screwdriver with the point down, it would go through the floor. I would prefer a new craft built more robust. The aluminum alloy isogrid is construction used by every American module for ISS, for Dragon, and I suspect for Orion as well. That construction technique is strong, can withstand so many pressure cycles that you don't have to worry about it. And a new craft could carry all 4 astronauts.

kbd512 wrote:

There is no "fixing" Orion. It's too damn heavy

Orion is too small for deep space operation, such as Mars or an asteroid. It doesn't have / can't handle artificial gravity. And we saw on Skylab, Mir, and ISS what it takes to remain healthy for months in zero-G. My proposal to update Mars Direct included Dragon as the ERV, and I suggested replacing the lower row of seats with equipment. One seat with a toilet, one with an exercycle, the third with storage. Orion has an odd interior arrangement, would be more awkward. Would a single exercycle be enough? If it is, then Dragon has a mass of 8 metric tonnes with full fuel tanks, while Orion masses 28 tonnes launch weight including LAS and fairings. And both have life support for 14 days at most. A separate module of some sort is needed for greater duration life support.

But lets be fair. Orion is good for one and only one purpose: the Moon. But even that requires a new service module.

kbd512 wrote:

Ares I and Ares V had to be operated in conjunction with each other to do anything useful. ... Simpletons, like myself, just scratch their heads and wonder what they're smoking.

Don't forget, each Congressmen wants significant jobs in his/her district. So work has to be spread out. Old Space companies work together in a cartel to get Congress to approve their project. So that requires more companies getting work. Ares V included a core module built where the Shuttle ET used to be made, so the Michoud plant in Louisiana. And SSME, made at the former Rockwell plant, now owned by Boeing. And the Ares I was the pet project of ATK Thiokol, in Utah. But it isn't all Congress, the corporate executives want to maximize the amount of work necessary to maximize profits. More profit means more dividends to their shareholders, and raises/bonus to corporate executives.

And never forget, the Ares I was a single SRB. Without a 100 metric tonne Shuttle orbiter attached, without a 750 metric tonne external tank. Video from the Shuttle flight deck during launch showed astronauts getting shaken extremely until SRBs separated. Now imagine what a tiny capsule is like on top of a 5-segment SRB. They needed a heavy craft to dampen vibrations. Heavy is contrary to everything about rocketry, but they needed it because of "The Stick". Now we're stuck with an overly heavy capsule.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2015-03-04 09:43:35)

Terraformer · 2015-03-04 09:33:32

What are the differences in capability between Orion and Dragon? Is Orion bigger and capable of a harder re-entry?

Void · 2015-03-04 09:35:15

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pr … _companies

Looks like a glass half empty to me. I am thinking the Moon is actually going to be a draw pretty soon (10-20 years).

I have read that the Moon has far more resources than was supposed during the Apollo era. Carbon Monoxide, water, etc.

I think synthetic gravity devices will be possible on the Moon, so no need for "L" stations exposed to space hazards, unless as fuel depots.
That article suggested that launching to the outer solar system from the Moon would be 25-30 times easier than what we now do.
So, if Mars does not happen before the Moon, then it seems likely that it would happen from the Moon.

I for my part am willing to wait for NASA and other government supported space efforts, and private space efforts to throw enough spitballs until some stick.

Looking at the diversity, it looks like a evolutionary process is in play. To focus too tightly now would be to risk being drawn into a cul-de-sac. I believe that the Bigelo operation is ramping up again. They apparently slowed down their efforts to wait for launch platforms to come into being. With that and the various options available, I am wondering if a baton type craft could be implemented (GW stuff, synthetic gravity), for flights to Mars. Maybe that's why the Orion does not have to be suitable on it's own for a flight to Mars.

Last edited by Void (2015-03-04 09:42:13)

RobertDyck · 2015-03-04 10:17:46

Terraformer wrote:

What are the differences in capability between Orion and Dragon? Is Orion bigger and capable of a harder re-entry?

No, reverse. Dragon has PICA-X heat shield, while Orion has AVCOAT. Orion was built with the exact same heat shield as the Apollo command module, capable of return from the Moon with significant safety margin. Every analysis shows AVCOAT is good enough to return from Venus, but not Mars. Because returning from Mars means falling down in the Sun's gravity, that means increasing speed as the craft returns to Earth. But returning from Venus means falling up in the Sun's gravity, so slowing down until the craft enters Earth's gravity well, then accelerates as it falls down again.

After Apollo 11, Russia announced they would trump America's achievement by sending humans directly to Mars. And they started by sending 2 unmanned probes to Mars. Both failed. Then Russia decided Mars was too hard, so changed their mind again and decided to build space stations instead, starting with Salyut 1. But before they gave up, NASA realized the next race was to Mars. NASA developed PICA as heat shield material to protect an Apollo command module when returning directly from Mars. NASA stopped work on Mars after Russia did, but the point is PICA was developed specifically for direct return from Mars. Dragon has PICA-X, which is updated PICA. So Dragon can return directly from Mars. Orion has AVCOAT, so Orion would have to swing past Venus, use gravity assist to slow down a bit, then return to Earth. The trajectory that Inspiration Mars wanted to use is about the only trajectory that Orion could do.

NASA also developed the NERVA nuclear engine, intended as the engine for a replacement 3rd stage Trans-Mars Injection of a human spacecraft. In the early 1970s they finished development of NERVA, the only thing left to do was test it in space. But they didn't have life support. The Apollo spacecraft had life support for 2 weeks. So the heat shield and TMI engine were all NASA had developed before Russia gave up.

But your question was Dragon vs Orion. Yes, Orion has greater volume; Orion = 691 cubic feet, Dragon = 350 cubic feet. However, due to equipment arrangement inside, Orion can carry 6 astronauts while Dragon can carry 7. Both Dragon and Orion have up to 2 weeks of life support. As comparison, Apollo Command Module had 2 weeks of life support, and 210 cubic feet interior volume. Apollo could carry 3 astronauts to lunar orbit and back, or 5 to Skylab in rescue configuration.

Orion's service module has more propellant, so can provide more delta-V. However, the "Orion 606" service module was supposed to return Orion from lunar orbit to Earth, it did not have any propellant at all to enter lunar orbit. The descent stage for the Altair lunar module was expected to be used to enter lunar orbit. That's why Altair's fuel tanks are so huge. But Orion as built today has an ATV-based service module, with heavier dry weight and less propellant. We don't believe Orion as it exists today is even able to return from lunar orbit. So although Orion has more service module propellant, what is it good for?

Last edited by RobertDyck (2015-03-04 10:19:40)

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-03-05 12:41:30

The Moon is a easier destination to reach, and the launch window to it is continuously open, one can launch a mission to the Moon any time of the year on any year. Going to the Moon would be just a little harder than getting to the ISS. Just more energy and propellent required, getting back to the Earth from the Moon is a lot easier. Astronauts on the Moon won't be isolated, they can have stilted semi-realtime conversations with people on Earth, they could have access to the internet as well, just a 2 second delay that's all.

Void · 2015-03-05 21:41:56

I am open minded about the Mars/Moon options. I think it should be Mars + Moon.

The Moon is turning out to be more Mars like than was supposed, and of course as you mentioned it is closer.

If SpaceX and others succeed in generating $500.00/pound to orbit, I don't see how they and their customers would want to ignore the Moon.

Since the Moon could aid access to the rest of the solar system, why would people who want to access the rest of the solar system want to continue to ignore the Moon?

RobertDyck · 2015-03-06 08:08:26

But we have the same problem that Robert Zubrin complained about: equipment developed for the Moon is *NOT* applicable to Mars. Equipment developed for the Moon can be applied to Mars, but not vice versa.

Orion does not have artificial gravity, and no room for zero-G exercise equipment. Life support on Orion is bottled oxygen and non-regenerable sorbent to remove CO2 (lithium hydroxide). So life support can only last 2 weeks. Equipment designed for the Moon does not include ISPP. Does not include aerobraking. Spacesuits are clumsy, designed for 1/6 G or less, not able to climb cliffs or other rough terrain in 38% gravity.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-03-06 08:13:32

A Mars Spacesuit would work fine on the Moon though, as there is not much difference between a vaccum and what Mars has for an atmosphere as far as keeping an astronaut alive in a spacesuit is concerned. So we could build a Moon Base and test out various Mars equipment on it. And if we wanted, we could even build a dome on the Moon and inflated it with a simulated Mars atmosphere and test out various Mars equipment under that dome.

Void · 2015-03-06 09:15:05

Nasa's efforts now seem to be on asteroid capture to Earth or Moon orbit, and visit. This is an apparent adaptation to the fact that their Moon program was diverted to Mars. So they adapted to a useful purpose, which could be helpful to Earth/Mars transportation. Some private companies want to take this pathway, so Nasa appears to be blazing a trail. I think they always said the Moon first, then from that experience Mars. Now, they intend to create a temporary moon of the Moon, and do a similar thing.

SpaceX appears to aim at Earth to LEO, and beyond that to Mars. However, I fail to see why they would not /could not Segway to the Moon at some point.

Other upcoming private concerns appear to be specifically aimed at the Moon, and also some national space programs.

Looking at the long term, it looks like a glass half full and filling up to me.

GW Johnson · 2015-03-06 16:22:35

NASA is no longer free to do what makes sense, and has not been, since Apollo was cancelled in the midst of the landings in 1972. That was over 4 decades ago.

The SLS/Orion is only a moon rocket, and not a very good one at that, since the Orion service module has inadequate delta-vee to do what the Apollo service module did. They cannot really even reprise Apollo with that system, one dictated by Congress, and based on what gets built in whose districts. This is in turn based on what the same outfits (now gobbled-up into a monopoly) have been doing for the last few decades.

So, you should not be be surprised that almost nothing about SLS/Orion makes any sense at all, including its per-launch cost (a rather big step backward from where we are right now).

That being said, maybe (and it's a big "if" !!!) SLS/Orion can take crews to cis-lunar space. Maybe.

Which is why "going to the asteroids as a step to Mars" has completely devolved to a 2-weeks-max-long mission to a tiny asteroid in lunar orbit. That asteroid is to be captured by a robot (still yet to be defined) and released into that lunar orbit. That manned mission is basically nothing but Apollo-8 with a slightly-bigger crew: going to the moon without any means of landing. And I'm not even sure they can really do it with SLS/Orion, because they lack so much delta-vee.

Congress basically killed the front-burner mission for NASA decades ago: manned spaceflight to other worlds. All the big dollars are being wasted on boondoggles for this or that Congressional district. Aeronautics and science take a minor role with minor funding. Only the planetary program has achieved successes popular with the public, primarily because it was too low a cost to be worth turning into boondoggles.

ESA and the rest are no better off. Don't look for any government agency to send people to Mars in the 2030's or even beyond. None of them really want to take the risk to go. Whether any visionary private entities want to belly up to the bar and do this, remains to be seen. Not everybody who wants to go has the right ideas about how to do it.

And that Mars One suicide mission is definitely not what I had in mind: it violates "precept one" - nothing is as expensive as a dead crew.

GW

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2015-01-04 23:27:59

Re: SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

#52 2015-01-05 12:57:40

Re: SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

#53 2015-01-05 22:19:07

Re: SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

#54 2015-01-06 16:58:15

Re: SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

#55 2015-01-06 17:44:03

Re: SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

#56 2015-01-06 18:35:26

Re: SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

#57 2015-01-07 00:30:22

Re: SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

#58 2015-01-07 01:15:04

Re: SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

#59 2015-01-07 18:08:16

Re: SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

#60 2015-03-03 13:50:27

Re: SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

#61 2015-03-03 17:36:58

Re: SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

#62 2015-03-03 17:54:47

Re: SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

#63 2015-03-03 19:47:17

Re: SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

#64 2015-03-03 22:13:13

Re: SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

#65 2015-03-03 23:09:01

Re: SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

#66 2015-03-04 01:03:37

Re: SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

#67 2015-03-04 09:33:32

Re: SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

#68 2015-03-04 09:35:15

Re: SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

#69 2015-03-04 10:17:46

Re: SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

#70 2015-03-05 12:41:30

Re: SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

#71 2015-03-05 21:41:56

Re: SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

#72 2015-03-06 08:08:26

Re: SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

#73 2015-03-06 08:13:32

Re: SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

#74 2015-03-06 09:15:05

Re: SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

#75 2015-03-06 16:22:35

Re: SLS Rocket + Orion + Apollo LEM

Board footer