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]

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

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.

 

 

Bob Clark

Edited November 4, 2012 by Robert Clark

[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

Edited November 22, 2012 by Robert 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 whose got the inside scoop?

 

 

Bob Clark

[CraigD]

Though it would boost my morale, and I think that of a lot of people like me, a lot of us have some misgivings that a manned “return to the Moon” program that achieves no or only incrementally more than the Apollo program – spaceflight and other technology tested, experiments set up and run, observations made, samples returned.

 

We really want a program culminating in a continued human lunar presence – in short, Moon bases, and even better, eventual commercial profitability via ventures such as lower-cost orbital and interplanetary spaceship launches, metals and He-3 collection, solar power, exploitation of other resources on the Moon or other extraterrestrial bodies, and large-scale extraterrestrial human dwelling.

 

Compared to the practical engineering of another series of Apollo-like manned missions, this is to varying degrees wildly ambitious.

 

Some speculate that the China’s Moon program – which to date has consisted of 2 orbiters, one of which, Chang'e 1, was intentionally crashed on the Moon in 2009, the other, Chang'e 2, left lunar orbit for the a 7 month parking at the Earth-Sun L2 point 2011-2012, leaving there for a planned 13 Dec 2012 flyby of asteroid 4179 Toutatis – has serious plans for a Moon base, but as best I can tell, no actual CLEP folk are talking more than the possibility of such missions around 2030. The people who seem to be talking most seriously about Chinese Moon base ambitions are folk with no connection to Chinese science and government, like hotel businessman and founder of a space habitat module company (which to date has flow 2 prototype modules on Russian Dnepr boosters) Robert Bigelow, for example as quoted in articles linked to this Oct 2011 Yahoo news article.

 

While China’s CNSA is arguably behind the US’s NASA and other more experienced national space agencies’ in engineering, they do have unprecedentedly strong financial resources, due to their managed economy and cash-rich central bank. Unfortunately for folk like me, old enough to remember the Apollo missions, it doesn’t have the “space race” driven urgency of 1960s NASA. Even if CNSA is as successful as the most optimistic predictions, I may not live long enough to see it. :(

[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 BEO missions can also happen on a regular basis.

 

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

 

Bob Clark

Edited December 12, 2012 by Robert Clark

[RGClark]

Argues that with the higher payload capability of the Falcon 9 v1.1

we can do circumlunar missions on a *single* launch of the Falcon 9

v1.1 + Dragon:

 

"Golden Spike" circumlunar flights.

http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/golden-spike-circumlunar-flights.html

 

 

Bob Clark

[RGClark]

NASA administrator Charles Bolden told the NRC committee on human spaceflight that an asteroid mission didn't necessarily have to be a far trip:

 

Bolden: Don't Have to Travel Far to Asteroid to Meet President's Goal.

Marcia S. Smith

Posted: 19-Dect-2012

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/bolden-dont-have-to-travel-far-to-asteroid-to-meet-presidents-goal

 

Perhaps he was referring to the Planetary Resources, Inc. proposal to bring a small asteroid to lunar orbit. But another possibility is a mission to near Earth asteroids that can be accomplished in about a month round trip travel time. See the table of NEO's here:

 

Near-Earth Object Human Space Flight Accessible Targets Study (NHATS).

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/nhats

 

Select max delta-v <= 12 km/s, visit time => 8 days, unlimited visual magnitude, the H parameter, and unlimited orbital uncertainty, the OCC parameter. Then there are several asteroids at 26, 34, and 42 day travel times, including stay times at or above 8 days. If you subtract off that stay time to make it only a day or so then the round trip travel time will be in the range of a month or so.

 

This could serve as an intermediate step for BEO missions between the Apollo missions at max. 12 days and a Mars mission at 6 months one-way travel time.

 

 

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 smaller, weaker Block 0 version, 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 Freedom of Information Act (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.

 

However, 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 from now so over several presidential administrations, and its high cost. Then I think it would be prudent for NASA to investigate weight saving techniques on the Block I SLS 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