CEV may be UNNECESSARY for moon missions!

[gaetanomarano]

CEV may be unnecessary for moon missions! Full story here www.gaetanomarano.it/LSAMshenzhou/lsamshenzhou.html<br /><br /><br />

 

[chriscdc]

Small hint, it doesn't count if its an opinion piece by yourself.

 

[rubicondsrv]

Please Do Not Feed The Troll!!!<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

I'm not a politician... but, many times, "small hints" may become real plans!<br /><br />15 years are many... and many things may happen (or don't happen) in 15 years!<br /><br />Politicians of all countries are sensible to their public opinions (for votes...)<br /><br />I don't like to make critics only, then, I will try to demonstrate that many alternative and cheaper plans may exist!<br /><br />Moonrovers is one of them, LSAM + Shenzhou is another!<br /><br />Do you think it's impossible?<br /><br />Well, also the Apollo-Soyuz docking was "impossible" a few years before 1975...<br /><br />And the ISS... made (and with) Russia?<br /><br />NASA that send in orbit american astronauts with Soyuz... and buy them...<br /><br />Cooperation with China is not a "mission impossible"... and it will happen... more sooner than you can imagine!!!<br /> <br />----------------------<br /><br />I'm sorry if I talk of different (and curious) argument, but I don't like to talk only about CEV & Kliper mockups... (two "objects" that may be real only after 2015... or may remain mockups...)<br /><br /><font color="yellow">(I feel that another dead-horse image is coming...)<br /></font>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />it's a real pleasure when minds are open to different ideas and opinions.....................<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

two Shenzhou x 12 (planned) moon missions = $2.6 billion<br /><br />one CEV/SM/CLV x 12 moon missions = $12 billion (optimistic) to $20 billion (realistic)<br /><br />money saved = $10-17.4 billion... that may be used for a new and better Hubble, probes like Cassini, more Mars rovers with "life detectors", etc.<br /><br />do you not like "money saving"?<br /><br />do you not like MORE orbital, moon, marsrobots missions with the same budget?<br />

 

[CalliArcale]

Out of curiosity, how do you propose to get this enormous mass onto a translunar trajectory? After all, two Shenzhou will be considerably more massive than one CEV. Technical details are conspicuously absent in your article; I find it hard to believe this proposal would save money, especially as you have not explained how you expect to increase both mass and complexity while reducing cost. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

"... enormous mass..."<br /><br />no<br /><br />as I've explained in my LSAMshenzhou webpage, the total mass of one (Soyuz derived, but better) Shenzhou is less than 8 tons ( http://www.astronautix.com/craft/shenzhou.htm ), then, around 15.5 tons for two, while, the lunar version (image below) of a CEV/SM weight is near 23 tons! (this is the reason CEV needs a new, expensive, rocket)<br /><br />so, the translunar injection booster planned for CEV/SM/LSAM will be sufficient for one LSAM + two Shenzhou (as explained in my webpage)<br /><br />and, since with two Shenzhou we can save about 8 tons, this weight can be used to add to LSAM more "life support time" for longer moon missions (probably up to 4 weeks instead of one!) or more moon "hardware" for experimets and exploration in one week or two weeks with half-extra-hardware, etc.<br /><br />also, part of the Shenzhou can be saved... one of the orbital module (1.5 ton) or both (3 tons) with the two capsule directly to LSAM<br /><br />in the moon-earth travel, the two Shenzhou my fly separately or joined (with or without one or both orbital modules) and the "return system" may use only one service module (if sufficient) as lunar to earth booster saving another 3 tons on total come-back-mass<br /><br />there are many possible alternative mission-protocols that I will explain soon in my webpage<br /><br />the LSAM-shenzhou plan is feasible (in MANY different ways, so, we can choice the best of them) and money saving is GIANT and REAL!<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

remeber that Soyuz was designed for trans lunar travels (to win the '60s moon-race) but URSS never used it due to (giant) lack of technology, money and heavy rocket to design, build and launch a soviet-LEM<br /><br />Russia plans to offer in next years Soyuz's lunar orbit travels to space-tourists a the low (discounted...) price of $100 million each...<br />

 

[mattblack]

Er.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"...its a one way trip..."<br /><br />no<br /><br />China and Russia plan to use Shenzhou and Soyuz for their announced future moon travels (probably with some changes, of course)<br /><br />Shenzhou and Soyuz are NOT "xenophobic-capsules"... if they can return form moon russians and chinese alive on earth... they can also return alive on earth europeans, americans, brazilians, egyptians, etc.<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"...your not a politican..."<br /><br />but, you know, politicians change their opinion and their plans continuosly... and (expecially in America) politicians change continuosly... probably... the presidential address to (LSAM/CEV or LSAM/shenzhou) next moon explorers will be made by President Chelsea Clinton...<br />

 

[nacnud]

What is meant by a one way trip is that the service module of the CEV provides the thrust for leaving the Moon and returing to the Earth. In your plan you've deleted the CEV and replaced it with two SZ or Soyuz spacecraft. The service modules of these craft don't have the capablity to return them to Earth from the Moon, hence: It's a one way trip.

 

[ve7rkt]

Shenzhou can't make a circumlunar flight on its own, it needs to dock with a separately launched tug stage. Same with Soyuz (the $100m tourist plan involves a Soyuz docking with a Block DM lifted by Zenit; the Soyuz rocket can't lift a Soyuz capsule and fully fueled Block DM). Does this mean you need five launches (LSAM, capsule #1, capsule #2, tug stage #1, tug stage #2) and four LEO dockings now?

 

[gaetanomarano]

no<br /><br />Soyuz and Shenzhou was designed for lunar to earth return<br /><br />but you can evaluate it also comparing CEV/shenzhou weights<br /><br />CEV's SM is around 55% of total wheight while Shenzhou's SM is around 40% (but CEV life support time is higher than Shenzhou... and it need extra-weight)<br /><br />if a problem exists... may be only to increase fuel tanks of an extra 20%<br /><br /><br />and consider that this is only ONE of MANY possible mission-designs<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...16,000 pounds..."<br /><br />no, sorry, the giant amount of propellant (and weight) of CEV's SM is due to the fact that the (completely useless) six-seats CEV-limousine is THREE TIMES the weight of a Shenzhou Re-entry module... 9,237 kg. vs. 3,240 kg. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />if you launch a "truck" around the moon you need MUCH MORE fuel to bring it back to earth!!!!!!<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...you need five launches..."<br /><br />no<br /><br />since Shenzhou capsules are 1/3 the weight of a CEV, a very little part of the great weight saved (8 tons with orbital module or 11 tons without orbital modules) can be used for extra fuel tanks, non need of tugs (but, if tugs will need, it will reduce the giant money saving from $18 billion to "only" $15 billion..................)<br /><br />

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>no, sorry, the giant amount of propellant (and weight) of CEV's SM is due to the fact that the (completely useless) six-seats CEV-limousine is THREE TIMES the weight of a Shenzhou Re-entry module... 9,237 kg. vs. 3,240 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Two points:<br /><br />1) How will two three-seat Shenzhous be more efficient masswise than one six-seat CEV? You are proposing sending the same number of crew but unneccesarily duplicating a large number of systems.<br /><br />2) The CEV SM is being designed for lunar missions -- it's bigger because of the mission. That means you will need to redesign Shenzhou to have the same capabilities, at which point it will doubtless have gained a great deal of mass.<br /><br />I do not think you really appreciate how much energy is required to get to the moon and back.<br /><br />Or how much energy is required to research a subject with any real rigor, for that matter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

a moon travel is complex but don't multiply its complexity only to demonstrate that CEV is the sole and only vehicle in the universe that can accomplish that mission<br /><br />remember that one CEV capsule is 1.5 times the weight of two Shenzhou capsules then it need more propellant (and weight) to return<br /><br />the difference to have the same CM/SM proportion of CEV is around 20%, also if it is ALL FUEL, you don't need to send in lunar orbit the entire Kuwait to give to Shenzhou sufficient fuel for lunar-earth travel!<br /><br />the difference is around 2 tons of extra-fuel... if they want they can (but if they don't want, it's another "non-technical problem...)<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"..more efficient masswise..."<br /><br />it is NOT the Shenzhou too light... the CEV is TOO heavy because it will be for six astronauts despite 99% of orbital/lunar will be of 3/4<br /><br />the giant SM and the giant CLV are due to excessive (useless and unused) mass of the 5.5 mt. CEV!<br /><br /><br />"...system..."<br /><br />which "system" you want to "duplicate" if each Shenzhou is made for three astronauts and we will use only for two? probably you will need to REDUCE the "systems"! (and save extra-weight!)<br /><br /><br />"...how much energy is required to get to the moon and back..."<br /><br />I appreciate... I appreciate...<br /><br />for this reason my plan INCLUDE the giant trans lunar booster planned for CEV that in my plan will launch LSAM + two Shenzhou + 8/11 tons of extra (saved) payload good for LONG lunar missions and/or MORE lunar hardware!!!!!!!!<br /><br />on return, we need to launc two "3-tons" objects... why the heavy Apollo and the giant and heavy CEV can be launched from moon to earth while two little Shenzhou (with sufficient fuel) can't??????? because Shenzhou are chinese???????<br />

 

[Swampcat]

You are a lost cause, Gaetan.<br /><br />There's absolutely no chance that your proposal will happen. Combining a US craft with two Chinese craft is not going to happen. It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. Your "facts" are mostly just numbers you pulled out of your butt. You tell people who know much more about this stuff than you that they are wrong. <br /><br />Come up with something more realistic and discuss it with the experts and maybe if you listen to them you might learn something.<br /><br />Otherwise, all you're doing is showing your ignorance...and your arrogance.<br /><br />Please. Give it up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[mattblack]

Yeah! I hear you, shuttle_guy: He's been quiet for a few weeks and then this is what he comes up with -- THIS?!!<br /><br />Instead of using a CEV which is designed with the LSAM lunar architecture in mind and for use with that LSAM, Gaeto proposes using two Chinese vehicles, admittedly better than Soyuz (but not THAT much) for a mission config. that exists only in his computer, and that many professional engineers would tell him is full of holes. Namely: even more multiple launches and Earth Orbit Rendezvous, Not to mention the political and logistical nightmare that would ensue. (Best case: years of delays and billions for redesign, worst case: nightmarish beyond our wildest experience with U.S.-Russia ISS delays).<br /><br />The strength of Mike Griffin's Lunar architecture is its operational structure that is both familiar AND innovative: oh yes, I've got some minor quibbles with it, but on the whole I think it'll work out fine. Whereas Gaeto is pushing some sort of half-baked, <br />psychedelic mongrel of an idea.<br /><br />And I'm predicting (sadly) that he'll push and push this like someone with an O.C.D. until, unable to get his way, he goes quiet for awhile.....<br /><br />Until the next time.<br /><br />**GAETO: I'd have far more respect for your ideas of alternative lunar access if you'd be pushing something like a COMPLETE alternative to ESAS with no CEV or LSAM: Something like a Shenzhou or Soyuz lunar flyby, whereby they rendezvous and transfer crew to a re-usable lunar descent/ascent tug-lander, that refuels from lunar ice.<br /><br />OR: Using an eventual private-industry lunar architecture where, after first pre-deploying inflatable pressurised Hab module-lander onto the lunar surface, crew rovers, and a logistics/supply lander. Same basic chassis used for all landers, only the payload on their back differs.<br /><br />This should give enough supplies and Habspace for a crew of 2, for 1-to-2 weeks on the lunar surface. <br /><br />1): Largest Falcon-derived or Prot <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[j05h]

>That is because the CEV/SM has the propellant to get back from the Moon !!! That is about 16,000 pounds for the propellant and systems to get home (which the Shenzhou " does not have !!<br /><br />I was wondering what that number was. Bob Zubrin had an article recently insisting on Lunar direct-return for all future moon missions. So it sounds like he wants to put the CEV and an extra 16,000 lbs on the surface with the LSAM. That really cuts into payload. 8)<br /><br />On Gaetano's idea: There is talk of late about Chinese involvement in ISS. Lunar cooperation is one step away. They certainly have earned their place in the "space pantheon". Using Soyuz or Shenzhou-derived vehicles for a lunar CEV is an interesting idea. If it were to handle the TEI burn it needs a bigger service module. <br /><br />I'm not sure if it'd be practical to bring two docked 3-seat capsules, it seems like there would be balance issues. Two ways around this would be to stockpile them in lunar orbit or make the LSAM aerobraking and dock to a new station in equatorial orbit that processes LSAM and transfers crew to their waiting return capsules. This uses all the nation's capabilities to their best: Russian rockets flying from ideal Kourou, American deep-space craft and electronics, European modules and modern Chinese capsules for Earth return. And it would commit to a panoply of stations: equatorial, 28.5, 51.6 and low Lunar orbit. <br /><br />But an architecture like that is probably to much of a break from the status quo. A "transit station" in LEO is a potential money-maker, it could service tourists as a hotel and government and corporate lunar flights.<br /><br />Truly nodal transportation is at least as important as Cheap Access to Space. In some ways, Zubrin's Lunar Galactica is only a variation of the ideas the CEV/LSAM are based on, none of this brings down the cost and hassles of space access. An architecture that allowed anyone to dock in LEO, store a vehicle on a man-tended station and <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...US craft with two Chinese..."<br /><br />sorry, but probably YOU don't have idea of what you're talking about!<br /><br />the main purpose of my proposal is to demonstrate that a GIANT six-seats CEV-limousine with its (obvious) GIANT SM is completely unnecessary for moon missions since that mission are with 4 astronauts and for 90% of their time they have the giant LSAM to live in<br /><br />it's incredible that YOU, many uplink's users, some capsule-propaganda-men and (sorry) NASA engineers, don't see that the extra (useless and unused) dimensions of CEV/SM is a giant DEAD-WEIGHT (a REAL DEAD-HORSE!) and that LSAM and SM engines must have MUCH MORE fuel only to travel this giant dead-weight!!!!<br /><br />why we MUST send TONS of dead-weight that cost VERY MUCH in terms of ENERGY, rockets and fuel WEIGHT and (of course) MONEY???????????<br /><br />spaceflights must be as much EFFICIENT as possible... do you think that send TONS of DEAD-WEIGHT around the moon and back (with all the fuel/weight/money it needs) is EFFICIENT????<br /><br />then... why don't send also the <b>White House</b> or the <b><font color="red">Kremlin</font></b>around the moon and back to earth?!?!?<br /><br />the capsule NASA will use may be american or russian or european or chinese... no matter... they only need to be LITTLE to transfer TONS of (useless) DEAD-WEIGHT to USEFULL LSAM's extra life support and extra lunar hardware... for LONGER and BETTER moon missions!!!<br /><br />as I've explained in many posts in last two months, a little 4x, 4 mt. 10-12 tons CEV (without the GIANT and useless DEAD-WEIGHT of a six-seat CEV-limousine) may cost 1/3 than CEV/CLV: 30% less for 4xCEV/SM and only $150 million to launch it with a READY AVAILABLE mid-rocket!!! (after its man-rate)<br /><br />THIS is really RATIONAL and EFFICIENT!!!<br /><br />also, without the time lost with CLV design and test, the first moon mission may happen some years before 2018 and (thanks to money saved with a little CEV and a ready

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />before post other answers I wish to better define two important points about my idea:<br /><br /><br />1. in planned (future) tourist (or scientific) Soyuz and Shenzhou lunar orbit missions they will be ALONE without LSAM, so, they need to have TWICE fuel to, both, ENTER and EXIT lunar orbit!!!<br /><br />WITH an LSAM they DON'T need to have the fuel to ENTER lunar orbit because (with or without CEV) the LSAM will be designed to be autonomous and use ITS engine and fuel to enter lunar orbit and land (to use LSAM for lunar one-way cargo-only missions)<br /><br />with LSAM the two Shenzhous must use their ENTIRE fuel reserve ONLY for lunar departure, so, the fuel of a "standard" vehicle may EXCEED how it need to come back to earth WITHOUT ANY EXTRA FUEL AND TANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br /><br />2. see the Apollo CM/SM/LM weights ( www.astronautix.com/craft/apolocsm.htm www.astronautix.com/craft/apollolm.htm )...<br /><br />- 5.8 tons CM<br /><br />- 24.5 tons SM (including 18.5 tons of propellant)<br /><br />- 14.7 tons LM<br /><br />in the Apollo missions the SM engine and propellant was used to enter in lunar orbit the ENTIRE CM/SM/LM weight, while, with LSAM, this job (when the "system" has the maximum total weight!) will be made with LSAM engines and fuel<br /><br />if you consider the GIANT (45 tons) total weight of Apollo CM/SM/LM at lunar orbit entry, probably, 70% of SM fuel was used for THAT purpose and only the remain 30% for CM/SM departure from lunar orbit to earth!!!!!<br /><br />also, the remain CM/SM total weight (with 30% fuel) at lunar departure was around 17 tons while the TOTAL mass of a Shenzhou (OM/RM/SM) is LESS than 8 tons!!! (less than 6.5 tons without the orbital module that may remain in lunar orbit with LSAM cabin)<br /><br />if 5.5 tons of fuel was sufficient to launch a 17 tons vehicle to exit lunar orbit and come