CEV may be UNNECESSARY for moon missions!

[bwhite]

Page 5 of the 2nd link offers different details. <br /><br />2.34 km/s to LL1 plus .08 for navigation (braking?) at LL1 plus .20 for gravity losses (it appears) = 2.62 km/s.<br /><br />2.96 km/s to Earth surface (direct entry?) like a meteor.<br /><br />= = =<br /><br />The 2nd link appears to be more authoritative.<br /><br />= = =<br /><br />Sorry for all the edits - this stuff is bending my mind. ;-)<br />

 

[frodo1008]

I have no doubt that in some 10 to 20 years the Russians and the Chinese will possibly have the ability to do what you are saying here. They could also quite possibly do it for far less than NASA. After all, Russian and even more, Chinese scientists, engineers and technicians are paid at about the same rates and benifits as people working for Wal-Marts in the US (if that much). Of course this may not always be the case, but it is indeed cheaper for the Russians ad the Chinese to do something than it is for the US to do the same thing. <br /><br />But that is NOT the point! NASA has the budget to go back to the moon for far longer stays and productivity, and eventually even to stay on the moon itself. NASA has a very detailed plan of how to do this within the budgetary limits it has, in the timeframe of 2018 to 2020!<br /><br />You, particularily as an Italian citizen are NOT going to change this! This is the overall will of the American people and their elected representatives! <br /><br />Actually their is NO guarantee that anybody is going to be able to do these things! <br /><br />So why do you keep torturing tha good people of this site with your nonesense!! Please, for the sake of international relations if nothing else, just go away, and stay away!! Let we who are actually voters and taxpayers within the US itself decide what our space program is going to do!!<br /><br />Thank You for Yore Cooperation, and Have A Good Day Anyway!!!<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />dear frodo1008<br /><br />I don't want to change NOTHING with my proposals, not in America, not in Europe, not in Italy<br /><br />all my ideas and opinions (posted here or published on my website) are only an "intellectual play"<br /><br />I like to imagine different vehicles, different architectures and (also) different international projects<br /><br />I post here my proposal because on uplink there are many experts that can evaluate them and give their (positive or negative) opinions<br /><br /><br /><br />"...back to the moon for far longer stays and productivity..."<br /><br />you're too optimist about CEV/LSAM missions... despite they are very expensive, their dimensions are so little that you can't expect so much from them in next 20 years<br /><br />"stay on the moon" may happen in 2030 up... when also Burkina Faso (a very poor african country) will have a moon exploration program...<br /><br /><br /><br />"...just go away, and stay away..."<br /><br /><font color="yellow">you CAN'T say this to me or to other american or international uplink's users<br /><br /></font>

 

[frodo1008]

Perhaps I am being too harsh hear, but I do grow very tired of the same arguments that you put forward, again, and again, and again!! One begins to grow tired of it after awhile.<br /><br />In the first place NASA's plans are budgeted for the funding that NASA could reasonable expect in the time period ahead. The only possible fly in the pot is whether or not congress is going to continue to fund NASA at its current level! But, this is something that ALWAYS hangs over NASA's head anyway! People like yourself only give assistance to those that would stop the American program regardless of the circumstances! Now, is is indeed possible that not only NASA, but all of the other programs will fail. Even those of us that support both NASA and the other space programs in general realize this. However, we are not at the end of a journey, but only the beginning! The complete exploration of the Americas from Europe took three hundred years or more, can we reasonably expect to even explore, let alone exploit and colonize an area millions of times larger (and far , far more dificult to even get to) in only a fraction of this time? I know that this is a hard and difficult thing to say to the many enthusiastic space supporters out there (heck, it is a difficult thing for myself who actually worked on the very beginnings of such explorations to realize), but the truth must be faced it we are going to go further outward.<br /><br />In one respect I agree with you. It IS going to be expensive, not only in terms of material wealth, but even more so in terms of human life. But then that has always been the cost of exploration and progress. We owe a debt to those incredibly brave and wonderful explorers of humanity's past to continue on anyway! And we owe it even more to the future of humanity everywhere to continue on also. This effort is NOT going to be accomplished on the CHEAP! This has been so in the past and will be even more so in the future!!<br /><br />As I and others

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I don't pretend that you read all my posts... but if you do it, you can discover that I write about many arguments and many countries... NASA, ESA, Russia, China, Italy, CEV, Kliper, Shenzhou, etc.<br /><br />if you don't like my posts, don't read them... but respect all uplink's users that read my posts and the thread I open without say me to "go away"...<br /><br />about the "specific" problem you explain... I think that SRB, SSME, etc. is NOT the only way to design the new vehicles/rockets<br /><br />I think that can be (also) used:<br /><br />1. other ALREADY available technologies<br /><br />2. new and better technologies<br /><br />3. shuttle derived technologies but with different architectures<br /><br />only one example of option #3<br /><br />why don't use an earth-start SSME as the engine of CEV's 1st (REUSABLE) stage (saving $60 million per engine!!!) rocket, instead of a (to be developed: three years of work and much money to spend) "air-start SSME" for 2nd stage? (instead of one or more already available engines used for other rockets)<br /><br />etc.<br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"This link (see page 2) asserts that the delta V from the lunar surface to LL1 is about 2500 m/s"<br /><br />Thanx for the info!<br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"That isn't the right way to look at it. Earth is far deeper in the gravity well than the Moon is, so reaching EML-1 from earth is certainly more difficult than LEO."<br /><br />Of course Earth has a deeper gravity well than the moon. But you misunderstand my analogy.<br /><br />Look at what you are now saying...<br /><br />1)That a suborbital launch from the moon's surface can reach EML-1. That the delta V from the moon to EML-1 is less than the delta V from the moon to LLO. That as far as the moon is concerned it's easier to reach the Lagrange point between Earth and the moon than to reach orbit.<br /><br />2)Yet in the case of the Earth it takes more delta V to reach the Lagrange point than to reach Earth orbit, the exact opposite of the moon situation.<br /><br />That doesn't make any sense. The claims are contradictory. Why shouldn't the delta V requirements for travel to various points away from the Earth work in the exact same proportions as travel to various points away from the moon? Why would the Earth and moon gravity wells work so differently? That makes as much sense as saying that, unlike the Earth, the escape velocity from the moon is lower than the velocity to orbit the moon!<br /><br />"It is clear that Griffin is full of it. "<br /><br />You haven't convinced me. Do you have a source to support your EML-1 statements? If so please post a link. <br />

 

[llivinglarge]

How would your space-faring abomination do an Abort-to-orbit or Abort-to-ISS?<br /><br />Also, ESA is a VERY formidable partner to NASA when it comes to unmanned flight.

 

[bwhite]

This link, page 5, is said to be from a very recent Broad Study (and a Focused Study) done by NASA to ascertain lunar mission architectures. I suppose this is that same "trade study" that resulted in the use of EML-1 being rejected for the 1st NASA return to the moon.<br /><br />http://www.mars-lunar.net/Arch.Elements/3.delta.v.Lunar.pdf<br /><br />LS to EML-1 (LL1) is said to be 2.62 km/s including 0.08 for slowing at LL1 and 0.2 for losses to gravity during ascent.<br /><br />LS to LLO at 100 km is 1.93 km/s including 0.03 to circularize the orbit and 0.2 for losses to gravity during ascent.<br /><br />LS to LLO at 10,000 km is 2.74 km/s after a 2nd burn once in LLO and gravity losses. <br /><br />These LLO figures include nothing for plane change manuevers. If the CEV is left on orbit for several days or weeks more delta v is needed for the LSAM to reach CEV because CEV's orbital inclination will drift. <br /><br />Add in the need to accomplish LSAM plane change to reach the CEV and then LLO or EML-1 appear to be pretty darn close in terms of net delta v.<br /><br />= = =<br /><br />As for ESAS, I believe Griffin is right to by-pass EML-1. Building an ISS lite at EML-1 would delay getting back to the Moon.<br /><br />However, an EML-1 Gateway probably is necessary for any continuing robust exploration program.<br /> <br />

 

[frodo1008]

Please take a look at another thread close by "United States Congress Formally Endorses VSE". In particular please refer to the most excellent posts by spacester!<br /><br />This IS the reality! Everything else is just speculative hot air!!!!

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...How would your space-faring abomination do an Abort-to-orbit or Abort-to-ISS?..."<br /><br /><br />can you better explain your question? I don't understand it<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />it's undoubtly a good news that VSE plan become "true money", but...<br /><br />1. this is only a little part of the money planned in many countries for space in next 20 years (probably over $300 billion in total), then, will be funds for many different projects and vehicles<br /><br />2. all technical details of vehicles and missions architectures was, are and will be decided by space agencies NOT by politicians... U.S. Congress may decide that NASA must send again astronauts on the moon but don't decide (and must NOT decide, for astronauts' safety) which is the better way to go on the moon or the DETAILS of vehicles and different architectures used, then, NASA may decide to build a 6x or 4x or 12x CEV, to use a solid state or a liquid fuel 1st stage CLV, to use SSME or not, etc. etc. etc... these are all NASA decisions!<br /><br />3. many of my posts are NOT about "moon or not", "spaceplane vs. capsule", etc. but only about MONEY SAVING and MUCH EFFICIENT MISSION ARCHITECTURES or... MORE (vehicles, astronauts, missions, moon exploration, etc.) for LESS (money and time)... well, I'm SURE that, if NASA will use different designs and architectures to SAVE money (and make MORE missions), President, Congress and American taxpayers may be only VERY HAPPY of any cheaper, smarter and efficient NASA choice!!!<br /><br />4. don't forget the (possible) influence on design and missions of (possible) international cooperations, privates, new ideas, alternative vehicles and rockets, etc... VSE plan covers 20+ years... many unexpected things may happen in so much time!<br /><br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"CEV may be unnecessary for moon missions! Full story here www.gaetanomarano.it/LSAMshenzhou/lsamshenzhou.html "<br /><br />I read over your linked page and this thread you began and I think you have the kernal of an interesting concept. Sadly there is already so much bad blood that hardly anyone seems to be paying serious attention to what you have to say. As to that problem I recommend you never-ever post any word in all caps or use multiple exclaimation marks again, and when some people post hostile replies to you that seem to completly ignore or misread what you have just said don't even bother to respond to them.<br /><br />As to your Shenzou/LSAM concept I have a couple minor criticisms. First off I think you overestimate the total mass advantage of using a smaller vehicle than the lunar-CEV. It is not a simple matter of whatever mass is saved from a smaller earth-return vehicle is exactly equal to more mass than can be packed onto the LSAM. <br /><br />The problem is the Earth Departure Stage of the SDHLV does double duty. Not only will the EDS propell the docked manned complex towards the moon (max TLI of around 55 to 60 tonnes) the EDS also launches the LSAM payload into LEO (to await docking with the CEV). Any mass added to the LSAM detracts from the total mass the EDS can inject towards the moon. So the actual advantage of a smaller Earth-return vehicle may be more like adding 1/2 or 2/3 of an equivalent mass to the LSAM, not a one for one exchange.<br /><br />The second criticism I have of your plan is the use of two Shenzous to replace a singe CEV. Much better to use a single Shenzou instead of two. A lunar-Shenzou will no doubt be heavier somewhat than the standard Shenzou, with a larger equipment module to provide the extra fuel needed for TEI burn and maybe extra life support consumables too. So let's say the total lunar-Shenzou mass is 10 tonnes; that is still

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I recommend you never-ever post any word in all caps />>>>><br /><br />since english is not my mother language it's difficult for me to think, translate, type and add color/bold codes, then, I use CAPS<br /><br />when some people post hostile replies />>>>><br /><br />I read and post reply to ALL posts sent to me (excluding only those I don't understand)<br /><br />overestimate the total mass advantage />>>>><br /><br />no, a lunar CEV/SM will be 23 tons while twice Shenzhou are less than 16 tons or only 13 tons without the two Orbital Modules<br /><br />smaller earth-return vehicle is exactly equal to more mass />>>>><br /><br />the calculation must be made on earth-moon travel mass and lunar orbit braking... the total mass is the same of a CEV/LSAM then it need the same engines and propellant (only on earth return the mass is less than CEV/SM)<br /><br />Any mass added to the LSAM detracts from the total mass the EDS can inject towards the moon />>>>><br /><br />true... launch an heavier LSAM (+ extra booster fuel) in LEO need a 140 tons HLV that may cost 15% more... but a three-weeks life support & lunar hardware LSAM is like send THREE CEV/SM/CLV/one-week-LSAM/125ton-HLV... the advantage is clear... THREE missions for the price of ONE!<br /><br />Much better to use a single Shenzou instead of two />>>>><br /><br />true... a single capsule mean +8 tons for LSAM life support and lunar hardware (for one month lunar exploration!)... three astronauts for 10 days is the same exploration time than four astronauts for one week... but I suggest to use two Shenzhou ... a) to avoid critics like "three astronauts are not sufficient for moon missions"... b) follow VSE-moon plan rules... c) use the extra space of each Shenzhou (the 3rd astronaut seat/weight) for moon samples <br /><br />lunar-Shenzou will no doubt be heavier />>>>><br /><br />no... only if Shenzhou will fly alone to moon and back

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"...How would your space-faring abomination do an Abort-to-orbit or Abort-to-ISS?..."<br /><br /><br />can you better explain your question? I don't understand it <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Perhaps I can help.<br /><br />Abort-to-orbit is where a launch is aborted prior to the planned engine cutoff but where the vehicle is already going fast enough that it is technically in orbit. It has been done during the Shuttle program, but it's rare. It basically means that something went wrong, so you're not quite in the orbit you wanted. It may, however, be a good enough orbit to carry out your mission.<br /><br />Abort-to-ISS isn't something that's ever been done before. It would be where in the event of catastrophe, you go dock with the ISS instead of completing your mission. I don't see it being very useful, frankly. Realistically, you can only abort to ISS if you were going there anyway. You have to launch into the right orbit at the right time in order to make it to the ISS; a non-ISS mission should avoid doing so lest it create an unneccesary collision hazard.<br /><br />So, what he's asking you is really just how your vehicle would handle aborts at various points in the mission. What if something goes wrong late in the ascent? Or after the spacecraft is inserted into orbit? I realize you might not have put that much detail into it, but it's something that would have to be considered sooner or later.<br /><br />(Note: sometimes there is no way to abort. For instance, after the last firing of the S-IVB, the Apollo crews were committed to at least a lunar flyby.) <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]

<br />"...an Abort-to-orbit or Abort-to-ISS..."<br /><br /><br />abort-to-ISS is impossible since the CEV/LSAM/booster system will be assembled away from ISS and in another orbit<br /><br />about the abort-to-orbit... it may happen with Shenzhou but also with CEV<br /><br />if CEV will remain in another orbit the entire moon mission will abort<br /><br />the only difference may be the life support time (to save the crew) between Shenzhou and CEV... but, fly in space, is risky... we never can give to crews a 100% safety<br />