CEV may be UNNECESSARY for moon missions!

[holmec]

>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 />Well put SG <br /><br />Slap some ion engines on those Shenzou, they'll be back in 3 years. lol <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[hk8900]

I think you remember how long did the ion-drive SMART-1 take to reach the lunar orbit<br />ion-drive is suitable for long term missions but not suitable for LEO/lunar orbit missions<br />Also, as we know, Shenzhou still DONOT have docking ability in this stage. China will try to dock spacecrafts around 2009/2010<br />Apart from technological reasons, political reasons are also very important factors.<br />Docking a Chinese spacecraft with American one require very close strategic relations between two countries<br />Since China is one of the last communist countries in the world, the USA will not be willing to cooperate in full scale with China as such cooperation sometimes requires sensitive technological translation

 

[gaetanomarano]

you can post all the links you want, of course... but I don't like you suggest me to "promote" something... I "promote" only my ideas and my opnions<br /><br />6x CEV may launch 6 or 4 astronauts... but it will "costs for six" also when will be used "for two"<br /><br />about mars... the first mars mission is so away from now that it's like talk of Star Trek...<br /><br />but, if you want to talk about the science-fiction-mars-missions... I think you may agree with me that a 2-years mars travel can't be made with a little capsule... it need a giant ferry with giant cargo, descent/ascent vehicles, big rockets, etc.<br /><br />CEV will be (IF will be) only 2% of the mars-jumbo and used only 2-3 days: to dock the ferry at earth departure and for earth reentry<br /><br />the SAME purpose can be made with a 6x CEV or with TWO 4x CEVs... but the twin 4x CEVs have TWO giant advantages:<br /><br />1. send up to EIGHT explorers on mars (instead of six)<br /><br />2. save TONS OF BILLIONS DOLLARS with all the CEV orbital/lunar missions that will be made from 2015 to 2040 (and the BILLIONS saved may be used to design and build part of the Mars "hardware". without any search for more extra-funds..)<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

please see my previous posts about fuel... the big, 23 tons, CEV/SM my need 8 tons... the, 6.5-8 tons, little Shenzhou need only 2.5 tons of propellant for lunar orbit departure<br /><br />CEV/SM will be SO HEAVY that probably it will NOT able to do a trans-lunar flight ALONE since it NEED the LSAM engine and fuel for lunar orbit bracking!!!<br /><br /><br />

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Apart from technological reasons, political reasons are also very important factors.<br />Docking a Chinese spacecraft with American one require very close strategic relations between two countries<br />Since China is one of the last communist countries in the world, the USA will not be willing to cooperate in full scale with China as such cooperation sometimes requires sensitive technological translation<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It goes the other way as well. I doubt the Chinese will be willing to ferry American astronauts to the Moon. They have steadfastly insisted on doing their own monolithic space program. It's a major point of national pride for them, and frankly, I can't say I blame them. They want their own space program, and I say good for them.<br /><br />Shenzhou will not be available for any joint US-Chinese mission in the forseeable future. It makes this whole discussion academic.<br /><br />Of course, even from this academic point of view, there are a lot of reasons why Shenzhou is not ready for this, nor superior to the CEV proposal. You make a very good point about Shenzhou not even being capable of docking yet. <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>

 

[mlorrey]

Keep in mind that Shenzou is essentially a bigger and heavier Soyuz. Soyuz was built as a translunar craft.<br /><br />Given the Russians are selling Soyuz to whoever they can, it would be smarter to buy the Soyuz and dock them with your lunar lander, though you'll need a mating rig to keep both together after lander separation so they don't bump each other in orbit.<br /><br />If your lunar lander has the tankage to be its own transtage, build the tanks to become lunar base modules after landing, then you've got a moon base up and operating when you finish the mission, and each additional mission can grow the lunar infrastructure.

 

[holmec]

>please see my previous posts about fuel... the big, 23 tons, CEV/SM my need 8 tons... the, 6.5-8 tons, little Shenzhou need only 2.5 tons of propellant for lunar orbit departure<br /><br />CEV/SM will be SO HEAVY that probably it will NOT able to do a trans-lunar flight ALONE since it NEED the LSAM engine and fuel for lunar orbit bracking!!! <<br /><br />Yada, yada, yada. Who needs propellant?<br />Why return at all, you save on taxes.<br /><br />Anyway Shenzou would probably not survive reentry into earth's atmosphere from a lunar orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...not survive reentry into earth's atmosphere from a lunar orbit..."<br /><br />Soyuz and Shenzhou was designed also for that purpose... but, if necessary, engineeers know how to modify it (from apollo days)<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"...Shenzhou will not be available for any joint US-Chinese mission in the forseeable future. It makes this whole discussion academic..."<br /><br /><br />just imagine that you're in '50s or '60s...<br /><br />please give a vote of "incredibility" (in a range of 1 to 1,000,000) to:<br /><br />- Nixon's travel in China to talk with Mao...<br /><br />- Coca Cola in China...<br /><br />- collapse of Berlin's wall...<br /><br />- end of communism in Soviet Union, etc...<br /><br />- TV commercial with former Soviet prime minister Gorbaciov...<br /><br />- capitalism in China (the HARDEST capitalism)...<br /><br />- NASA that buy and use Soyuz to send americans in orbit...<br /><br />- chinese astronaut in orbit...<br /><br />- chinese astronauts on ISS...<br /><br />- joined USA-China-Russia-Europe missions to moon and mars...<br /><br />- LSAM and Shenzhou...<br /><br />- NASA choice of 4x CEV in spring 2006...<br />

 

[najab]

Given that you are Italian, why the obsession with the CEV and how much NASA is spending on it - are you trying to demonstrate the superiority of the Italian manned spaceflight program?

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Soyuz and Shenzhou was designed also for that purpose... but, if necessary, engineeers know how to modify it (from apollo days) <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />No, they were designed to be multipurpose, much like the CEV that you find so objectionable.<br /><br />I'm not sure about Shenzhou's heat shield, but I'd be pretty confident of Soyuz's heatshield making it through just fine. Several of the Zonds survived; they were smaller, less massive versions of the Soyuz intended for lunar missions. (The failure rate was pretty high for that, but none of the failures were the fault of the heat shield. The immature UR-500 Proton was probably their biggest liability at that point. Proton just wasn't ready yet.) <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 />because the NASA spaceflight is "THE" world's spaceflight... no other country space agency can do the same in the world (not Italy, unfortunately)... all people in the world interested in space look at NASA... since the Shuttle will end to fly... more vehicles mean more spaceflight<br /><br />I'm not an american taxpayer... but probably you are... then, why do you want that NASA spends MORE money (that is also YOUR money) for LESS? ...or, why do you not want that NASA spends your money better?<br /><br />do you think that a cooperation with China is a bad idea?<br /><br />if NASA fly with Soyuz, why can't fly with a Shenzhou? (and China space agency with CEV)<br /><br />I think that missions like mars (and beyond) need a giant international cooperation (and funds) to happen

 

[najab]

><i>because the NASA spaceflight is "THE" world's spaceflight..</i><p>Erm, no. NASA is an <b>American</b> agency spending <b>American</b> money on whatever projects the <b>American</b> government deems appropriate. No matter how much ranting and raving you do, nothing will change that. If your government chooses not to spend its money on spaceflight, live with it.</p>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I don't design heat shields... but I suppose their main parameters are: dimensions, point of fusion and thickness... if the Shenzhou heat shield don't match one of these parameters, engineers can modify it... don't appear to me a problem impossible to solve... also, how China can go on the moon (as announced), if they don't solve this very important problem?

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"THE" world's spaceflight...<br /><br />intellectually and scientifically talking... not under "money" aspect, of course

 

[najab]

China has not yet announced any plans for manned missions to the Moon.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I've read of a China plan for moon landing in 2017... now I search a link...<br /><br />www.china.org.cn/english/scitech/147247.htm<br /><br />www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-11/04/content_491424.htm<br />

 

[najab]

><i>intellectually and scientifically talking...</i><p>Considering that the ESA is fast becoming a major power in space science (current/recent missions include Mars, Venus, Earth, Saturn and Lunar science missions), I find that an interesting comment.</p>

 

[najab]

That was never an official Chinese plan.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />but, unfotunately, not in manned spaceflight... and (I feel) ESA main problem is not "funds", but "psychological"... I think that they have FEAR to fail and to lose their prestige, since, all other big countries (USA, Russia and China) have already done it successful<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />the high ambitions of China about space are clear... and will certainly include moon (I've also read of China-Russia talks for a possible joint mars plan...)<br />

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I don't design heat shields... but I suppose their main parameters are: dimensions, point of fusion and thickness... if the Shenzhou heat shield don't match one of these parameters, engineers can modify it... don't appear to me a problem impossible to solve...<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Sorry, I should've been clearer. While I don't know for sure about Shenzhou, it probably can manage a reentry from the Moon. Soyuz can. <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>

 

[bwhite]

Dock a re-useable LSAM with Soyuz/Shenzou at EML-1 and the fuel for Earth return is far less of a problem.<br /><br />Use Soyuz/Shenzou + Proton Block DM propulsion to get to EML-1. Rendezvous with the LSAM, switch trains and land on the moon with the re-useable LSAM.<br /><br />Return to EML-1 and switch back to Soyuz/Shenzou. A lunar fly by allows faster Earth return from EML-1. It appears Soyuz plus Proton Block DM can do an Apollo 8 fly-by (Space Adventures) mission and this is not all that different.<br /><br />Need a Gateway station at EML-1? One FGB-2 plus one Bigelow TransHab plus one multi-port docking module.<br /><br />= = =<br /><br />I am finishing up a novel based on this architecture, hopefully in a few months.

 

[nibb31]

I often hear about setting up stations at Lagrange points. Can someone explain the advantages of this. It would seem to me that to rendezvous at a static point would require braking to a stop, rendez vous, and reaccelerating. Wouldn't that require twice as much propellant? I'm pretty sure I'm missing something here.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I've used the known LSAM design to add the Shenzhou in the ESAS without change so much, but I think (and I'm not alone) that LSAM must be reusable... also, I think, for redundancy and crews' safety, they must lanch three LSAMs (two on the moon and one in lunar orbit) BEFORE the first manned missions (with a 4th LSAM)... all LSAM will be used alternatively (if all goes well) or as emergency vehicles from moon if one fails... also, refueled LSAMs parked in orbit, must be able to land uncrewed via earth or moon remote control (this may be good to fast rescue a crew too away from lunar base)<br />