How would you get to the moon???

[hawkeye4640]

What vehicle(s) would you use to get there, propulsion, crew size, the works. I know you can come up with something <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[ehs40]

i think the vehilel will be the cev and the crew sizes will be between 4-6 but this is just a guess

 

[gavino]

1st I would do the same thing the Apollo prgrame did and than after some years makes a reuseable ship to go back in forth from Earth to the Moons. Than make some moon baces and look for stuff on the Moon that would be useful to Earth and my moon baces. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">gavinovz</span></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[no_way]

Something like that:<br />http://www.et.byu.edu/~jag42/PDP/propulsion/LSS.html<br /><br />A "mere" half a billion to get you there and back.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">What vehicle(s) would you use to get there, propulsion, crew size, the works. I know you can come up with something</font>/i><br /><br />I would die, get cremated, and have my ashes launched on a collision course with the moon. I plan to stay!</i>

 

[grooble]

I had an idea like that which i called the Space Taxi. The thread will be around here somewhere.<br /><br />

 

[john_316]

Good Question:<br /><br /><br />Well I will use my XJR-45 Space Saucer and dude it can fly. It runs on Element 115 and it can shift into gear quite fast. Mine has a seating capacity of 12 as it is a scout ship but If i had the XJR-27 or XJV-31 it could carry hundreds and thousands of tons of weaponry..<br /><br />Did I say weaponry??? Ooops they are innerstellar frigates...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[hawkeye4640]

Where can I get some of that Element 115, price per galloon here is sky rocketing

 

[john_316]

Hehe Bob Lazar of course!!!<br /><br />No just kidding<br /><br />I do think the SDHLV will be the ticket to the moon but we have to also look at what lunar vehicle designs will be used as well.<br /><br />I think the DC-X and DC-Y designs are very good for Lunar objectives. <br /><br />Or we could build those lil SPACE 1999 ships....<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

Nuclear Thermal Baby! All the way!<br /><br />My reusable moonship would use a Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) to go from LEO to the lunar surface. Return flight from the moon would use aerobraking to slow the moonship back into LEO. Think of something like a Delta Clipper but with a nuclear rocket engine! The moonship would have a six man crew.<br /><br />The moonship would refuel from an Earth orbital fuel depot. The orbital fuel depot would receive new fuel supplies via the orbital cannon rocket launcher built in the Andes mountains of Ecuador.<br /><br />The orbital cannon shoots a 5 ton rocket into space, the rocket burns to circularize the orbit, delivering a 3.7 ton payload into orbit at a cost of $500 a pound. It's great for launching fuel into orbit or other non-fragile supplies and consumables such as air and water.<br /><br />For managing some of the orbital elements you also need an orbital tug. Probably using a solar electric powered ion engine and xenon propellent. The tug collects errant satellites and performs stationkeeping reboosts for the orbital elements.<br /><br />The parts of the orbital fuel depot, the orbital tug, and the moon ship would be launched into orbit by a medium lift launch vehicle with a performance of about 25 tonnes to LEO. Since the moon ship would be too heavy for launching fueled, it would be dry launched and fueled in orbit.<br /><br />I favor a version of the SpaceX Falcon V booster for the medium lift launch vehicle. It would use three parallel common core boosters. The two outer cores would use the uprated 100,000 pound thrust RP-1/LOX Merlin rocket engines. The outer cores function together as the 1st stage booster. The inner core functions as a second stage sustainer and would use 50,000 pound thrust P&W RL-60 rocket engines burning LH2/LOX. The launch cost is 40 million dollars for a 25 tonne payload to LEO. Less than 1,000 dollars per pound of cargo.<br /><br />For manned access to LEO, the standard single core Fa

 

[morganyavin4]

I know of a way cooler method to transport us to the moon....<br /><br />http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/050708%5Fteleportation.html<br /><br />Beam me up Scotty!!!!!

 

[scottb50]

I would use a building block system. A fully reusable two stage HLV to an LEO staging base, a cycling vehicle from LEO to Lunar orbit and a Surface Transfer Vehicle based on the Moon.<br /><br />Identical Modules would reduce the cost immensely, HLV propellant tanks, Second Stage tanks and Cargo/Crew Containers would be identical Modules. The LEO Base, Cycler, Surface Transfer Vehicle and Lunar Station would be assembled from Second Stage Tanks and Containers, refurbished and outfitted at the LEO Base using components ferried from the surface as cargo. <br /><br />Propullsion would use existing Shuttle engines and SRBs for the HLV and proven RL-10 engines for the Cyclers and Transfer Vehicles.<br /><br />Crew size would be variable, eventually I would think you could look at roughly 20-30 passengers or the eqivalent cargo with a two or three person vehicle crew, once the initial facilities are constructed. Flexibility of the system would allow changing Module configurations as needed, from cargo to passengers or for extending facilities when needed. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[john_316]

Didn't I see someplace the new moon buggy ideas are supposed to be bigger, better, and enclosed lil trucks on the lunar surface... <br /><br />I am not so sure about skyhoppers unless they are DC-X/Y derived...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[georgeniebling]

EML-1????

 

[quasar2]

Earth-Moon Lagrange Point 1. Lagrange Points are areas in OuterSpace where Gravitational influences are canceled out. the most "famous" of these is EM & i`ll assume to add S for Sun L5, making it EMSL5, or L5 for short. where The Sun`s, Moon`s, & Earth`s g forces are cancelled. this is the most stable point in our relatively reachable sphere of influence. artifacts &/or vehicles theoretically can "stay put" in these areas, much like on a planetary surface, though relatively without a Gravity Well. EML or L1 is convenient for us. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[halman]

hawkeye4640,<br /><br />When you say "...get to the Moon," you seem to be implying if I were to do so right now. Why re-enact the Apollo program? Going to the Moon means building the infrastructure needed to support going there a lot, if we intend to do more than say "We did it." The space shuttle was an attempt of build the first portion of that infrastructure, a reusable launch vehicle which could land back at the launch site. It was supposed to carry segments of space stations and spacecraft into orbit, where the pieces would be put together. After a space station was completed, assembly of a Lunar shuttle could commence, building a vehicle which could haul good size payloads to the Moon, and return. This vehicle would be used to establish a base on the Moon, and to support said base.<br /><br />The idea of going directly to the Moon from Earth is very advanced technology, or, very primative. The very primaive we know, towering rockets that were used once and thrown away. The very advanced we can only dream of, some vehicle so powerful that it can launch itself away from Earth, yet so efficient that it still is able to land on the Moon and return to Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[radarredux]

Thoughts on getting to the Moon.<br /><ol type="1"><li>Scout out possible landing areas with LRO and other orbiters planned for the Moon by other countries.<li>Send a rover/lander to verify that the spot is a good spot. The lander could also include a beacon for future missions to follow.<li>Send an unmanned habitat module (perhaps bought from Bigelow) to the site verified by the lander and perhaps using the lander's beacon. The lander would include a small nuclear plant to generate power during the ~2 weeks of night.<li>Send human crew to the habitat. Since the crew would not stay in the lander, the lander would be more minimal than that currently planned (e.g., only supporting the crew for maybe 3 days). The crew could remain for weeks or months in the habitat.<li>Subsequent unmanned landers could provide supplies. Once again, the beacon could be used to guide the craft down. Since the supplied would not need an ascent module, a fair amount could be sent on a single launch.<br /></li></li></li></li></li></ol>

 

[halman]

Picking up where I left off, if I were to envision my ideal of a space transportation system that would take me to the Moon, I would think of these components; A carrier wing, launched by magnetic catatpult, carrying a 1,000,000 kilogram orbiter, which seperates at 15,000 meters, and climbs to orbit. The carrier wing burns kereosene and atmospheric oxygen to power turbofan engines, the orbiter burns kerosene and liquid oxygen in turbopump rocket engines.<br /><br />The orbiter climbs to a very low orbit, only about 200 kilometers, where it meets a space tug, which has a cargo capsule to be delivered to Earth. The personnell capsule I would ride in is completely self contained, so there are no umbilicals to disconnect when it is lifted out of the payload bay of the orbiter. It is 4 meters long, and 3 meters wide, so there is not a lot of space, but 9 people can survive in it for 10 days. The orbiter switches payloads, briefly fires its main engines, and begins re-entry.<br /><br />The space tug begins a burn to raise its orbit, only what it is burning is superheated water, which has passed through a nuclear reactor and been turned to steam. The reactor is powered down after the burn, to standby for another burn to circularize its orbit. That orbit is about 500 kilomters, where atmospheric resistance has fallen off to negligable. This orbit allows the space station to use low power thrusters for station keeping, firing them frequently. Because they are ion drives, they use very little fuel. At the space station, passengers depart the personnell capsule, and go their seperate ways. <br /><br />Passangers for the Moon and points east transfer to a Lunar shuttle, which is a sphere with landing gear. Using kerosene and lox, it enters a rapid transfer orbit, which swings it behind the Moon to lose some velocity, and depends on rocket braking to land gently on the Moon. This vehicle is able to land on surfaces up to 8 degrees off of the horizontal, which enables it to <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[mrmorris]

RR:<br /><br />Yours is actually the closest to what I envisioned, albeit I have a twist that yours didn't include. I'd like to see a Bigelow module used for a minimal space station in low-lunar orbit. This would be part of the second step (i.e. sending a lunar lander) as the lander would be a reusable one integrated with the station. The station would act both as a safe haven for astronauts coming from/leaving for Earth, and as a fuel depot for the lander. <br /><br />Astronauts coming from Earth would dock the CEV with the station, then use the lander to descend to the surface (presumably to the habitat you proposed there). Ideally, there would be a fuel depot on the surface as well, allowing the most efficient use of lander propellant.<br /><br />Such a station would allow for much safer missions for the astronauts, the reusable lander would eliminate the need to send umpteen disposable landers to the moon, and the pair would be a huge boost to the infrastructure required for a permanent lunar presence.

 

[georgeniebling]

ahhhh I'd always seen "L-1" not EML-1" ..... my bad.