News on Euro-Russian CSTS

[ckikilwai]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> Without a more capable heavy launch vehicle the CSTS concept will not work. It will merely be a Soyuz replacement for the ISS, which begs the question why anyone should fund its development. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The CSTS will be in the first place a replacement of the soyuz, and they are designing it so it could be used to fly to the moon later on.<br />And the reasons that it needs to be developed is that Russia wants to move on and wants more modern and bigger spacecraft, while Europe wants to have a way to get into space beside just buying seats of the soyuz.

 

[holmec]

Since they are not going with bigger boosters than they mentioned, I would assume that they will have 3 or 4 launch system to have a lunar landing.<br /><br />You could send the lunar lander ahead of the crew ship. Now I don't know if a lander with a booster for to get to lunar orbit is light enough to be launched by one of the proposed launchers, so it might require two. But their approach is not bad, being that making multiple launchers is probably cheaper than developing and operating a very large launcher.<br /><br />They have said that making Ariane V even man rated is costly, so to upgrade it to be a super launcher is way too costly for them.<br /><br />Also they are not going to be going to the moon quite as often as NASA, I presume. So a big launcher would have a simular fate as the Buran Shuttle, stowed. <br /><br />Now the other thing for the CSTS is manned missions to asteroids. They need this capability, we need this capability. To me that separates ESAS and CSTS from anything that anyone has ever done. That is to have the capability of going out beyond Earth orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[themanwithoutapast]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The CSTS will be in the first place a replacement of the soyuz, and they are designing it so it could be used to fly to the moon later on. <br />And the reasons that it needs to be developed is that Russia wants to move on and wants more modern and bigger spacecraft, while Europe wants to have a way to get into space beside just buying seats of the soyuz. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Ok, ahmmm, the new information the OP posted says, the crew size of the CSTS vehicle would be "either 3 or 4". As I outlined above, doing anything but going to the ISS (or unuseful circumlunar flights) is practically infeasible with existing launchers. If RSA would want a "more modern" and larger spacecraft, why the heck does this concept only consider a crew size of "3 or 4" vs. Soyuz's 3 seats? Considering the development costs, the higher launch costs (a Soyuz 2-3 will cost more per launch) and the higher costs for each CSTS-spacecraft compared to Soyuz, why would the Russians want to approve the CSTS concept?

 

[themanwithoutapast]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Since they are not going with bigger boosters than they mentioned, I would assume that they will have 3 or 4 launch system to have a lunar landing. <br /><br />You could send the lunar lander ahead of the crew ship. Now I don't know if a lander with a booster for to get to lunar orbit is light enough to be launched by one of the proposed launchers, so it might require two. But their approach is not bad, being that making multiple launchers is probably cheaper than developing and operating a very large launcher. <br /><br />They have said that making Ariane V even man rated is costly, so to upgrade it to be a super launcher is way too costly for them. <br /><br />Also they are not going to be going to the moon quite as often as NASA, I presume. So a big launcher would have a simular fate as the Buran Shuttle, stowed. <br /><br />Now the other thing for the CSTS is manned missions to asteroids. They need this capability, we need this capability. To me that separates ESAS and CSTS from anything that anyone has ever done. That is to have the capability of going out beyond Earth orbit. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />As I outlined above, you need more than 3 launches of existing heavy lift rockets to just do an orbital moon mission. Add a lunar lander into that concept and you probably need at least another 3 launches which makes 7 launches. This would not only be hughly expensive but the complexity of assembling these modules in orbit for a lunar mission renders this scenario unrealistically.<br /><br />You either come up with an upgrade of an existing rocket in order to decrease the number of launches or build a new rocket. ESA will do neither.

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>As I outlined above, you need more than 3 launches of existing heavy lift rockets to just do an orbital moon mission. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />No, you outlined a set of assumptions that makes it unworkable. Other people come up with other assumptions and put together numbers that work out for a 2-EELV two-man lunar surface mission:<br />http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2006/12/2-man-eelv-based-mission-numbers.html<br /><br />Given that such back-of-the envelope calcs work out, I am sure ESA/russians have enough competent engineers to make a three-launch lunar architecture work.<br />Keep in mind that Russians already routinely do in-space autonomous rendezvous and docking, and also propellant transfer.<br /><br />Saying that "exisiting rockets cant make a lunar orbital mission in three launches" means that you picked assumptions that dont work, but it aint the absolute truth.

 

[no_way]

btw, why is docking together seven modules on LEO more complex than docking three ? You just repeat the same operation multiple times, i'd assume the fourth, fifth and sixth docking are pretty much the same as the first three, because you are mostly adding more fuel to the stack. Just takes more frequent launches, but given how often Progress flies and docks with ISS right now where is the problem ?<br />And, seven Progress launches would roughly work out under half a billion dollars. Thats significantly cheaper than any new orbital launcher development.

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>ESA will do neither. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />C'mon, you don't <b>seriously</b> think EU will be content to sit back and get left behind when leading nations such as US, Russia, China and even India have their *own* manned missions racing off to Moon, Mars and NEOs in 15-20 years from now?! That's nonsense.<br /><br />EU is <b>500 million</b> people with a GDP of <b>$13 trillion</b>... they'll find a way to make the numbers work.<br /><br /><b>Bottom line</b> is that they'll end up pursuing whichever is the cheapest option (prob in a international partnership) and is most aligned with EU/ESA policy.<br />

 

[MeteorWayne]

What is CSTS?<br />Please translate acronyms in first post of useage <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[dreada5]

Crew Space Transportation System<br /><br />...also known as ACTS (Advanced Crew Transportation System)<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSTS

 

[themanwithoutapast]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>No, you outlined a set of assumptions that makes it unworkable. Other people come up with other assumptions and put together numbers that work out for a 2-EELV two-man lunar surface mission: <br />http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2006/12/2-man-eelv-based-mission-numbers.html <br /><br />Given that such back-of-the envelope calcs work out, I am sure ESA/russians have enough competent engineers to make a three-launch lunar architecture work. <br />Keep in mind that Russians already routinely do in-space autonomous rendezvous and docking, and also propellant transfer. <br /><br />Saying that "exisiting rockets cant make a lunar orbital mission in three launches" means that you picked assumptions that dont work, but it aint the absolute truth. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Your link suggests a 3t crew module and a 4.5t lunar lander and all LOX/LH propulsion with no margins, not mass is allocated to the tank structure and equipment that prevents boil-off. <br /><br />There is a reason why Apollo's weigh was 30t for the crew and service modules and 15t for the lunar lander. You may find some efficiencies here and there or reduce the size of the crew module and crew, but you will still need to at least carry about 30t to TLI, which 2 EELVs can't do.<br /><br />Ok, beside all the above, I described why the CSTS proposal will need at least 7 launches (including at least 5 Ariane 5s or Protons). The CSTS will be heavier than the current Soyuz, that's the assumption I started with and my conclusion was that with 3 launches you can't do an orbital mission if you spacecraft is heavier than the Soyuz spacecraft.

 

[themanwithoutapast]

btw, why is docking together seven modules on LEO more complex than docking three ?<br /><br />Boiloff problems, launch schedule on the ground, your propulsion modules will need to stay in orbit for quite some time before your mission starts.<br /><br />Actually every scenario that docks together more than two spacecraft is problematic, as this would require at least one unmanned docking without human supervision "on site" - because you will need to dock the first two unmanned modules before you can start your manned vehicle to dock with the assembled stack.

 

[themanwithoutapast]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>C'mon, you don't seriously think EU will be content to sit back and get left behind when leading nations such as US, Russia, China and even India have their *own* manned missions racing off to Moon, Mars and NEOs in 15-20 years from now?! That's nonsense. <br /><br />EU is 500 million people with a GDP of $13 trillion... they'll find a way to make the numbers work. <br /><br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />1. ESA is not part of the EU. <br /><br />2. ESA has never given priority to human spaceflight. It is about 15% of its budget, compared to 60% of NASA's budget. It makes more sense to cooperate with NASA on any mission beyond LEO for the next 30 years. <br /><br />RSA is not planning any human spaceflight activity to the moon apart from what the CSTS study is dealing with right now. Disregard the illusionist interviews with Energia's president (who is not a RSA official).<br /><br />The Chinese space program has 2 spaceflight on record since 2003. And it is not planned to progress any quicker. A moon mission is massively beyond their financial and technical capabilities. China's economy might grow increasingly, looking at their nominal and PPP GNP per capita, it is still a very poor country. <br /><br />India has just proposed a LEO mission in 2014. A bold statement for India, I hope they make it. Let's talk about India's moon plans in 10 years...<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Bottom line is that they'll end up pursuing whichever is the cheapest option (prob in a international partnership) and is most aligned with EU/ESA policy. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />3. Exactly. And sorry to say that, but the cheapest option for ESA is to participate in the ISS project, push for an extension of the ISS until 2020 and then participate in NASA's moon plan as a provider of scientific equipment and instruments, maybe even land their own cargo by an Ariane 5 one or two times and hitch one or two rides

 

[no_way]

re 5000lb capsule, Jon has obviously followed that up in later posts with more analysis, he is a rocket engineer himself after all<br />http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2006/12/addenda.html<br />http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2006/12/additional-addenda.html<br /><br />Whether CSTS in its current design will work with a three-launch architecture or not, i dont know nor care.<br />But saying that three existing launchers could not put humans on lunar orbit is not exactly right. With right architecture choices you can certainly do it, and some people seem to believe that you could land on the surface too.<br /><br />If ESA/RSA really want an economical way to get to the moon, i would think they are considering all options and will eventually come to a workable solution.<br /><br />As to doing three plus launches for a mission, currently russians do their launches pretty quick and are fairly tolerant of bad weather. I would guess that if they build a few extra pads ( which is definitely cheaper than developing new launchers ) then salvoing up launches for seven-launch architecture in short time would definitely be feasible.<br /><br />Keep in mind that some of russian launchers are still going up from submarines, designed to lob out ICBMs as fast as possible... <br /><br />EDIT: one more point. I really dont think that any modern solution would require humans for docking. Progress does it automatically usually, so plans the ESA ATV

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>1. ESA is not part of the EU. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />1. Everyone knows ESA is not part of EU and frankly I'm not sure it needs to be! They both have the same objectives (which is why I typed "ESA/EU"). Btw there is talk of integrating ESA.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>2. ESA has never given priority to human spaceflight. It is about 15% of its budget, compared to 60% of NASA's budget. It makes more sense to cooperate with NASA on any mission beyond LEO for the next 30 years. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />2. The past is not necessarily an accurate indicator of what ESA (or China/India) will be doing 10 years from now. Things change. It may indeed make more sense for ESA to cooperate with NASA sometimes, but since CEV (and its development) excludes international participation. ESA will obviously procure its own manned (lunar-capable) spacecraft - as will Russia.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>3. Exactly. And sorry to say that, but the cheapest option for ESA is to participate in the ISS project, push for an extension of the ISS until 2020 and then participate in NASA's moon plan as a provider of scientific equipment and instruments,<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />3. EU/ESA's objective is to grow their space capability. To not do so risks losing their prestige, influence etc. That will be the case if in 30 years from now you have India, China (and possibly private industry) flying their own missions to Moon/Mars and you have ESA still asking if they can hitch a ride with NASA because they decided not to invest in their own hardware because <i>"it made more sense to cooperate with NASA on any mission beyond LEO for the next 30 years."!!</i> <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <br /><br />As you note, economics will ultimately dictate where EU/ESA ends up, but with their objectives in mind, they will aim to develop a CSTS proposal that looks beyond I

 

[ckikilwai]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />Ok, ahmmm, the new information the OP posted says, the crew size of the CSTS vehicle would be "either 3 or 4". As I outlined above, doing anything but going to the ISS (or unuseful circumlunar flights) is practically infeasible with existing launchers. If RSA would want a "more modern" and larger spacecraft, why the heck does this concept only consider a crew size of "3 or 4" vs. Soyuz's 3 seats? Considering the development costs, the higher launch costs (a Soyuz 2-3 will cost more per launch) and the higher costs for each CSTS-spacecraft compared to Soyuz, why would the Russians want to approve the CSTS concept?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Because the ship will be cheaper for the Russians, ESA en Roskosmos share their part of the cost for developing and building it.<br />Even if the CSTS would be more expensive then the soyuz is now for Roskosmos , they got a good deal because they now have a better spacecraft.<br />ESA is happy to because they have more or less their own spacecraft for their human space flight program.<br />And they will both have the possibility of one day joining the next international space project.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>2. ESA has never given priority to human spaceflight. It is about 15% of its budget, compared to 60% of NASA's budget. It makes more sense to cooperate with NASA on any mission beyond LEO for the next 30 years.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Of course it is only 15 % of their budget, ESA doesn't even have a space ship, while NASA pays 1 billion dollar for each Shuttle mission.<br />And I don't know if it will make sense to the politicians to pay lunar tickets straight to the Americans for 30 years, while they can use the money for own R&D, and stimulating own industry that will produce the parts for the spaceship.

 

[holmec]

"As I outlined above, you need more than 3 launches of existing heavy lift rockets to just do an orbital moon mission. Add a lunar lander into that concept and you probably need at least another 3 launches which makes 7 launches."<br /><br />I just don't see that. the components you need is a capsule ship, a lander and a booster to get you to lunar orbit. That just 3 launches, and the lander can be pretty light. What your saying just doesn't add up. <br /><br />And I think you are gravely mistaken about Ariane V capabilities. It barely comes close to what Ares I will be able to do. That's probably why they won't use it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

I'm with no_way on this. But I appreciate your candor and enthusiasm themanwithoutapast. But try to listen to what some people say on this forum. Many are engineers and some work on actual space craft. So when they start spouting out numbers they are mostly right on. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

I have to partially agree with Themanwithoutapast. I have been working the numbers on ways to return to the Moon with the least amount of development cost for a while now. The bare minimum needed is at least 4 launches on LVs with a LEO payload capacity of around 20-25,000 kg.<br /><br />A sample version would work like this: The first item to be launched is a lunar lander based on the old Soviet LK concept weighing between the original 5,560 to 6,000 kg. This is launched with a Block D-2 stage weighing 16,900 kg fully loaded and 1,800 kg. empty with an Isp of 352 sec burning LOX/Kerosene. The total weight for the stack is 22,460 kg and would be launched on a Proton rocket.<br /><br />The next launch would be another Proton with an Angara KVRB upper stage which uses LOX/LH2. It weighs 23300 kg full and 3500 kg empty with an Isp of 461 sec. The KVRB stage docks with the LK/Block D-2 stack in LEO. The KVRB stage ignites and produces ~2,500 m/sec. of delta v. This is not enough to get to the Moon, so the Block D-2 stage conducts a short burn to increase the delta v to 3,000 m/sec. Once the LK/Block D-2 stack enters Lunar space, the D-2 stage completes a 1,100 m/sec. burn to put it in a parking orbit where it waits for the human crew.<br /><br />The human crew then launches on a Soyuz TMA/Block D-2 stack atop another Proton rocket. The D-2 stage only needs to be partially fueled to a gross mass of 10,000 kg. All together, the total stack weighs 17,220 kg. This stack also meets with an Angara KVRB upper stage in LEO. The KVRB launches the stack to the prerequisite 3,000 m/sec. delta v for TLI. Once in cis-lunar space, the D-2 stage then conducts a 1,100 m/sec for LOI. The Soyuz TMA/Block D-2 stack then docks with the LK/Block D-2 stage. Two of the crew transfer to the lander (I am assuming that the LK being used is just loosely based with the original LK and not an exact copy, allowing for a two man crew). The LK/Block D-2 stack undocks and the Block D-2 expe <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Neither Europe or Russia have that kind of a launcher, nor does it look like that will change in the foreseeable future. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It's simple. The US is concerned about the gap between shuttle and Ares I. Five years (or whatever it is) is too long and some in Congress maybe considering increasing that! That doesn't sit too well with many influential people who scan the international political landscape and in all likelihood they'll end up getting Congress to ensure the gap is kept to the 5 years/minimum rather than longer, right? <br /><br />Well, you may be surprised, but like minded people also exist in Europe and they'll ensure (similarly in Russia), EU sees the light makes the changes to ensure that come circa 2020 a multi-launch approach adds up or else that heavy LV is on its way rolling out to the pad! <br /><br />What's the alternative... ESA/RSA tussling with private industry, India and other newcomers nations for prime space and relevance in LEO, whilst NASA, CNSA flies its people out to the Moon, Mars, NEOs? Be serious. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Realistically, margins grow and a 5th LV would probably be needed. One of the main problems with that is the fact that to my knowledge there is only one LV with 4 launch pads (Proton), the rest have only 1 to 2. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Huh .. four Proton launches plus a Soyuz would still be a bargain for a manned lunar sortie, if compared to alternatives. Where is the need for larger launcher development ? Btw, there are more pads getting online soon for Soyuz in Korou. <br /><br />EDIT: To put it in better light. A billion $ buys you about ten Proton launches ( although with such a huge order, i believe a hefty discount would be available ) which is about 200 tons to LEO. <br />Take a hefty cut for all the docking and maneuvering losses, boiloff ans so on and leave it at about 150 tons.<br />With 150 tons fuelled stack in LEO, you can pretty much do whatever manned mission you want to the moon comfortably.

 

[PistolPete]

The main problem with a multiple launch lunar system is that it requires a great deal of timing to get all of the various windows to align. If there is bad weather over an extended period over the launch site or a technical problem with one of the LVs midway through the sequence, then the fuel in one of the upper stages may boil off below the critical level to continue with the mission. You then either waste several million dollars on a failed mission or spend several million more to rescue it.<br /><br />Every spaceflight is fraught with danger, but the multiple launch system has too many points in it where Murphy could easily throw a monkey wrench into the works. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[no_way]

Murphy throws wrenches around everywhere, both in single-launch, unverified new launcher architectures, and multiple-launch, proven launch vehicle architectures.<br /><br />Which configuration has larger chance of success, is up to analysis and is not a foregone conclusion. <br />You could size your lunar launch architecture for say five medium launch vehicles, with two standing by to refuel, if needed. <br />All the existing launcher reliability data will tell you that there is more than enough redundancy in such a system.<br /><br />If none of the launches fail, great, use the launcher to lob the next comm sat. If it fails, you take the loss of one fuel tanker and lob the next one.<br />If your super heavy launcher fails .. your entire mission is screwed, your launcher is likely grounded for extended periods, and you can pretty much kiss your missions goodbye.<br /><br />duh .. i basically repeating what has been analysed to death all over the web already, why not start the discussion from where it has been left off, not starting over from the basic blanket statements with no basis every single time ?

 

[no_way]

BTW, the often thrown around boil off problem .. have you actually looked up at what time frames it becomes an issue ? A simple google turns up pages like this:<br />http://www.dunnspace.com/cryogen_space_storage.htm<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Overall, the tank set in the example above is boiling off 0.45 + 0.36 = 0.81 kg of propellant per hour, which is 1% of the initial total mass per month.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />One percent ?? If you launch nearly 20 tons on a Proton, thats 200kgs of propellant lost, per month. Keep an extra Dnepr standing by and your boiloff fears are solved for good.

 

[scottb50]

Huh .. four Proton launches plus a Soyuz would still be a bargain for a manned lunar sortie, >>>><br /><br />The problem in it's entirety. None of these options, or the American plan for that matter, offer more than sorties.<br /><br />I think long term lunar operations could be sustained with medium and smaller launchers if you combine them with a manned assembly and dispatch station in orbit. Instead of launching a Soyus launch modules, either pre-outfitted or outfitted in orbit they could be assembled into transit vehicles, landing vehicles and surface structures as needed.<br /><br />As long as the station was in relatively low orbit pretty much any launcher that now exists could lift some sort of payload to it and if nothing else te volume of operations would help build a viable infrastructure. How cheap would Falcon 1's become if they were used to deliver even 1000 pounds of propellant?<br /><br />As for boil off concerns, with an assembly facility propellant storage could be indefinite with a managed system.<br /><br />The idea should be not to simply repeat the Apollo scenerio until everyone gets tired of it like before, but to establish a base in the same context as ISS and keep it crewed and supplied. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[no_way]

getting from sortie to a buildup style would of course be much preferrable, but the main thrust of this argument here was whether bigger launchers are inevitably needed to go to moon.<br />I would say, that a lot of competent people seem to think, that they are not, and problems in orchestrating multi-launch architecture are solveable.