Questions about NASA returning to the moon

[vt_hokie]

I wouldn't mind seeing VSE cancelled outright, but if it's not, I hope that a superior launch system is developed by somebody that makes the cost of NASA's antiquated launch systems impossible to justify. This whole thing is designed more to keep existing contractors employed than it is to design and build the best next generation space transport infrastructure possible.

 

[holmec]

>Why doesn't NASA just build a single ship that can leave Earth orbit, land on the moon, and return to Earth orbit all in one piece? Is NASA using the Apollo approach to save time and money, so it won't have to experiment with a totally different method of returning to the moon? <<br /><br />Because of lessons learned. A single ship that launches form earth and lands on the moon and back would require lots of man power to maintain and a lot of money, and its inefficiency would astonomical. It will also require a lot of propellant. To launch from earth in such a vehicle, you need to lauch not only the crew and equipment but all the propellant you need for the rest of the trip. To lauch from the moon you need to lauch the crew, equipment and all the fuel you need to get back. Terribly, terribly inefficient.<br /><br />Apollo on the other hand did lauch the whole thing from the ground, but did not land all the propellant on the moon, so it did not have to launch it form the moon. This is a big savings in fuel.<br /><br />The CEV is not just for the moon its for ISS and Mars. So a versitile ship is required, and you can't get much more vesitile than a capsule.<br /><br />Two rockets are required so more stuff can be taken and also for safety of the crew. Its safer to launch the stuff and the people seperately. The bigger the rocket the more things can go wrong.<br /><br />Also its a proven system. Why reinvent the wheel? We might as well use the data from Apollo to the hilt, less money you have to pour into research. <br /><br />Modularity is what gave success to Apollo and is the back bone of the ISS , Soyuz and even Senzhou systems. The exception system has been the Shuttle system. We lauched our labs with our crew while the Russians were lauching their labs and sending up more than one crew. Thus reusing their labs with only one launch, while the Shuttle kept on launching the labs several times. Two problems arose, operational cost and safety. <br /><br />If <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 know saving money is important, but it just seems like the new NASA design doesn't introduce a really new concept of going to the moon. I guess we still have to wait a few decades more before we see something like that moon ship in 2001 A Space Odyssey.<<br /><br />We are no where near that type of ship. But if we pull off a Mars manned mission, we will be closer.<br /><br />But if you want to see what could we could possibley build if there were enough money, watch the video "Voyage to the planets" by BBC Video. They have a concept of a pretty interesting ship. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[yoda9999]

I wasn't saying launch from the Earth's surface. I was saying launch from Earth orbit. We can have the shuttle or Soyuz ferry astronauts to the ISS. The moonship can be docked at the ISS. All the moonship does is go from Earth orbit to the lunar surface and back. I suppose we need a new form of propulsion to do that.

 

[halman]

yoda9999,<br /><br />Practically every well-thought out plan for repeated travel to the Moon uses a specialized 'lunar shuttle', to ferry people from Earth orbit to the lunar surface. Such a ship would almost certainly be based on chemically fueled rockets, because of the thrust necessary for landing and taking off from the Moon. The transfer orbit from Earth orbit to the Moon is a fairly low energy one, as is the return, so there is not much sense in developing a new propulsion system to be used on a lunar shuttle. Almost any feasible advanced drive system is likely to be low thrust, but capable of burn times measured in days, not minutes.<br /><br />Regarding Bush's 'brainchild'. I seriously doubt that Bush had anything to do with the creation of the Vison for Space Exploration. I want to believe that many powerful people in this country are gravely concerned by the loss of technical ability the United States is suffering, as well as the extremely low numbers of young people taking math and science majors. Then, there is the attrition of aerospace companies to worry about, which is in large part due to the almost complete absense of any large-scale purchasing by NASA for the last 20 years.<br /><br />I am sure that I am not alone in believing that the future of this country depends in large part on how we handle space exploration, because of the huge effects it has on our technology, industrial capability, and knowledge base. We have too high a standard of living to try to compete with third-world companies for minimum skill industries. We must be working the highest levels of technology if we are to justify the wages that we demand. Without action on the part of the government, development of space technology will almost certainly be limited to satellite and tourist business, and neither one will employ very many people, nor will either one enable us to return to the Moon.<br /><br />Republicans include a large number of corporate executives and owners, and I su <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

halman,<br /><br />I agree. Had X-33 not been cancelled, who knows, maybe I'd still be involved in that in some fashion! However, I did not become an aerospace engineer so that I could work on a glorified Apollo capsule. And given that I'm not going to get anywhere financially in engineering, I'm leaning toward pursuing an MBA provided I can get into a decent business school. It doesn't surprise me that there is a shortage of engineering students. Why would the best and the brightest choose a difficult field of study only to work for mediocre pay and work under the constant threat of layoffs at a time when it seems to take a six figure salary just to afford a modest home and what used to be a normal middle class lifestyle?

 

[haywood]

vt_hokie...<br /><br />Are you actually working on the CEV?<br />

 

[alokmohan]

Dream Regarding Bush's 'brainchild'. I seriously doubt that Bush had anything to do with the creation of the Vison for Space Exploration. I want to believe that many powerful people in this country are gravely concerned by the loss of technical ability the United States is suffering, as well as the extremely low numbers of young people taking math and science majors. Then, there is the attrition of aerospace companies to worry about, which is in large part due to the almost complete absense of any large-scale purchasing by NASA for the last 2Dream of going to all planets started since sputnic days.

 

[vt_hokie]

No, I'm not. Nor do I have any desire to. I'm saying that it isn't the kind of thing that inspires me and makes me want to be a part of it.

 

[mattblack]

We know... <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>

 

[bushuser]

Back to the 2001: A Space Odyssey analogy for a moment. Arthur Clarke's single stage design for a lunar lander was efficient, and minimized dead weight, because it was refueled on the Moon. We know NASA will not have that capability anytime soon, but that's what everyone needs to be working towards...exploiting something native to the Moon to allow refueling, thus more efficient spacecraft. I wonder if at 1/6 G, the lunar base could assist launches with something like the hydraulic catapults on aircraft carriers? It would have to function vertically, not horizontal.

 

[mattblack]

It's NOT a SSTO: If you read the 2001 novel, Clarke says the Orion spaceplane, as featured in the film, uses a large re-usable booster to lift the Orion spaceplane to supersonic speed high in the stratosphere, then the Orion's NUCLEAR thermal rocket motor takes it to orbit. The bulge in the rear of the design is it's reactor. SSTO to orbit for manned AND cargo, using chemical propulsion, is a myth. LOX/LH2 is already pushing the limits of engine Isp. Materials & engine technology will have to improve dramatically before SSTO for even SMALL crew and cargo is possible.<br /><br />With strap-on boosters, solid or otherwise, Venturestar might have been possible. Eventually.<br /><br />But the weight problems with X-33 didn't bode well and the budget for it was too tight. Shame really <br /><br />Theres no shame to be had if a "CATS" vehicle ends up being a 1.5 or even 2-stage design. I don't for the love of god know why some people get hung up so bad on the SSTO holy grail. As long as the thing was considerably cheaper, quicker & safer than the Space Shuttle Orbiter; SURELY that would be the measure of success?? <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>

 

[alokmohan]

CATS vehicle.What is that?

 

[qso1]

Cheap Access To Space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

>I wasn't saying launch from the Earth's surface. I was saying launch from Earth orbit. We can have the shuttle or Soyuz ferry astronauts to the ISS. The moonship can be docked at the ISS. All the moonship does is go from Earth orbit to the lunar surface and back. I suppose we need a new form of propulsion to do that.<<br /><br />Ah yes, the lauching from orbit schema. Oh I remember that IS what the new plan of NASA incorporates! Only we have a use once moon craft and the CEV reenters without going into earth orbit.<br /><br />Perhaps later, when the orbital gass stations open up (with a convinient store) someone will come up with the idea of a reusable moon ship/booster rocket combo. But that idea I'm afraid is for the future, but it has merit. <br /><br />["Number 5 please, and this latte" you say, "Cash or credit?" says the attendant chewing gum. ''You take Lunar Express?".........] <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 say instead of a caterpult a compressed air(or some gas) cannon to shoot a ship. Akin to J Vernes idea.<br /><br />"Ready, aim, FIRE" Boom "We kicked their deriers to Mars!" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

>Orion's NUCLEAR thermal rocket motor <<br /><br />Hmmm....thermal nuclear and rockets.... a strange love, doctor. <br /><br />nice pic!<br /><br />But thank goodness for SCRAM engine research. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[yoda9999]

mattblack:<br />It's NOT a SSTO: If you read the 2001 novel, Clarke says the Orion spaceplane, as featured in the film, uses a large re-usable booster to lift the Orion spaceplane to supersonic speed high in the stratosphere, then the Orion's NUCLEAR thermal rocket motor takes it to orbit. The bulge in the rear of the design is it's reactor.<br /><br />Me:<br />Umm...I think we were talking about the moon shuttle pod that Heywood Floyd took from the Space Station to Clavius. Not the Pan Am spaceplane. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[bushuser]

Compressed air will work too, but may be too valuable a commodity on the moon. I bet hydraulic fluid will be less precious, and it can be recycled indefinitely.