Robert Zubrin: How to build a lunar base

[wvbraun]

Three excellent pieces by Robert Zubrin. He makes a *very* compelling case for developing an HLV for manned lunar missions and for designing the required hardware with Mars missions in mind.<br /><br />The Launch Issue<br /><br />The Mission Plan<br /><br />Evolution to Mars<br /><br /><br />Whenever I read something by Zubrin I find myself thinking: "Yes, that's it! That's the way to go, it's so obvious." Probably has something to do with the fact that the first book I read about space exploration was "Entering Space"...

 

[quasar2]

i wish he would`ve been a bit more lenient towards Lunar development than he has been in the past. when i saw him in person he made anything to do w/ The Moon a total joke. it seemed unprofessional @ the time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thinice]

Ten years later that Zubrin will teach people how to build a LEO space station.

 

[scottb50]

Finally something I agree with Zubrin on! Shuttle propulsion components with a second stage makes the most sense of any means of getting acceptable payloads into LEO, something I have said here repeatedly. I still question his love of Methane as a power source though. LH and LOX is the only things that will work for every aspect. <br /><br />One point I have made from the announcement of Bush's plan is the fact it was political and not realistic. I find it hard to believe those who understand, at least to a point, what is needed has absolutely no relationship to Bush's proposals, they are far fetched in the least and pulled out of his B*** at the most in their believability and sincerity. They are like the parrot in the Monty Python skit. <br /><br />Retire the Shuttle and have no plans to replace the heavy lift capability. Expect Delta and Atlas to carry the loads when it would take tens of launches just to set up a Moon base, let alone staff it and supply it, tens go to hundreds when you start talking Mars. I'm sure Boeing and Lock*Mart are salivating, but it's totally rediculous. <br /><br />NASA I can understand, you don't want to tell the Emporer he has no cloths, plus you want to keep your funding, but at some point reality has to sink in. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

Well, the emperor has just nominated Mike Griffin, a strong proponent of HLV development for the post of NASA administrator...<br /><br />

 

[gofer]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"HLV...the loads when it would take tens of launches just to set up a Moon base, let alone staff it and supply it..."<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Ah, and here's, IMHO, is The Rub. Economy-wise: A *sustainable* and *self-perpetuating* (key words) program needs low-cost, but *frequent* *traffic*. Paradox? The optimal size of the package will be determined by trial and error, supply and demand, push-and-pull of the market, but is *not* the crux of the matter at all! A secondary consideration at most! (That is if the VSE is to be not another 'flags and footprints' rush program, but, as I hope, another help from the government to create whole markets (like the freeway network, railroads, computers, etc....) Not one-shot gargantuan deliveries of whole bases, and that's it. Rather, *enable* a self-perpetuating circle of low-cost small/large/whatever package deliveries of ingredients to the moon/Mars bases which should strive to be as self sufficient as possible (at least in terms of the propellant/energy generation). Apologies for (over)stressing words, but this point often seems to escape the 'wow, let's put together a really huge rocket to launch a whole moon base in one shot' crowd. <br /><br />And where is NASA in this picture? Of course exploring, "boldly going...", starting up bleeding edge technologies, opening markets, etc... NOT doing the routine HLV and what not deliveries... (my picture of the future anyway)<br />

 

[scottb50]

I didn't say one shot launches of a Moon base, just resonable payloads that don't take ten years to put enough material into place to build a base. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shyningnight]

WHat makes more sense;<br />Moving 10 eight foot 2x4's by cutting them in half and taking them on your motorcyle?<br />Or Putting all ten in the back of a light pickup in one load?<br /><br />Small launchers for the small payloads<br />Medium launchers for the medium payloads,<br />and BIG launchers for the BIG payloads.<br /><br />Right now, we're forced into the terribly inefficient method of cutting what SHOULD be one large payload into 3-4-5 pieces to send it up with the "minivan" of launchers, rather then investing in a good flatbed.<br /><br />My opinion;<br />We DO need to develop a heavier launcher for heavier payloads...<br />Be that using STS hardware, or going a little (?) overboard and building something truely cool like SeaDragon.<br /><br />That does't mean we have to over-design and over-engineer EVERYTHING to make it "worthwhile" to launch in one "huge" package rather than a couple smaller ones.<br /><br />If we want to think along the lines of sending REASONABLE amounts of payload OUT of LEO, we're either going to be saddled with the wasted expense of multiple flights of smaller launchers and multiple manned assembly missions, OR we're going to need the ability to launch SOME big payloads in one piece.<br /><br />The "One Launcher Fits All" concept died with Challenger, and Columbia reminded us.<br /><br />

 

[orzek]

There doesn't seem to be much of a market in space at the moment.... Anyway if one wants to do anything useful beyond LEO, a heavy lift is the only answer and the most economical. Zubrin is quite right and I am glad he recognizes the moon as more worthwhile than his previous negativity towards it. Besides even with a heavy lift vehicle, one will still require quite a lot of launches for building moon bases and mars missions and beyond. At least it won't be the rediculous number required using the alternative.

 

[summoner]

Why not bring back the Saturn's then? This model the saturn4xu was estimated to be able to take 550,000 kg to leo. Wouldn't take many launches to set up shop with that kind of payload. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

 

[shyningnight]

I don't pretend to know all the economics or mechanics of launchers...<br />But I think that something like the SeaDragon MIGHT be more economical.. the Saturns were great.. but more of a luxury car (luxury truck?) than an economical workhorse.<br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm<br />450,000kg to 185Km orbit... no slouch... (assuming it's even practical to build).<br /><br />(now we'll see if I know how to make a link...) <br />Paul F.

 

[mattblack]

Bob Zubrin is right. Assembling each lunar mission with 4 medium lift launchers is just nutty, costly and risky.<br /><br />Can you imagine how the flat-Earth mainstream press would howl if one of these boosters blew up on the pad or in the air?:<br /><br />"The so-called space initiative is a white elephant, a boondoggle and a waste of taxpayers money that would be better spent on Socialist policies and bleeding heart special interests!"<br /><br />Forgive my cynicism, but the possible prophecy above scares me half to death. We CANNOT allow the space initiative to be gutted by naysayers and penny-pinchers. Either make a Shuttle-based HLV or cluster 7 uprated Atlas V's together and stop procrastinating. The Shuttle launchpads exist, the staff are in place and a 5-segment SRB has been tested. I believe that a Shuttle-derived HLV, side-mounted configuration with 2x RS68 and stretched SRBs is the quickest and easiest to understand and achieve. Little or no modifications to Pads 39A & B, the Crawlers and the VAB would be needed. 85 tons to LEO, no sweat. Then later, if money is available, develop an inline version with 3x uprated RS68s under a slightly stretched tank and an upper stage with 1x RS68 or SSME. 150 tons to LEO or more!!<br /><br />Also, I see value in using an Atlas V 552 or uprated Delta 4 Heavy to launch CEVs on ISS missions. This would be cheaper than a Shuttle derived launcher for mere crew and cargo exchanges.<br /><br />I've said a lot of the above in my older postings, but I'm writing this again for the newbies and the jaded. <br /><br />LET'S GET ON WITH IT!!! <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>

 

[grooble]

I wonder how much better that sea dragon could be with the cutting edge of technology, like morris's G-X3?

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"I wonder how much better that sea dragon could be with the cutting edge of technology"</font><br /><br />Economy of Seadragon came from the fact that it's design is anything but cutting edge. Very low pressure engines, pressure fed, simple steel hull, use sea as a launch pad etc. It's more like flying submarine than a rocket, a <i>shipyard</i> could build it instead of Boeing-LM hitech factories.

 

[alpha_taur1]

"What makes more sense; Moving 10 eight foot 2x4's by cutting them in half and taking them on your motorcyle? Or Putting all ten in the back of a light pickup in one load?"<br /><br />You missed out a stage - develop and test the light pickup if light pickups are not currently in production. The motorcycles already exist.<br />

 

[quasar2]

there`s yet another stage, tow or carry a small pickup w/ a rollback crewcab. a small pickup can still be slept in in a pinch. leave small pickup in a storage area. while using rollback, rollback can also be used as a dumpbed. meanwhile small pickup makes small sidetrips. small pickup has plenty of room for a moped or veggie-oil bike. asa a matter of fact veggie oil should be used whenever possible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shyningnight]

You make my point nicely...<br />Trying to build (for example) a house and haul the lumber WITHOUT first developing so much as a LIGHT pickup borders on ********!<br /><br />BUILD AND TEST THE DAMN TRUCK! Then you can get moving on contruction projects without chopping your 2x4's into little bitty parts and having to reassemble them (with more manpower, and a LOT more nails...).<br /><br />Paul F.

 

[alpha_taur1]

"BUILD AND TEST THE DAMN TRUCK! "<br /><br />Also remember that you're asking a government agency to project manage the design and testing of that truck, cost cutting all the way. <br />"We can't afford those expensive optically coated windscreens. <br /><br />-Well they are necessary. The building yard has some high glare. Our subcommittee already confirmed that.<br /><br />- Ok, let's substitute a cheaper fuel hose to stay on budget."<br /> <br />When exactly did you want to land on Mars?

 

[shyningnight]

Didn't say it would be EASY..<br />(also didn't mean to imply that I thought it should NECESSARILY be a Government project...)..<br /><br />But that doesn't mean that it doesn't need doing. <br /><br />Paul F.

 

[summoner]

It needs to be put up for bid, just like every other business in the world. Throw the specs out and have the companies bid on it. Whoever comes in with the best design gets the contract for x amount of rockets for x price. You'd of course have to have strict oversight to moniter construction, but that's the real world. No cost-plus jobs. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

 

[trailrider]

Sea Dragon! Oh, does that bring back memories! In the summer of 1962, I worked for R. C. Truax at Aerojet's Advanced Projects Dept. The Sea Dragon concept was one of the things on which I did calculations. We had several configurations, with 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 MILLION lbf first stages! Truax also had us working on the idea of using self-pressurizing storable liquid propellants, including various oxides of nitrogen and light hydrocarbons. These propellants were in gaseous phase at ambient temperatures and pressures, but would stay liquid under their own vapor pressures. (Some of them required slight chilling, or could be loaded and the tankage heated. One test, which I didn't observe had used an Aerobee sounding rocket, with the tanks being wrapped in an electric blanket!) There were no pumps or pressurant inert gases with this design. The valves were simply opened and the propellants began boiling in the ullage, forcing the liquid into the engine. Combustion pressures were VERY low, somewhere in the order of 120-180 psia. Feed pressures allowed for a delta-p across the injectors of not much more than 60-80 psia. The idea was LIFT capability, NOT efficiency. R.C. kept a lucite container filled with liquid Freon. It had a valve at one end. He would demonstrate the concept of self-pressurization by pointing the nozzle downward and opening the valve. The Freon gas would shoot out, and you could see the liquid boiling at the top in the ullage.<br /><br />Truax was hired by Evil Kinevil to power the "Sky Cycle", but using saturated steam rather than the bi-propellants. The cycle failed to clear the Snake River and Kinevil had to use his parachute. Truax accepted responsibility for the failure, saying he hadn't gotten the steam pressure high enough. I don't believe him! I don't think that thing was ever intended to land on the other side of the canyon. If it had, Kinevil would have been split like a fish! And Truax had a mind like a steel trap! He wouldn't

 

[shyningnight]

Thank you for your perspective on SeaDragon!<br />I only knew it as a page at Astronautix.com... now I know there was more behind it than one person sitting at a desk!<br />I have no idea if it would prove practical today, but it sure is a hell of an idea! <br /><br />Paul F.

 

[gofer]

"heavy lift" appears to be a personal label. There is no research behind it, at least I could not detect any. Why a 100+ ton mass? Why not 10000 tons? Why is "20 tons" not heavy enough? Why? Why does it have to be what the Saturn-5 was capable of? We do *NOT* want to re-enact "Apollo", do we? (as glorious as it was at the time) We want a space-based economy? Do we require that the river-shipping barges be capable of X ton deliveries? No, *they*, somehow figure out the optimal amount.

 

[wvbraun]

"There is no research behind it, at least I could not detect any. Why a 100+ ton mass? Why not 10000 tons? Why is "20 tons" not heavy enough?"<br /><br />Have you even read Zubrin's article?

 

[gofer]

Yes, I have read the article.<br /><br />The only thing resembling a 'definition' of the "heavy lift" I found: "...The way to solve this problem is simple: develop a heavy lift vehicle that allows the entire mission to be launched with a single booster, just as was done during Apollo..."<br /><br />That is not a substantiated requirement, in my view. (That is aside from my general opposition to NASA developed/operated launch systems on the grounds of efficiency) And I do not see a good reasoning in the article that 'multiple dockings/rendezvous in LEO' are inferior to 'single shot' scenarios.<br /><br />A side-note: the soviet "energia/buran" system is a good example of the "let's build a big f...n rocket, 'cause we going to need it anyway, and because 'they' have it". The program was doomed only marginally by the cut-off of the funding, but mostly by "... then we discovered there were NO payloads for such a system..." <br /><br />I.e. developing a launch system prior to establishing and designing the *payloads* is not going to work in the long run. That mistake is what the "we need an HLV, just because Apollo was done that way" thesis appears to be now. <br />