Sneak Preview of Moon/Mars Architecture

[sequencor]

Here's a detailed look at the VSE from the Orlando Sentinel.<br />It has a pretty cool illustration too.<br /><br />http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/orl-asec-moon073105,0,3136666.htmlstory?coll=orl-home-promo

 

[arconin]

Interesting article; I am concerned however that it will be viewed simply at Apollo take 2, been there done that, by many of the citizens and thus support will wane. With no appreciable difference to non techie types I think this will be a hard sell.<br /><br />I am also concerned with the waste of tossing away any expensive part. If they are not designed to be dual purpose then it is a waste, just like the ET for the shuttle is.<br /><br />Overall I am cautiously optimistic, yet....something does not sit right and I am not sure what...I think because it smacks too much of Apollo...we will see; im not sure that is a bad thing.

 

[john_316]

Nice post:<br /><br />But??? Crew of 3 to ISS... Thats absurd.... They should build a 4 to man 6 man CEV so the ISS can occupied by more crew. The 3 person crew idea on ISS is totally troubling. I can see a 6 person crew and more science getting done. The CEV could also serve as an lifeboat too.<br /><br />They also mention the SM (Service Module) will also be expendible. They should be reused as well and kept in orbit perhaps attached to the ISS so that they can be refuelled and reused for other moon missions.<br /><br />I am trying to find ways to save the taxpayers money too...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br />

 

[silylene old]

yes, it is a cool article, especially for a newspaper.<br /><br />I wish they said "far side of the moon" instead of "dark side of the moon". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[skywalker01]

Thank you for the link.

 

[cuddlyrocket]

Astronauts sent up by CEV won't be the only crew on the ISS. There'll also probably be 3 people sent up by Soyuz (or even more by its successor). A six person crew seems reasonable.<br /><br />And, if there's the docking ports available, there's no reason you cannot have more than two ships there at once.<br /><br /><br />The article (obviously written by someone not too technically literate) basically tells us what we expected. I'm interested in the LOX/LCH4 engines on the lunar ascent vehicle. Is this simply a desire not to develop two sets of engines (as all the Mars mission plans currently out there have such engines for the ascent stage), or do they have some particular ISRU/storage reasons for it?

 

[ehs40]

i agree that there needs to be more people at the iss it is up there for studing the long term effects of space on people and we need to get a lot of different people up there to study the effects. i believe it takes a 3 man crew to operate the station so that would be a waste of time to have only 3 people up there but im sure nasa will figure it out when the time comes.

 

[sequencor]

^You're welcome for the link, skywalker.<br /><br /><br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"But??? Crew of 3 to ISS... Thats absurd.... They should build a 4 to man 6 man CEV so the ISS can occupied by more crew. The 3 person crew idea on ISS is totally troubling. I can see a 6 person crew and more science getting done. The CEV could also serve as an lifeboat too. "<br /><br />The three man CEV for ISS support is not as bad as you think. The ISS is designed for a crew of 6. Normal crew rotation would not have a complete switchout of crew. So for operational purposes a three man CEV is just right for the ISS.<br /><br />Since there is a plan for a cargo only version of the CEV for ISS support it would not surprise me if there is also a plan for a lifeboat version of the CEV that would hold 6 or more people.<br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

Interesting article, but I'm disturbed by several things.<br /><br />For one thing the numbers don't compute. The new Lunar Lander has a cargo capacity of 23 tons? But the orginal Apollo LM had a total mass of only 15 tonnes. The CEV capsule is 12 tons? But the original Apollo CM had a mass of only 6 tonnes. And these new spacecraft are going to get to the moon via one launch of a SRB derived launch vehicle plus one launch of the SDHLV? It doesn't add up.<br /><br />And the Mars architecture is wildly different than the Moon architecuture. The Moon architecture uses Lunar Orbit Rendevouz while the Mars architecture uses Mars Direct. And there is no mention of nuclear power in the Mars architecture, Mars Direct only works with nuclear power!<br /><br />And what's with the conical CEV capsule? Is NASA returning to it's micromanaging ways? Is NASA going to deny the contractors from proposing designs the contractors think might work better? So much for the Lockheed-Martin lifting body or the Northrop-Grumman Soyuz clone.

 

[wvbraun]

"The Moon architecture uses Lunar Orbit Rendevouz while the Mars architecture uses Mars Direct." <br /><br />I think that's great. <br /><br /><br />"And there is no mention of nuclear power in the Mars architecture, Mars Direct only works with nuclear power!"<br /><br />The article doesn't rule out the use of nuclear power either. I'm sure NASA is planning to use nuclear power both for Moon missions and for Mars missions since Griffin has made the development of surface (nuclear) power systems a high priority.<br />

 

[liquidspace2k]

It does mention anything in that article about a crew of 3 to the ISS, well if it did i must have missed it.<br /><br />The CEV can carry more then 3 people cause at least 4 people are suppose to land on the Moon, and i'm sure one or two will stay in the CEV while they are on the moon. <br /><br />What i don't like about this is, it looks a little too much like Apollo, with very little improvements, well there might be some big improvements but to the average person it would look just like apollo with little improvements. The astronauts are to stay on the moon for a week. They need to stay much longer then that to make going back to the moon sensable to me

 

[wvbraun]

"It does mention anything in that article about a crew of 3 to the ISS, well if it did i must have missed it."<br /><br />Yes, you did.<br /><br /><br />"The CEV can carry more then 3 people cause at least 4 people are suppose to land on the Moon, and i'm sure one or two will stay in the CEV while they are on the moon."<br /><br />I don't think so. There have been other reports that indicated that the CEV will carry a crew of 3-4.<br /><br />The CEV in lunar orbit will probably be unmanned.<br /><br /><br />"The astronauts are to stay on the moon for a week. They need to stay much longer then that to make going back to the moon sensable to me"<br /><br />They will stay longer on later missions.

 

[liquidspace2k]

Ok maybe i did read it wrong, i'll have to read it again.. but it did say that the Lunar Lander was suppose to carry 4 people down to the surface. If for people are suppose to go down to the surface then at least 4 people will ride up in the CEV, since the CEV will attach to the Lunar equipment on different launches. If the CEV can only carry 3 people then how is that 4th person going to get up there so he/she can land on the moon with the rest. <br /><br />EDIT:: ok i'm sorry i did read it wrong, a 3 person verison would be taken to the ISS, and a larger 4 person would be sent to the moon. And an even bigger version, a 6 person one, would be taken to Mars. <br /><br />"Engineers already are developing a cone-shaped Crew Exploration Vehicle, or CEV. Initial versions of the CEV would launch aboard the modified shuttle booster rocket and carry three-person crews to the space station a couple of times per year. <br /><br />The ships also could be used to transport cargo to the outpost. Larger, future versions of the capsule would take four people to the moon and six-person crews to Mars."<br /><br />I don't understand really why they need 3 different size ships. Cant they just make a 6 person CEV from the begining and save all the money from having to develop the two other ships. <br />

 

[dragon04]

Very interesting article. Thanks for posting it. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />It's just that darned land-on-the-ground-with-a-parachute thing. Gonna hafta ratchet back the settings on the old coolometer.<br /><br />But getting us TO the Moon and Mars makes up for it. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

I live in Orlando and get the Sentinel -- so already saw it. Interesting article, but I'd take it with a great big grain of salt.<br /><br />For one -- I haven't seen anything corroborating this. If the plan at this level of detail had <b>truly</b> been release by NASA -- then this architecture should have been all over the Web.<br /><br />Two -- as I noted when I read it originally, and others have posted here -- there are inaccuracies in the article that don't add up. Just as a for-example:<br /><br /><i>"The lander's design follows the same general concept as Apollo's. It has two basic parts. The bottom descent stage is a four-legged platform with rocket engines that lower the craft to the moon's surface. A detachable upper ascent stage serves as a crew compartment and launches the astronauts back to lunar orbit when their mission is complete. <br /><br />The ascent stage's engines are designed to burn liquid-methane propellant. Small amounts of methane are thought to be present in Mars' atmosphere, creating the possibility that astronauts might be able to produce their own rocket fuel instead of carrying it with them. "</i><br /><br />It goes from talking about the lunar lander, to speaking about the Mars lander (they're very unlikely to have many similarities). The methane statement is stupid. Yes, there is (probably) some methane in Mars' atmosphere, but that's *not* what would be used to fuel a hypothetical lander -- instead it would be generated on-site by a chemical process. The lunar lander *might* use methane, but there's no compelling reason for it to.<br /><br />I'd attribute a good bit of this article to a journoh who was a bit too eager for a couple pages on section A of the paper.

 

[mikejz]

a few intresting things..<br /><br />They quote only about $500 Mil for a SDHLV with throw away SSMEs (that seems really really low) In addition, the single stick CEV launcher seems rather pricey. <br /><br /><br />Also, no one has yet to give a good reason as to why a SDHLV should only fly with 2 SRBs (I mean come on guys, strap 4 or 6 on that baby!) <br /><br />Also leaving the CEV unmanned seems a waste. Why no have a modular command module with a heat sheld/shoot/etc entry segment and a crew support segment.

 

[j05h]

>For one -- I haven't seen anything corroborating this. If the plan at this level of detail had truly been release by NASA -- then this architecture should have been all over the Web. <br /><br />I have to agree with it being spread around more if it were accurate - NASAWatch should have had it first.<br /><br />This Sentinel expose' is hopefully just hot air on someone's part. It is only an Apollo redux. It doesn't take into account any of the VSE trade studies from this year - I'm specifically thinking of the SpaceHab and Draper white papers, but it applies to the others as well. It doesn't show any lessons learned, just a slightly beefier flags-and-footprints system. Or the journalist got it wrong. <br /><br />I'm not sure why they wouldn't choose liquid methane engines. They can probably make it in-situ using human waste, the engines and methane process become hardware for Mars as well. The article definitely could have used a going-over by the Sentinel's science editor. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>