The answer to everything is not 42, its the moon

[rockett]

They correctly point out departing for Mars from the moon is harder than leaving LEO for Mars.

What they ignore is that the moon is a propellent source quite close to EML1 as well as LEO. Propellent depots in LEO and EML1 would make trips to Mars as well as asteroids and other destinations vastly less difficult.

I fear their bogus argument has made it's way into the popular psyche and that this erroneous meme will continue to harvest advocates for Mars Direct, Let's Skip The Moon.

They are totally ignoring a very simple point in doing so. Imagine this scenario:
1. Wrap lunar ice in a huge insulated mylar bag (think pizza delivery bag). You could shape it and fuse it if need be, but think of a solid block. I actually had the idea when I saw a Discovery or History Channel program describing Project Habakkuk from World War II. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Habakkuk
2. Attach attitude jets. Attach either an engine module or use a monsterous mass driver.
3. Launch it to LEO, EML1, L1, or L2.
4. There, you would capture it, and either remotely or using space tugs, bring it to a processing facility. When there was to be a scheduled rendezvous with a spacecraft needing fuel, you would process as much of the ice as needed to provide it.
5. Then engine module and attitude jets would be "recycled" for more shipments or other applications.

Using the above scheme, Zubrin's argument becomes a non-issue, because you can locate your fuel depots in optimal places for interplanetary and translunar trips.

9. The 2.6 second light round trip enables near real time teleoperation of lunar robots from earth.

Yes, it would be MUCH better. The Russions actually had a tele-operated rover when robots were much less intelligent and sophisticated back in 1970.
Lunokhod programme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_programme

 

[SteveCNC]

so the real time lag these days would probably be around 7 seconds (by the time the signal is relayed several times and translated through each ends equipment with all that error check resend etc... that goes on) and I'm sure thats managable . All we need is a system that can build a train of moduals (each with its own lander engines) hook em all up in space , put a motor on back and push it all over to the moon .

As for where exactly to build first (robot base) , I'm guessing somewhere that gets plenty of light and has nearby mining opportunities . From the robot base build self sustaining capabilities (recharge,repair,process raw materials into usable)then begin work on a human base in a more shielded location . While it may require the human touch to actually get a base up and running right it would only be a temporary stay or at least a minimum of people until other things can be developed to enable longer stays for many more . I feel robotics can easily prepare for the most part a place for humans to occupy on the moon and be self sustainable . All these things are predicated on being able to actually refine materials on the moon into something usable . I've seen some information on the mineral makeup of the moon but as for actually mining and processing it , that's a whole different game especially on the moon with it's weak gravity . Not that any obstacle can't be overcome but it will take some work .

I am curious about one thing in all this , the minerals on the moon for instance , are there veins of copper/gold/etc. like here on earth or is it just an area of diffuse minerals because of the weak gravity ? If the moon is truly a product of the earth then the mineral makeup should be similar (more concentrated) since there was stronger gravity applied to it at one time . Although during the formation of the moon it must have been moltent to some degree at one time also I believe . Would love to see a core sample from the moon !

Ohh btw that russian job had a best speed of 3.2 seconds per frame of video on the data stream (which I am certain is way better now) and it took 4 people to control but the round trip is still the same for a signal . It's just that with all the other things going on in a remote control signal it increases the lag considerably (number of nodes it has to pass thru to get where its going , amount of data to be processed per chunk before a picture can be renderred , along with other data reguarding heading , speed , posistion , health , etc. that come in with the data stream and then you gotta return error check codes and get possible resend of chunks of data which depending on conditions can really slow things down . It's like if your a gamer and you try to play a game that's server is on the other side of the world , you probably get a 450ms ping at best or worse normally . Now picture the lag playing a game who's server is on the moon , you wouldn't last long in diablo2 with that kind of ping .

 

[rockett]

I am curious about one thing in all this , the minerals on the moon for instance , are there veins of copper/gold/etc. like here on earth or is it just an area of diffuse minerals because of the weak gravity ? If the moon is truly a product of the earth then the mineral makeup should be similar (more concentrated) since there was stronger gravity applied to it at one time . Although during the formation of the moon it must have been moltent to some degree at one time also I believe . Would love to see a core sample from the moon !

Just about all the data available only references the Apollo samples, but even that is interesting and useful:
http://www.permanent.com/l-minera.htm
http://www.asi.org/adb/02/02/lunar-rock-components.html
http://chview.nova.org/station/moonmine.htm

Ohh btw that russian job had a best speed of 3.2 seconds per frame of video on the data stream (which I am certain is way better now) and it took 4 people to control but the round trip is still the same for a signal . It's just that with all the other things going on in a remote control signal it increases the lag considerably (number of nodes it has to pass thru to get where its going , amount of data to be processed per chunk before a picture can be renderred , along with other data reguarding heading , speed , posistion , health , etc. that come in with the data stream and then you gotta return error check codes and get possible resend of chunks of data which depending on conditions can really slow things down . It's like if your a gamer and you try to play a game that's server is on the other side of the world , you probably get a 450ms ping at best or worse normally . Now picture the lag playing a game who's server is on the moon , you wouldn't last long in diablo2 with that kind of ping .

True, but look at Spirit and Opportunity on Mars. That should tell us that things have indeed improved considerably. With only a 7 second time lag, we can exert much finer control from Earth for lunar robots.

 

[HopDavid]

As for where exactly to build first (robot base) , I'm guessing somewhere that gets plenty of light and has nearby mining opportunities .

That would be the poles. The Chandrayan Mini-SAR radar recently detected what appears to be abundant water ice. At least two meter thick ice sheets. 600 million tonnes at the north pole, 600 million tonnes at the south pole.

In my tanker cartoons above you will notice they're hauling lunox or lunar oxygen. I drew that cartoon when I was of the opinion the moon was too hydrogen poor to export hydrogen compounds. I thought we'd be mining lunar oxygen from minerals like ilmenite. The Chandrayan discovery has changed my opinion.

Also at the poles there are high places where you can get continuous solar energy. Mountains of eternal light.

The temperature swings at the illuminate polar areas are less extreme than the lower lunar latitudes.

From the robot base build self sustaining capabilities (recharge,repair,process raw materials into usable)then begin work on a human base in a more shielded location . While it may require the human touch to actually get a base up and running right it would only be a temporary stay or at least a minimum of people until other things can be developed to enable longer stays for many more . I feel robotics can easily prepare for the most part a place for humans to occupy on the moon and be self sustainable . All these things are predicated on being able to actually refine materials on the moon into something usable . I've seen some information on the mineral makeup of the moon but as for actually mining and processing it , that's a whole different game especially on the moon with it's weak gravity . Not that any obstacle can't be overcome but it will take some work .

I have been advocating that NASA invest in developing more dextrous telerobots and improved telepresence. This technology could have numerous spin offs. Maybe such robots could work in coal mines and the recent W. Virginia accident would've been a property loss rather than a horriblly tragic and expensive event. Perhaps more able ROVs would enable BP to drill the relief well faster. There are myriad applications where this technology could enjoy a substantial return on the investment of developing it.

Precisely the sort of engineering innovation and economic stimulus that Obama dreams about.

I am curious about one thing in all this , the minerals on the moon for instance , are there veins of copper/gold/etc. like here on earth or is it just an area of diffuse minerals because of the weak gravity ?

I don't think the moon has the geologic processes that have concentrated minerals to minable ores here on earth. There might be meteoritic deposits though. Like Sudbury.

However, as I frequently mention, the most valuable near term space commodity is water. Propellent at various locations would make metallic asteroids accessible.

An ordinary metallic asteroid has more iron, nickel, platinum and gold than humans have mined in all their history. But until we can economically reach these, mining them can't return a profit. Asteroids could be crack cocaine and we still wouldn't realize a profit.

So, counter to intuition, water will be the most valuable near term space commodity.

Ohh btw that russian job had a best speed of 3.2 seconds per frame of video on the data stream (which I am certain is way better now) and it took 4 people to control but the round trip is still the same for a signal . It's just that with all the other things going on in a remote control signal it increases the lag considerably (number of nodes it has to pass thru to get where its going , amount of data to be processed per chunk before a picture can be renderred , along with other data reguarding heading , speed , posistion , health , etc. that come in with the data stream and then you gotta return error check codes and get possible resend of chunks of data which depending on conditions can really slow things down . It's like if your a gamer and you try to play a game that's server is on the other side of the world , you probably get a 450ms ping at best or worse normally . Now picture the lag playing a game who's server is on the moon , you wouldn't last long in diablo2 with that kind of ping .

In this forum Earthling X has been putting together a bunch of different resources that might be used to form a realistic space game. It would include real orbital mechanics, none of the faster than light B.S., real data on the solar system, etc.

One of the possibilities mentioned in that thread is operating lunar mining equipment with a 5 second lag. I believe that could be quite entertaining! And I believe it'd be doable in terms of game software code.

Earthling X's thread can be found here: Virtual Space Tech. In my opinion this is one of the most exciting threads on the internet.

Elsewhere in space.com forums we were despairing of accurate, informative mainstream space news. Most talking heads on CNN, etc put hair spray before scholarship and are dumber than a bag of hammers.

Look at the popularity of science fiction films. I believe there is a tremendous enthusiasm for space in our culture. Unfortunately this enthusiasm is drowning in ignorance.

A multi user space game based on actual physics, chemistry, geology etc. could be effective in educating and mobilizing potential space advocates. The multi user game could be a community like World of Warcraft.

 

[vulture4]

I would agree the moon is a reasonable target for robotic exploration. However because robots can reach almost anywhere in the solar system, the more dynamic bodies tend to have a higher priority for robotic probes. The Moon is also a reasonable target for human settlement, but only if we first develop low-cost, fully reusable access to LEO, and between LEO and the Moon. Going directly to the Moon with Constellation technology would be a complete waste of time and money. Unfortunately the romance of ISRU has blinded us to the fact that any mission must produce practical value that exceeds its cost, and that getting the massive equipment required for a human colony to the moon isn't practical with ELVs.

 

[rockett]

I would agree the moon is a reasonable target for robotic exploration. However because robots can reach almost anywhere in the solar system, the more dynamic bodies tend to have a higher priority for robotic probes. The Moon is also a reasonable target for human settlement, but only if we first develop low-cost, fully reusable access to LEO, and between LEO and the Moon. Going directly to the Moon with Constellation technology would be a complete waste of time and money. Unfortunately the romance of ISRU has blinded us to the fact that any mission must produce practical value that exceeds its cost, and that getting the massive equipment required for a human colony to the moon isn't practical with ELVs.

I don't believe that anyone has brought up Constellation at this point, Vulture4. The debate here so far has centered around Moon vs Mars vs asteriod as an overall goal. There has been some discussion of ISRU, but nothing about expendable vs reusable until your post.

Maybe that debate will enter here as topics often crossover, however the thread you started would seem to be the place for it. In case anyone here is interested:
Reusible vs. Expendable - the Real Debate
http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=24500

 

[scottb50]

Reusible vs. Expendable - the Real Debate[/b]
http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=24500

The moon, Mars may just be research sites for a long long time, so what? Antarctica gets some arrivals. I don't see commercial use of Mars for a long time, antennas on the moon make the most sense, but funding is not too good. Landing on the moon, an asteroid or Comet is pretty much the same. Mars is a lot different,

 

[bdewoody]

Well as a recap it seems to me that I and the other "moonies" have persuaded some of the doubters of the validity of establishing a manned presence on the moon prior to attempting manned voyages to other worthwhile destinations. So now it does seem that some discussion about the best meens of achieving this goal is in order.

I feel that two mabe three separate vehicles are needed. The first is a vessel to get from the ground to LEO. I think a development of the X-37B is a prime candidate provided it has a 5 or 6 man crew capability. Why not use a man rated Atlas as the booster. Second an earth orbit to moon orbit vehicle that stays permanently in space. It could be assembled near the ISS with it's components delivered to orbit by none other than the space shuttle. Initially it would have to be fueled from the earth. Later after operations are established on the moon it could be fueled from facilities on the moon. The ISS would serve as a repair, re-crew and replenishing base. The third craft would be a moon lander. Maybe at first just to be used once as a lander and then as a permanent piece of the moon base. Eventually the moon landers would be refueled from resources developed there and then launched to return personnel to the earth-moon transfer vehicle.

Most of this system would be reuseable for many years and as better craft are developed phased out. The only non-reuseable component at first would be the Atlas V or VI booster. Although this is just a rough outline I think everything I have proposed is doable with current technology and if the cost was shared amongst the various spacefaring nations it wouldn't break anybodies budget.
I also think it would be great way to start an international version of NASA free from political short sightedness. By the nature of the USA's government long range goals are hard to keep funded as each successive administration has it's own idea of how things should be done and which projects should have priority. An international space agency should have some level of autonomy from medelling governments. So does my plan seem reasonable? I think all but the last part could have broad support from most space enthusiasts.

 

[EarthlingX]

I don't think we need people on the Moon for quite some time, what's more it is expensive and unneeded complication, and focusing on it will slow down human expansion in space. Talking about production on the Moon and such, is also rather remote in the future, though i think a lot can be done now.

I think EML1 is much more important staging point, as is infrastructure to provide operations from there. While getting there with people, they can also try satellite maintenance procedures, like fixing, re-fuelling and relocation.

I'm not arguing against tele-operated machinery on the Moon, nor against people on the Moon, just not so soon. What i would really like to see, is a human mission for a month or more away from a relative LEO security, out of the magnetic protection of Earth.

Drilling into asteroid to make a space habitat sounds very interesting, and again, there are more asteroids than Moons or Venuses or Marses - you could have your own


A little about VASIMR :
SDC : VASIMR based spaceship for heliosphere

 

[rockett]

I feel that two mabe three separate vehicles are needed. The first is a vessel to get from the ground to LEO. I think a development of the X-37B is a prime candidate provided it has a 5 or 6 man crew capability. Why not use a man rated Atlas as the booster. Second an earth orbit to moon orbit vehicle that stays permanently in space. It could be assembled near the ISS with it's components delivered to orbit by none other than the space shuttle. Initially it would have to be fueled from the earth. Later after operations are established on the moon it could be fueled from facilities on the moon. The ISS would serve as a repair, re-crew and replenishing base. The third craft would be a moon lander. Maybe at first just to be used once as a lander and then as a permanent piece of the moon base. Eventually the moon landers would be refueled from resources developed there and then launched to return personnel to the earth-moon transfer vehicle.

Quite reasonable. Yet more options could be the "commercial carriers" for crew, but for the immediate future, they should be considered supplemental rather than primary transportation. Also the Falcon 9 Heavy could be used for some of the cargo.

Most of this system would be reuseable for many years and as better craft are developed phased out. The only non-reuseable component at first would be the Atlas V or VI booster. Although this is just a rough outline I think everything I have proposed is doable with current technology and if the cost was shared amongst the various spacefaring nations it wouldn't break anybodies budget.

Very sensable!

I also think it would be great way to start an international version of NASA free from political short sightedness. By the nature of the USA's government long range goals are hard to keep funded as each successive administration has it's own idea of how things should be done and which projects should have priority. An international space agency should have some level of autonomy from medelling governments. So does my plan seem reasonable? I think all but the last part could have broad support from most space enthusiasts.

You BET!

 

[rockett]

I don't think we need people on the Moon for quite some time, what's more it is expensive and unneeded complication, and focusing on it will slow down human expansion in space.

I would have to disagree here. I like the idea of using robots to prepare the way, and using the moon to develop human deep space capabilities. Add fuel to that, and you have a long term sustainable strategy. A moon base could become the next ISS in terms of international support as well.

In the current climate and world economy, we need to be realistic about overly ambitious goals. Sending US manned missions to asteroids could too easily be labeled "been there, done that" and support would decline. In the immediate future, I really can't see anything that can be done by men that can't be done with robots with respect to asteroid exploration. Besides, for the same cost as a manned mission, you could send a robot swarm to the belt.

 

[EarthlingX]

I don't think we need people on the Moon for quite some time, what's more it is expensive and unneeded complication, and focusing on it will slow down human expansion in space.

I would have to disagree here. I like the idea of using robots to prepare the way, and using the moon to develop human deep space capabilities. Add fuel to that, and you have a long term sustainable strategy. A moon base could become the next ISS in terms of international support as well.

In the current climate and world economy, we need to be realistic about overly ambitious goals. Sending US manned missions to asteroids could too easily be labeled "been there, done that" and support would decline. In the immediate future, I really can't see anything that can be done by men that can't be done with robots with respect to asteroid exploration. Besides, for the same cost as a manned mission, you could send a robot swarm to the belt.

It is just a matter of steps, which goal/capability next.

Landing people on the Moon brings along a lot of extra mass, which pushes everything even further into the future. If people stay out of deeper gravity wells, for now, they can do serious extra work with low lags, comparing with what can you do with 10 min or more.

Once space highways have gas stations, you just pick your exit, or work on future landing site from orbit.

Lander can come later to orbital staging point with separate slow boat.

As to 'been there, done that', there are currently more than half a million known asteroids, so it will take a while

I think this might be a bit related, worth reading anyway :

http://www.thespacereview.com : Brick by brick: a Lego spaceflight paradigm

by Simon Vanden Bussche
Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Going back to the brick

At the beginning of the 21st century, toy legend Lego was in trouble. People were not buying their sets anymore. In trying to make their products accessible to as many people as possible, Lego had diversified into watches and theme parks, to name some ventures. But Lego also made their sets ever simpler to build, up to the point where a fire truck was made from five plastic elements.1 The pieces were so specialized that there was not a lot to be done with them except for making a fire truck. Lego had lost sight of its most basic selling point: replay value through creativity. It is this point that makes up for the higher price of its sets compared to other toys, and it is also the primary reason so many people love Lego and its products. In 1998, the company posted its first-ever loss, and by 2004 the company was widely believed to be on the edge of bankruptcy.

The Kristiansen family turned over the daily leadership of LEGO to Jørgen Vig Knudstorp. The new CEO rearranged the bricks: he simplified management and sold off the Lego theme parks. He reduced the number of different plastic pieces from roughly 13,000 to about 7,000, encouraging his designers to reuse parts. The fire truck set now consists of about 214, mostly simpler, pieces. Lego’s new “classic” sets were instant best sellers. Lego went back to its bricks. Combined with other measures, Knudstorp’s recipe is clearly working. 2009 alone brought a revenue increase of 22.4%, and a net profit increase of 63%, continuing a trend that started in 2005. Lego is now the fourth biggest toy company worldwide, making fewer different bricks, but bricks that are cheaper to produce, have clear interfaces, are easy to combine, to build upon, and to play with.

 

[rockett]

Landing people on the Moon brings along a lot of extra mass, which pushes everything even further into the future. If people stay out of deeper gravity wells, for now, they can do serious extra work with low lags, comparing with what can you do with 10 min or more.

Once space highways have gas stations, you just pick your exit, or work on future landing site from orbit.

The lunar station would be the rationale for:
1. Keep the ISS alive as a construction shack and motel.
2. Building the "gas stations", initially supplied from earth, later the moon.

As to 'been there, done that', there are currently more than half a million known asteroids, so it will take a while

While I agree with you about "asteroid diversity" , what I am concerned about is the attention span of the public and politicians. It has always been unmercifully short. After the first couple of asteroid missions, you will lose your audience, just like Apollo did. Then your funding is cut.

I think this might be a bit related, worth reading anyway :

http://www.thespacereview.com : Brick by brick: a Lego spaceflight

Very interesting and relevent! I like the concept a lot! Especially the fuel depot part.

Another parallel would be assembly-line automobiles vs exotics like ferrari, lotus, and so on that are all essentially custom made. American and Japanese autos actually have a lot of parts made by the same suppliers across brands...

 

[EarthlingX]

Landing people on the Moon brings along a lot of extra mass, which pushes everything even further into the future. If people stay out of deeper gravity wells, for now, they can do serious extra work with low lags, comparing with what can you do with 10 min or more.

Once space highways have gas stations, you just pick your exit, or work on future landing site from orbit.

The lunar station would be the rationale for:
1. Keep the ISS alive as a construction shack and motel.
2. Building the "gas stations", initially supplied from earth, later the moon.

2. Building the 'gas stations' initially supplied from earth, then we see what is closest and cheapest.
Gas stations supplied from anywhere but Earth are not in the game until there is a working ISRU, and for that NEOs, Atens, are cheaper in mission mass requirements, and you know how that multiplies launch mass/money required.

I don't understand this fascination with the bottom of the gravitation well, just causes trouble, gravitational losses when launching, and requires engines with high thrust/low Isp, as if trouble with LEO would not be enough ..
Partial solution to this might be the new Russian nuclear engine, which is lately coming up quite often in various Russian official statements, but even using that is a waste, until easier to get targets are covered.

As to 'been there, done that', there are currently more than half a million known asteroids, so it will take a while

While I agree with you about "asteroid diversity" , what I am concerned about is the attention span of the public and politicians. It has always been unmercifully short. After the first couple of asteroid missions, you will lose your audience, just like Apollo did. Then your funding is cut.

You mean, government officials signing checks will loose attention. That can be solved with an international agreement, which is a bit harder to back from, or with some other changes in the decision making process.
We, space-fans, can help too, by keeping those missions in sight, and by providing information to not so in detail interested majority.

Problem can also be solved by not having specialized gear for the politically chosen destinations, so that when the wind changes, you just input new coordinates, and sail on, which means building on capabilities, not destinations.

Another option is having a fixed percent of the budget, like military.

I would also like to see much more people in space, like scientists and engineers, and having 100 people at the same time in space at the end of the decade, would be a very nice goal with which i could cheerfully go along. I must confess, i have doubts about the possibility, but anyway.

How do other research institutions keep their funding ? Politics 'guides' them too ?

 

[bdewoody]

If the moon counts as in space I think we could easily have 100 people or more off the earth by 2030. I doubt that a vessel capable of lifting more than 20 people off the earth will be constructed within 50 years. The potential for accidents will always remain high as long as we have to strap ourselves onto chemical rockets carrying thousands of pounds of highly volatile fuel. So unless anti-gravity (very doubtful) or a space elevator (almost as doubtful) becomes a means of getting into LEO relatively small vehicles will dominate the means to get into orbit.

 

[EarthlingX]

If the moon counts as in space I think we could easily have 100 people or more off the earth by 2030.

LEO is not space ?

I doubt that a vessel capable of lifting more than 20 people off the earth will be constructed within 50 years.

It can be done pretty quickly, before 2020, if it would be a goal. Your probably know that Soyuz uses same stages for cargo and people, with about 6t to ISS, which i think translates roughly to 10t to LEO. You probably also know about existing 20t class launchers, which could bring 6 people at once to ISS.
Excuse why it is not done already is that there is no rescue capability, and that will change with Dragon and Orion among other. I think NASA is not going into this direction, because of private sector development expectations. Same might be true for the Moon.
If there are gas stations, i see no reason why propellant in space would not be available for private missions, and with NASA funded development, entities buying from NASA providers can get the technology without of majority of development costs. Bigellow is already eyeing the Moon.

I did not say 'launched at once', but 'in space at once', like those 6 people in space now.

The potential for accidents will always remain high as long as we have to strap ourselves onto chemical rockets carrying thousands of pounds of highly volatile fuel. So unless anti-gravity (very doubtful) or a space elevator (almost as doubtful) becomes a means of getting into LEO relatively small vehicles will dominate the means to get into orbit.

I have no problem with accidents, sheesh happens, and if you do everything you know you could, what else can you do ?

This article here is somewhere on the topic, with plenty of comments too :

http://www.thespacereview.com : Making the path for human spaceflight less rocky

by Dan Lester
Monday, June 21, 2010

The new direction for US taxpayer-funded human spaceflight, and the dismantling of an earlier architecture to do it that was termed non-executable, has led to painful cries about lack of destinations and some exasperation about looking without touching. To the extent that destinations should be rocks with perhaps at least a little gravity, and to the extent that touching involves wriggling toes in the dirt, those cries are perhaps justifiable. But to the extent that advancement of human spaceflight is really just about humans being able to travel beyond our home planet, such cries are hollow. It’s that ambiguity that prompts some discourse.

That being said, “But where do we go?” is probably a faulty question, especially if the answer has to be a rock. The right question is, “How can we go?”, at least in response to what can be considered the precariousness of our species in a cosmic context. Answering that question will give us both power and pride.

 

[scottb50]

If the moon counts as in space I think we could easily have 100 people or more off the earth by 2030. I doubt that a vessel capable of lifting more than 20 people off the earth will be constructed within 50 years. The potential for accidents will always remain high as long as we have to strap ourselves onto chemical rockets carrying thousands of pounds of highly volatile fuel. So unless anti-gravity (very doubtful) or a space elevator (almost as doubtful) becomes a means of getting into LEO relatively small vehicles will dominate the means to get into orbit.

Which is why the size of a launcher can be kept reasonable. Once in Space any number of people could crew vehicles and for that we would need a larger launcher. They could even be nearly identical, the difference being the number of common cores used. Two for the manned launcher four for the heavy cargo version.