Using the ISS/Shuttle to go to both the Moon/Mars

qso1 · May 26, 2006

My first thought is that there won't be much of a CEV program once Bush goes out of office. After 8 years of Bush, voters will probably go Democratic and right now, Democrats are not that strong on manned space flight support, especially considering Bush is Republican. I can see some partisan bickering over how to keep manned space flight going. CEV may survive. If so, it may be augmented, as would all manned spaceflight by private industry humans to orbit vehicles. At least I hope that'll be the case. I agree on the metric thing. Go by one standard, it don't matter to me which, I'm equally incompetent at both ha ha ha. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

josh_simonson · May 26, 2006

If one sent the shuttle to the cycler, the shuttle would have to have enough fuel to turn around and return to earth since it is only capable of being in space for two weeks. A monolithic RLV like venturestar would never be able to service a cycler. Rather a small taxi like the CEV is ideal because it is small (all the habitat is in the cycler) and it can stay in space safe for extended periods with the heat shield protected. CEV can also make a direct return with crew when the cycler returns to earth. The whole idea of the cycler is that you only need to apply delta-v's to a small taxi for each mission rather than the entire interplanetary craft. />In all fairness the CEV proposed design should include an RLV component. I for one think that the proposed VentureStar by Lockheed Martin should be revisited as potential match for this project. Who is that being fair to? The taxpayers that pay more and get less? I guess in all fairness to LM as it'd mainly be a huge wad of pork for them to digest. It barely made sense to re-use the CEV (saves 10% at 6/year) and the CEV is relatively easy to re-use since intact recovery is a given. The price point where an RLV becomes cost effective is 50 launches/year. Space hardware costs twice as much as the launch costs to get it to space, and NASA will not in the forseeable future be able to afford to build enough hardware to require 50 RLV launches/year. Given the average cost of around 500m for typical NASA science payloads that is 25 billion in hardware - and that's the break even point - so about $12.5b is spent on the launch vehicles/year (fully accounted). They need 4 or 5 times the current budget to build an RLV and use it cost effectively, and no amount of whining will ever change that.

brellis · May 26, 2006

the SMART-1 folks said the little tweaks they made in the course of nudging their craft into a particular lunar orbit could be considered research into how much propellant is necessary to use this technology in the very scenario we are discussing. The thing is, it takes a long time to get up to speed, and longer for the little thrusts to get a craft into orbit, so one would have to plan for long unmanned stretches of time during the building of orbiting manufaturing platforms and future bases on the Moon or Mars. For that matter, why not have a bunch of 'bots do the whole job, convert ice to fuel, etc. and have the space cowboys show up when it's ready to roll? I like the idea of a relatively light manned CEV, with the heavy hardware sent up the long, slow, cheap way via solar/ion propulsion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better. </div>

brellis · May 26, 2006

They're going to do a webcast for the "Appollo on Steroids" project: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/events/lectures/jun06.cfm <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better. </div>

SpaceKiwi · May 26, 2006

Thanks for the heads-up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

qso1 · May 26, 2006

Thanks for the info and link. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

marcel_leonard · May 27, 2006

After reading a few of your post I’m beginning to see a pattern in our discussions of NASA/Federal budgetary policy as if some of us here were on the intelligence committee on the “Hill”. The truth be told I don’t think any of us here has the slightest idea what the powers that be are planning. The current administration wants to return to the Moon before the Chinese get back there first. So they came up w/ a cheap/dirty way to accomplish this. As for the RLV situation the space shuttle was originally designed to do just that be a reusable launch vehicle. It was never intended to be nothing more than piggyback payload costing close to 5 billion per launch. The same people at Skunk Works in the notorious “Area 51” who spent close to ten years designing the VentureStar are the same people who brought you the “Stealth Bomber. The Beoing designers who brought you the AeroSpike rocket engine have been the general contractor nearly the entire booster bus design from Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and STS. I for one think Beoing and Lockheed/Martin are more than capable of delivering a cost effective RLV. The problem is bureaucrats in charge of the NASA/Federal budgetary policy never wanted a reusable launch vehicle. What they wanted was to quote Josh Simonson was: “huge wads of pork for them to digest”. In the final analysis I am hoping that Ariane Space, Boeing’s Sea Launch, and Lockheed take the resigns and produce a cost effective RLV in the next few months for private sectors space flights. If nothing else to shut up those philanthropist like Burt Rutan, Richard Branson, and Peter H. Diamandis of both Virgin Galactic and founder of the Xprize foundation; who keep conning the general public out of millions of dollars by offering them literally pie in the sky space tourism fantasies. In fact the number one industry that will expand exponentially when we finally develop a solid RLV won’t be space tourism at all, but rather SatCom, and VSAT technology in gene <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

qso1 · May 27, 2006

marcel_leonard: In fact the number one industry that will expand exponentially when we finally develop a solid RLV won’t be space tourism at all, but rather SatCom, and VSAT technology in general. Me: In the case of putting satcoms in space, why bother with an RLV. Satcoms are unmanned and companies have been doing that for years. No space tourism means no potentially profitable reason to put people in space. marcel_leonard: If nothing else to shut up those philanthropist like Burt Rutan, Richard Branson, and Peter H. Diamandis of both Virgin Galactic and founder of the Xprize foundation; who keep conning the general public out of millions of dollars by offering them literally pie in the sky space tourism fantasies. Me: As I understood it, Rutan was funded not by the public but by Paul Allen who got his moneys worth when SS-1 made its flights. Diamandis raised money, some of it possibly by public funds. We don't know yet that space tourism is indeed pie in the sky and if private citizens want to encourage its development by investing their money, why not? Space tourism may or may not work out but it should be given a fair shot since it has never been actually tried before beyond Russia putting a few in space and...NASA has clearly shown they are unable to develop RLVs without the kind of funds that it may take to do so. On RLVs, several attempts at this have been made by NASA and its contractor teams but were just not willing as a public to properly fund it. Therefore, unless that or space tourism has a breakthrough, manned space is slowly coming to an end IMO. Once Bush is out, watch and see what happens to the Bush lunar/mars efforts. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

marcel_leonard · May 28, 2006

I may have been too harsh on Burt Rutan and company; I actually admire what he is doing down in New Mexico. It’s that damn spotlight stealing Richard Brandon that I can’t stand. At some point someone is going to get the funding to produce and test pilot a prototype X-43 ScramJet, or an X-33 AreoSpike powered engine either here in the good old United States or the Peoples Republic of China. I am personally placing my money on both sides because I believe, or rather I find it hard to believe after nearly forty years of avionic research that the military on both side don’t already have orbit capable craft secretly making test flights to LEO, MEO, and GEO approaches. If you don't think that this is possible; the Air Force flew the Stealth Bomber on actual air strikes for nearly a decade before its photos were released to the general public in 1988. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

Swampcat · May 28, 2006

"I actually admire what he is doing down in New Mexico. It’s that damn spotlight stealing Richard Brandon that I can’t stand." m_l, what exactly is it that Mr. Rutan is doing in New Mexico? His base of operations is in Mojave, California. Mr. Branson certainly does enjoy the limelight, though I don't understand why you feel as you do toward him. He supports space tourism with his money and that makes him OK by me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

JonClarke · May 28, 2006

Without Banson where would Rutan be exactly? It's Branson who has come up with the money that takes a paying space tourism company possible. Whether or not people like his style is utterly irrelevant. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

Swampcat · May 28, 2006

"Whether or not people like his style is utterly irrelevant." Exactly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

j05h · May 28, 2006

> Without Banson where would Rutan be exactly? It's Branson who has come up with the money that takes a paying space tourism company possible. Whether or not people like his style is utterly irrelevant. His style might be irrelevant in our community, but it is transverse to the world at large: Branson is a hugely popular public figure. His personal and financial support of passenger spaceflight is one of the driving forces behind the current sea-change. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

qso1 · May 28, 2006

marcel_leonard: that the military on both side don’t already have orbit capable craft secretly making test flights to LEO... Me: I assume when you say both sides you meant China. There is no credible intelligence I'm aware of that would suggest China is anywhere near developing this capability. As for the United States, its not a question of whether the military could get an orbital capable craft built, the question is need. Do they believe they need one. The DOD pulled out of their attempts at human space flight many years ago because they had no real need in wake of unmanned spysat development. Furthermore, with ground observers watching launch sites the world over, if they DOD launches something, it will not go unnoticed and it can be tracked to orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

marcel_leonard · May 30, 2006

I think even you find that hard to believe... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

marcel_leonard · Jun 1, 2006

Here is another reason why we need to consolidate or NASA contracts... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

marcel_leonard · Jun 1, 2006

China vs. US <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

qso1 · Jun 1, 2006

marcel_leonard: I think even you find that hard to believe... Me: Actually I do not find that hard to believe. We have been hearing about top secret USAF SSTO or 2STO craft for nearly a decade and a half with little to show in the way of evidence for them. First off, I do not know what they may be doing in secrecy. But just because they invoke secrecy from time to time does not mean they are engaged in every possible secret activity there is and below are a few reasons why I'm thinking that the AF right now may have such a vehicle but more likely does not. If the AF cracked the SSTO or 2STO operational barrier, those very operations would likely originate at VAFB where the public would eventually take notice. Such vehicles have been speculated on for nearly a decade, no big secret really except it would reveal the AF to have a manned presence in space. The F-117 and B-2 are examples of some of the AFs best kept secrets. Still, rumors of the B-2 began circulating as far back as 1980. Same for the F-117. During the 1980s, it was believed the F-117 would be the F-19. Logical numerical follow on to the FA-18 and since the F-20 Tigershark was operational, the question was, where was the F-19? Of course, the AF redesignated that one aircraft with a different number altogether to throw the public and Soviets off. Had you asked me in 1986 if there were stealth aircraft in development, I'd have said all the evidence points in that direction and there is an operational need. My statement would have been based on the fact that the stealth aircraft was speculated on in the media, even model companies were building kit versions for sale although non of the concepts looked like what finally emerged. The rumors kept coming until finally, the AF publically revealed their existence. It costs money to maintain secrets and the secrets loose their suprise value once rumors reach a critical stage, that being the "There must be something to them there a <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

avmich · Jun 2, 2006

"1) The ISS is far from ready to become a space construction facilty. Reconversion would require a major redesign, the construction of new tools, new modules, and a way to get that stuff up." During initial design phase for Freedom space stations, it was assumed the project will be too big to anticipate all the requirements before first launch. So instead there was a proposal to keep the station modular. The outpost could serve different purposes, even those which weren't originally planned. One could design a specific module for a specific task, launch it, attach to the common infrastructure of the station (life support, energy, communications etc.) and get the new functionality. The experience with Russian Mir space station showed the advantages of such an approach. Mir was used far longer than any space station before that, and it was used in quite unexpected ways - at least they weren't expected in 1986, when the base module was launched. Mir has proven its reliability - it flew through 90s, when the country that created it was changing so much. So for the ISS similar ideas were adopted. And we see proofs of that: the station design is ever-changing, and ISS is surviving difficulties which the partners have on Earth, proving to be adaptable. We might conclude that to use ISS for yet another task is possible. At least it is possible to create a specialized module which would make on-orbit assembly feasible, launch that module to ISS - you don't need to immediately worry about crew compartments, electricity supply, radiolinks, control etc. All of that wil come from already existing ISS - thus proving again its usefulness for the task.

avmich · Jun 2, 2006

"3) Above all, the ISS is in the wrong orbit to be of any use for serving as a base for deep space missions. Getting out of the ISS orbit and into lunar orbit would require as much propellant as getting there in the first place, negating the point of LEO assembly." This is an often heard statement. The explanations why the orbital plane of ISS is wrong are more scarce. Imagine a ball in space - the Earth - with another, smaller ball - the Moon - orbiting it. There is the Moon orbital plane - Moon is always moving within that plane. The satellites, flying around the Earth, can fly in any plane. And these satellites are usually much closer to Earth, than the Moon. We'll think about the Moon and Earth as perfect spheres, and will assume the Moon is traveling around the Earth on the perfectly circular path. Suppose you want to send a satellite from a circular LEO toward the Moon. Let's first assume the satellite orbits the Earth within the Moon orbital plane, and it's going to fire up the engine, along the current velocity vector, adding to its orbital velocity. Then the satellite will fly on the elongated elliptical orbit, with apogee close to the Moon orbit. If the engine was started at a proper moment, the Moon will be in the point of its orbit, which is close to apogee of satellite's elliptical orbit, so the satellite will get into the vicinity of the Moon. Then it can fire the engine again and get to the orbit around the Moon, for example. The proper moment to start a satellite's engine occurs rather often. A low flying Earth satellite completes a full circle in about 1.5 hours, and during such a period we can find a point when the engine should be started in order to get to the Moon. Now consider the case when satellite's orbital plane is different from Moon orbital plane. Let's assume they are perpendicular. If we have two perpendicular planes, we have a single straight line, which belongs to both planes. When satellit

qso1 · Jun 2, 2006

I posted a simple graphic to try to illustrate the problem nibb31 is referring to. The 51 deg inclination of ISS is shown in red, the lunar orbit, an equatorial one also shown in red. The green line with the curve illustrates the plane change required at the curve. As its a simple graphic, its not to scale but is should be evident quite a bit of propellant would be required to make the plane change. By simply adding momentum to the 51 deg inclined craft, the orbit will only become a larger circle that would eventually reach the moon but the energy required to get down to a useful lunar orbit would be similar to that required to make the plane change at Earth. Going from such a highly inclined orbit as ISS to an near equatorial, or even polar lunar orbit appears not to be practical, or even possible within the limits imposed by current chemical powered spacecraft design. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

marcel_leonard · Jun 2, 2006

Here is the thing to using the ISS on a lunar mission; it would take additional thrusters in order to for it to orbit the moon. When you say space station people tend to think that ISS is stationary, but it is in fact just a very elaborate spacecraft. I am not familiar with the propulsion on the ISS, but I think it has enough propellant to get half way to the moon then momentum can do the rest. The idea being that it can be used a crew transport between the earth and the moon. As for a lunar module one could be launched in advance of using the ISS which would rendezvous w/ the LM in approximately three days time. They could even launch/ land a separate module to be the lunar base/ mobile construction trailer. Ultimately the planned CEV is the current administrations way of trying to make some attempt at doing something histrionic in space before their term is up. I have no problem with using the tried and true Apollo model in order to get back to the moon. I just think that it is 2006 and we can go back there using a RLV and a Cycler. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

qso1 · Jun 2, 2006

marcel_leonard: When you say space station people tend to think that ISS is stationary, but it is in fact just a very elaborate spacecraft. Me: Thats true, that or if they are aware that it moves, they may be under the impression it can be used for little else. ISS being a group of modules would be a good starting point for a large lunar vicinity craft. But some mods would definetely have to be made. marcel_leonard: I am not familiar with the propulsion on the ISS, but I think it has enough propellant to get half way to the moon then momentum can do the rest. Me: Not even close. ISS has station keeping thrust capability and gets an occasional boost to keep it at safe orbital altitude. This additional boost is provided by the shuttle or Soyuz/Progress vehicles. Station would require a hefty booster for it to reach escape velocity, a delta V of around 7,000 mph. ISS is also quite massive. The Apollo stack was boosted to the moon on a Saturn-V third stage generating 200,000 lbs thrust. The Apollo stack was 45 tons. By now ISS has to be around 200 tons. This should give you some idea of what it would take to move that mass to the moon. The station truss and SPAs might not be able to take the loads imposed by relatively rapid delta-Vs. As a crew transport, this would require boosters to get it out of and into earth and lunar orbits and vice versa. Using ISS is feasible but requires too many mods to be practical under our current and projected NASA budget scenarios. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

krrr · Jun 2, 2006

Inclination change when entering a lunar orbit is essentially free. You just have to choose your entry point into the Moon's sphere of influence carefully. A good simple software for computing lunar trajectories is LTOC. Playing with it, you'll see that for almost any combination of LEO and LLO inclinations there are multiple opportunities per day. From a predefined LEO (by RAAN), there are such opportunities at regular intervals of several days (nodal precession of Earth orbits must be taken into account). Things get complicated when both orbits are fixed, e.g. when a rendez-vous in lunar orbit is required. But that's independent of the inclinations of these orbits.

tomnackid · Jun 2, 2006

Getting back to the original thrust (pun intended!) of the thread, were there any plans on the drawing board in the pre-Challenger days for using the shuttle system substantially as is for lunar and mars missions? Were there plans that relied on the development of a Shuttle C? Or did everyone assume we would need a new HLLV to go back to the moon and on to mars? BTW, by "using the shuttle system" I don't mean sending the orbiter itself to the moon or mars, but rather using it to launch some kind of lander and lunar insertion stage.

Using the ISS/Shuttle to go to both the Moon/Mars

qso1

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

brellis

Guest

brellis

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

qso1

Guest

marcel_leonard

Guest

qso1

Guest

marcel_leonard

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

j05h

Guest

qso1

Guest

marcel_leonard

Guest

marcel_leonard

Guest

marcel_leonard

Guest

qso1

Guest

avmich

Guest

avmich

Guest

qso1

Guest

marcel_leonard

Guest

qso1

Guest

krrr

Guest

tomnackid

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page