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

[willpittenger]

The basic concept, at least for Mars, is that the space craft required will be too large to launch with one booster. Even CEV is using two boosters. One launches the crew; the other sends up the lander. So some orbital assembly is required even though there is no "dockyard" to build the craft at.<br /><br />One possibility is that you send many landers to each site. That allows for delivery of occupiable space (crew quarters and labs). Think of ISS on the surface. It also allows for you to send an automated fuel factory. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[scottb50]

Why do you even need an assembly station at all? >><br /><br />Because one launch couldn't possibly provide enough payload to make it worthwhile. If you can use as may engines as you need you could assemble and deploy pretty much any size ship. If every launch contributes an engine Modules to the available inventory. Maybe you need Modules to expand living areas, storage areas or to stay Hydrogen and Oxygen tanks for use as Tugs, or attached to Vehicles. <br /><br />An assembly station would also be a good place for tourists, and returning Cyclers. A luxury hotel and a Space port. The Cape works for me, the facilities would work and a highly experienced workforce is in place.<br /><br />Actually you would pay a penalty, but you could launch into an equitorial orbit directly from the Cape, or get there later using Tugs. Either way it makes more sense to be in an equitorial orbit, not only to the moon, as illustrated above, but to most other Planets. Asteroids and Comets are another story though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Krrr:<br />One deliberately misaligns the trajectory (your magenta ellipse) somewhat. That is, one aims for an apogee point slightly below/above and/or "left"/"right" and/or in front/behind the Moon. Then apparently the geometry can be such that near the Moon, lunar gravity bends the spacecraft's path into a different inclination, essentially for free.<br /><br />Me:<br />I can see that being possible. Many years ago I thought it was but someone who had a background in orbital mechanics claimed that there was a significant propellant usage involved. I don't recall how much. At the time, I was looking at the feasibility of entering martian polar orbits from earth equatorial ones and due to the sheer distance to mars. This looked doable with minimal energy required.<br /><br />In spite of the fact the LTOC home page showing that trajectory, does it not explain how it works? I don't have a computer capable of handling the program right now or I'd download and check. <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>

 

[qso1]

henryhallam:<br />You have the right idea, krrr. Qso, why don't you get a copy of the excellent free and pretty accurate "Orbiter" space flight simulator...<br /><br />Me:<br />If I fly it, I'll end up in Brazil!<br /> <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>

 

[qso1]

willpittenger:<br />So was the shuttle completely written out of the 80's era Mars plans?<br /><br />Me:<br />As I recall, the shuttle was considered in 1980s, even the 1970s mars plans for exactly what it was designed for. That is, shuttling payloads within its capacity to LEO as part of assembling the mars craft. And in the 1980s, since the shuttle was operational and mars plans had slipped to the late 1990s...there was no reason to consider another way to loft payloads to LEO for assembling mars craft. Some plans may not have included shuttle and there were plans I saw which were not detailed enough to actually show that the shuttle was or was not a part of the.<br /><br />Short answer to the question...no. <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>

 

[qso1]

lampblack:<br />Would it be fair to say that the main problem with launching lunar missions from a 51-degree low earth orbit isn't whether it's possible or not -- but rather how frequently it could happen?<br /><br />Me:<br />Id say thats fair. Mission design takes much into consideration which usually eliminates the need for ideas that seem to make sense to some of us out here but may not be as practical as it appears face on. It seems the problem is not getting to the moon but the reason for monthly or any window or constraint to going to the moon probably has more to do with landing under the right lighting conditions. I doubt there will be night landings on the moon in the early years of a lunar program so that wipes out two weeks of potential windows right there. Landing at or near high noon provides no shadows for visual cues as to altitude. <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>

 

[qso1]

Scottb50:<br />Because one launch couldn't possibly provide enough payload to make it worthwhile....<br /><br />Me:<br />This is certainly true.<br /><br />When I developed plans for mars missions for a book I was working on, even I found that there was no practical way to do it in less than 5 launches except in the most auster designs. Of course, I wasn't designing the real thing but I did cover some basics. Use of as much existing tech as possible, in this case shuttle "C" derived designs as the HLLVs. A private enterprise solution to getting the crew to the craft once assembled in LEO, etc.<br /><br />Of course, it is possible to utilize a big dumb booster approach but I would not want to be the NASA director if such a booster was launched and blew up 10 seconds into the ascent with our entire mars craft and possibly crew aboard. <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>

 

[scottb50]

That's why we need a Two Stage to Orbit Launcher. The First Stage returns to the launch site for re-fueling and lanunch and the upper stage gets integrated into the Space infrastructure. Plus, there's payload!<br /><br />The payload Modules and the Upper Stage propellant Modules are modified as needed for living areas or other uses in Stations, Vehicles, moon bases, Mars bases... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

The best aspect of that idea is reusability or even partial reusability (Upper stage) and developing the vehicle to be flexible enough to be adaptable for use beyond just mars.<br /><br />This kind of brings us to the original intent of this thread. Utilizing ISS as a lunar station etc. Even if it can be gotten to the moon from a 51 degree orbit with no additional propellant required, is not practical because of the large amount of propellant needed to get it to earth escape velocity assuming there is not some trajectory trickery free way to do this. IMO, its better to just spring the bucks for the new hardware required to develop a lunar/mars base infrastructure, otherwise don't do it at all. <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>

 

[scottb50]

Maybe you should be discussing this with Vogon. Hyper Space interchanges are his specialty, if I' m not mistaken. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Your probably right or maybe the person who started this thread might want to do that since it is that pesron who wants to utilize ISS in lunar orbit. <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>

 

[willpittenger]

That's what I thought. In the early 80's NASA administrators were practically worshiping the shuttle. "A Shuttle launch is free. If I launch Galileo with an expendable launcher, I have to pay for that." ????? I never understood their logic. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Forget the NASA Administrator. If the thing went off close enough to the ground without being too close, it would be like a Nuke going off on the pad. ShuttleGuy, how much does NASA have invested in the pad VAB, and other facilities in range? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[qso1]

I wouldnt say the shuttle launches would have been free. Had mars plans gone far enough, the shuttle launches would have been factored into the cost of going to mars. In the early eighties, hope was still held out that the shuttle would make at least 24 flights per yesr. This was theoretically possible, especially since Discovery made 6 flights from its first mission to its sixth within the space of a year (30 Aug 1984-27 Aug 85).<br /><br />The main problem was that until 1984, the Reagan Administration was kind of nebulous on whether to proceed with a space station but in January 1984, Reagan requested space station be built at a cost of $8 billion and reach IOC by 1992. Mars was not seriously considered. There were no plans for unmanned Mars being seriously considered during the 1980s, much less manned. Mars plans were more like "If we could get the funding, what would we need" excercises.<br /><br />Realistically, there would still be a need for HLLV support of mars missions. <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>

 

[qso1]

It would be like a small tactical nuke rather than something that could consume the entire facility structures of complex 39.<br /><br />The two pads are separated by 8,716 feet. Some damage could occur at the pad "A" or "B" in the event of an explosion of a gigantic launcher at one or the other. The pad from which such a vehicle explodes would probably be totally destroyed. The VAB, OPF and other facilities are approximately 3.5 miles from pad "A" and about 4 miles from "B" and would probably suffer shattered windows and other minor damage. Another thing to consider.<br /><br />If the one shot mars launch in a giant HLLV were utilized. They would probably have had to built a new pad somewhere else, ocean launch perhaps, especially if the vehicle were large enough to produce a blast equivalent of say 200 Kt or more. Had the Saturn-V or space shuttle exploded on the pad, the blast equivalent would approach 3Kt, best I can estimate. <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>

 

[avmich]

lampblack:<br />"Would it be fair to say that the main problem with launching lunar missions from a 51-degree low earth orbit isn't whether it's possible or not -- but rather how frequently it could happen?"<br /><br />qso1:<br />"Id say thats fair. Mission design takes much into consideration which usually eliminates the need for ideas that seem to make sense to some of us out here but may not be as practical as it appears face on. It seems the problem is not getting to the moon but the reason for monthly or any window or constraint to going to the moon probably has more to do with landing under the right lighting conditions. I doubt there will be night landings on the moon in the early years of a lunar program so that wipes out two weeks of potential windows right there. Landing at or near high noon provides no shadows for visual cues as to altitude."<br /><br />Not exactly. Theoretically, going to the Moon from any original orbital plane around the Earth - including the Cape Canaveral's plane - requires you to wait half a month. Only if you're exactly in the Moon orbital plane, on LEO, you can go once per 1.5 hours.<br /><br />In practice, you'll have to make corrections anyway. And changing planes somewhere near, say, L1 point is much cheaper, than doing it on LEO. So in practice, essentially, it matters little what orbital plane you're starting with. And that's the whole point - it is strange why people consider ISS unsuitable as original point for launches to the Moon.<br /><br />Logistically, ISS may bring benefits of not having to have a big booster, using several smaller ones instead. You can reasonably expect to launch moon lander, commander craft and a couple of boosters separately, assemble them on ISS - remember that sophisticated ISS manipulator? - and launch to the Moon, all without having to build the Saturn-5 class rocket first. Probably Delta-Heavy isn't enough for that, but barely. Rocket which would deliver around 80,000-100,000 lbs to LEO will certainly b

 

[willpittenger]

Actually, I was thinking the VAB might be too small to hold such a monster. It was only built to hold Saturn V's. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

The quote I mentioned actually happened according to one of the guys that used to run JPL. He was, at the time, running the Galileo project and wanted a earlier launch. He also felt the expendable booster could use a simple shroud rather than forcing the collapsible dish that causes JPL so many problems. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[qso1]

willpittenger:<br />Actually, I was thinking the VAB might be too small to hold such a monster. It was only built to hold Saturn V's.<br /><br />Me:<br />Thats true. I was thinking if such a vehicle were used, you'd have to "Sea launch" it. <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>

 

[qso1]

avmich:<br />it is strange why people consider ISS unsuitable as original point for launches to the Moon.<br /><br />Me:<br />There has to be some reason they think that but all I can think of for now, why isn't this type of option being planned for the current lunar mission plans? Or is it? <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>

 

[marcel_leonard]

<i>"Maybe you should be discussing this with Vogon. Hyper Space interchanges are his specialty, if I' m not mistaken. "</i><br /><br />Would somebody like to explain what exactly is a "Vogon Hyper Space Interchange"? <br /><br />Originally I thought we could discuss the orbital mechanics of using what we currently have, as a good way to begin off-world bases of operation on both Mars/Moon. Now that I have seen for myself how many consider pure speculation as fact when it comes to utilizing the shuttle/ISS; I ask another question. What if our country fell deeper into our current economic recession, or even into to a great twenty first century depression, and we only had the option to use only the shuttle/ISS for a return mission to the moon? Could the shuttle be fitted with a lunar module in its cargo hold? Could the ISS be used as way-station between the shuttle and the LM? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>There has to be some reason they think that but all I can think of for now, why isn't this type of option being planned for the current lunar mission plans? Or is it?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It's only useful if you're going to be doing a significant amount of on-orbit construction. If the vehicle is small enough to launch directly from the Earth, it's actually more expedient to do so. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[nibb31]

<br />There's no point in using something just because you can, especially when you have no practical reason. You are trying to find a reason to use the Shuttle or the ISS just because it would be neat.<br /><br />First, regardless of your opinions, the shuttle is going away in a few years. It is too expensive to maintain and to redesign a direct replacement would be prohibitive. If the USA went that deep into an economic recession, it would probably have to cut the manned program anyway. Besides, it would be silly to base a new space infrastructure around the STS, which was designed in the 70s.<br /><br />You could probably fit a very small LM in the cargo bay, but it would still need propellant. There's no way you can get an EDS stage with more than a couple of pounds payload into the Shuttle. <br /><br />What would the point be of using the ISS ? You don't need a way-station for orbital assembly. The russians have been doing unmanned orbital assembly for years on MIR and the ISS. All you need is a parking orbit to do the assembly.<br /><br />Why do you even need a way-station at the ISS ? The trip to the moon is only 3 days and provides plenty of time for the astronauts to rest.<br /><br />You cannot launch an entire moon stack on 1 shuttle launch. Orbital assembly of a moon stack would take many many launches, and even with a flight rate of 6 per year, that would take a lot of time, maybe several years! notwithstanding the technical problems of building one big fat EDS booster with many shuttle payloads. <br /><br />It's much more practical to launch the whole stack in one go on a big fat launcher. Just like the current ESAS plan.<br /><br />The ESAS plan does include orbital assembly of the CEV with the EDS and LM. And there is no need for the ISS for that.

 

[marcel_leonard]

<i><font color="yellow">Nibb31-<br />"There's no point in using something just because you can, especially when you have no practical reason. You are trying to find a reason to use the Shuttle or the ISS just because it would be neat." </font>/i><br /><br />Trying to make the space program more cost effective is my exact definition of neat. Building a CEV Delta V version of the Apollo Saturn V mission is my definition of redundant. What you fail to realize is that we can actually return to the Moon with minimal design of a new delivery system. My guess is you just like to spend money on shiny new things.</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[nibb31]

I wonder where you got that definition of redundant. How can a modern manned launch infrastructure be redundant with a design from the 60s that you no longer have?<br /><br />What you fail to realize is the sheer cost of the Shuttle program: approx $2 billion per year! Believe it or not, the shuttle fleet is aging and EXPENSIVE to maintain and to fly, much more so than developing a new launcher. Just because it exists doesn't make it cost effective. The shuttle has proven that reusable can be more expensive than disposable. Hardware is cheap, manpower is expensive.<br /><br />That money will be better used by developing a new more cost effective HLV infrastructure. When your old truck costs you more to run in repairs and gas, it's usually more cost effective in the long run to buy a new one. In this case, NASA is actually investing in 2 new ones: a small economical multi-purpose runabout for getting people around and a big fat semi for hauling heavy stuff only when you need to. That kind of modularity is what's cost-effective! <br /><br />Now, just look at the figures: whatever you do, a moon stack weighs more or less 100 tons. The shuttle can only launch 18 tons. That means at least 6 flights to assemble your moon stack. That means that with an optimistic flight rate of 4 shuttles per year, you can only do one moon mission every 1.5 year.<br /><br />And again, that is not "minimal design". You need to figure out a way of assembling a monolithic EDS in LEO, and refueling it, things that have been done before. That alone will take years of expensive development, design and testing. You still need to design a LM that can fit as a shuttle payload or be also assembled in LEO. And all this designing takes place while continuing to throw $2 billion at the STS program every year. In effect every moon launch will be costing you at least $3 billion (and I'm not even counting the cost of the moon hardware).<br /><br />