What to do with the LSAM?

[nacnud]

At the moment the LSAM once finnished with will be abandoned in LLO. Are there ways of useing this rather that throwing it away or is it not worth it?<br /><br />My idea is that once a surface hab is established the pressurised portion of the LASM could be reused as part of a LLO - Luna surface ferry to save bringing it from Earth each time. Anyone have any other ideas?

 

[soccerguy789]

reuse is being considered. Beoing's plan has always included LSAM reuse. It will likely require an ISRU to produce fuel before it can be reused, but it would likely function as an lunar surface to lunar orbit ferry. I't would greatly reduce the cost of lunar outpost resupply and recrew missions if it were to be reused.

 

[krrr]

I'm always sceptical about refueling schemes, and ISRU is certainly not on the agenda for the first few missions.<br /><br />On the other hand, it would indeed be a pity to discard the LSAM ascent stage immediately.<br /><br />Possible uses:<br /><ul type="square"><li>Communications relay for later missions<li>Unmanned observation platform (with a camera and some scientific instruments)<li>Safe haven if something goes very wrong<li>Building block for a small manned orbital station (maybe docked to a hub with several docking ports)<br /></li></li></li></li></ul>

 

[soccerguy789]

Just ditch the extra engines and fuel tanks that make up the accent stage and reuse the main engines if possible. doesn't physics say it takes the same amount of energy to go up then down as it does to go down then up? You could use the same pressureized area as beofer. the thing about this plan is that it needs a base with an ISRU, while it makes the base with ISRU far more accssable, so I see no reason why it can't be done.<br /><br />Another thing I've been considering is that the shuttle-C design could lift about 60 tons to LEO. now if we had an LLO to surface ferry, we could use a shuttle-C or other HLV design to loft a CEV with a double service module or something that could get it to LLO and back, saving tonns of money in the preccess.

 

[nibb31]

It would be nice if the LSAM ascent stage, as a secondary mission requirement, was loaded with just enough fuel to de-orbit and re-land non-destructively after bringing the astronauts back up to the CEV. <br /><br />The landing could be guided by a laser target left by the crew on the ground. How much extra fuel would be required to do that?<br />

 

[darkenfast]

"I am afraid the LASM's orbit would quickly decay, plus the batteries would die and with them the remainder of the avionics."<br /><br />Agree about the batteries, but why would the ascent stage's lunar orbit decay?<br />

 

[mattblack]

I agree! Once ISRU is demonstrated, especially if there is sufficient ice at the lunar poles, you wouldn't need the same delta-V as for the original LSAM mission: No midcourse corrections, no Lunar Orbit Insertion burn and no full-landed mass for PDI, just the up to lunar orbit, then back down again. Still a significant propellant need, but if you deleted all the ascent stage propellant and engines and re-used the entire LSAM, with the Descent Stage becoming an Ascent/Descent combo stage, you'd have yourself a "lunar shuttle". Not as easy as I've just described it, but I'm sure that a growth version of the LSAM could eventually be developed for this sort of mission. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[jhoblik]

All, what wee need back on the Moon orbit are astronauts. Let leave lunar module on the surface, for future use and on the top of ascent booster add four chairs for astronaut in space suit + oxygen can + rock samples(~1000LB). <br />On the Moon orbit approach to return vehicle, have device to connected by cable and slide to entrance of return vehicle.<br />We will build infrastructure on the moon orbit.<br />If we add wheels to LASM, it could be move to the new interesting site by rover towing module behind him, before new crew came to the Moon surface.<br />

 

[jhoblik]

Picture 1

 

[jhoblik]

Picture 2

 

[CalliArcale]

Sorry, Pic 1 appears to have been corrupted. You'll have to try uploading it again. <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>

 

[jhoblik]

Picture 1

 

[bwhite]

As for ISRU, LOX is 89% by mass of the fuel needed for an LH2 engine (2H2 + O2 = 2H2O) and 80% by mass of the fuel needed for a CH4 engine.<br /><br />Thus ISRU has huge potential regardless of lunar water ice.<br /><br />WIth ISRU, using the same engines for ascent/descent would seem a reasonable step. RL-10s come to mind as a perfectfully useful little engine for this purpose.<br /><br />Landing legs? Four down and welded. Lifting extra mass back to LLO is a negative but that saves sending new mass from Earth which is a positive.<br /><br />= = =<br /><br />Where to park the thing? <br /><br />EML-1 is not necessary for the VSE return to the moon using a throwaway LSAM and building an ISS at EML-1 would be a huge distraction for NASA. <br /><br />Thereafter, however, EML-1 is a terrific Gateway for routine lunar access and a stable parking place for a reuseable LSAM. Get Musk et. all. to ship CH4 to EML-1 and extract lunar LOX and there you go.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Are there ways of useing this rather that throwing it away or is it not worth it?</font>/i><br /><br />It depends on a lot of things we don't/can't know right now. It is currently unclear what NASA will do with its ability to return to the Moon. Perhaps after a half dozen missions America will decide its not worth the cost to settle, or pehaps attention will turn towards Mars. In these cases, it probably isn't worth it to invest money to develop a more efficient LSAM capability.<br /><br />However, if NASA (actually Congress/President) want to develop a continued presense on the Moon, then a more efficient means will probably be developed.<br /><br />My vote: a small 100% reusuable ascent/descent vehicle (with limited life support). In the early missions, the a/d vehicle will launch from the Lunar surface, take on fuel and passengers that have arrived in LLO, and then descend to the Lunar surface -- at which point the crew will transfer to a Lunar habitat (hence, the small a/d vehicle with limited life support).<br /><br />In later missions, some percentage of the fuel may be extracted from Lunar resources (e.g., Oxygen), so less fuel (e.g., only Methane) will be delivered to LLO from Earth.</i>