Re: LSAM and an unmanned CEV in lunar orbit?


"TVDad Jim" <jim@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1123778176.716409.213030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Quoting from http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1057 :
>
> "Along with a CEV that carried the flight crew and their support
> equipment and propulsion system package, a Lunar Surface Access Module
> (LSAM) which was designed to undock from the CEV and take the entire
> crew to land upon the moon's surface. Upon completion of the mission,
> part of the LSAM would launch off the surface and rendezvous and dock
> with the CEV, orbiting unmanned following departure of the flight crew
> to the surface. The CEV and LSAM would use a similar approach to the
> Apollo CSM/Lunar Module/S-IVB complex to get to and from the moon."
>
> Questions:
>
> What are the risks of having an unpiloted CEV in orbit, rather than
> leaving a pilot onboard while the LSAM lands?
>
Docking might be a problem if the LSAM has instrumental failure. I would
imagine that there would be a provision for a "rescue" mission if the CEV
failed during the lunar stay. (The LSAM will be capable of a much longer
stay than the LM.)
> How have these risks changed since the days of manned lunar CSMs? Is it
> just better automation available? Was having a CMP onboard just a
> "consolation prize" in case the LM didn't make it back for a LOR?
>
Much, much, much better automation. The CMP was responsible for performing
orbital science (primarily photography), and the final phase of docking was
performed by the CSM.
> How do four astronauts on the Moon make it a "better" mission than
> three astronauts on the Moon? It sounds like a lot of ballast (both in
> body mass and support materiel) to land and re-launch.
>
First, you should compare four with two. Second, the primary reason why it
is a better mission is that there will be a longer stay. Secondly, IIRC, the
new proposal calls for two rovers. I would imagine that a single one of the
new missions would cover as much ground as all the Apollo missions. (IIRC,
Apollo 15 alone covered more than all three of the successful non-LRV
missions).


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GRIFFINS DRIVE FOR SHUTTLE-DERIVED
    ... CEV is being built primarily for lunar ... Griffin seems to dis-favor Earth Orbit Rendezvous ... launch windows compared to other mission types. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Thinking about a new Apollo 8
    ... >> So...what do people think about a precursor manned CEV mission to orbit ... >> them and save the cash) but the mission would also test the CEV ... >> and here's the nub - it wouldn't require the heavy lifter, or the lunar ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: ESAS - VSE article by Jeffery Bell
    ... the LSAM that bother me. ... the footpads just has "STS-49 Intelsat Capture Bar Fiasco" written all ... protruding from the LSAM "knees" and two V-guide mechanisms on the EDS. ... This means starting over on the CEV CSM design, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Perhaps theres hope for NASA yet
    ... > money to built that mythical CEV, ... > Apollo had very ... > specific mission requirements: go to the moon and back. ... > And what will NASA do with an astronaut corps during all the years it ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • LSAM and an unmanned CEV in lunar orbit?
    ... "Along with a CEV that carried the flight crew and their support ... a Lunar Surface Access Module ... part of the LSAM would launch off the surface and rendezvous and dock ...
    (sci.space.history)