Re: Improved lunar landing architecture

On 6 Aug 2005 02:05:28 -0700, "Alex Terrell" <alexterrell@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>The art work coming out of NASA and other sources seems to imply an
>Apollo approach, namely, land your capsule on the moon, explore, launch
>most of your capsule back, and then discard it.

It seems possible that they could go into orbit around the Earth and
to drop if off. That way they could reuse it, but that depends on
maintenance.

>At least the Apollo program had the sense to leave the Rovers and Flags
>behind! The Apollo ascent stage weighed 4.54 tons.

Obviously. They did take back a lot of moon rocks though.

>Approximately, to launch 1 ton from the moon requires 1 ton of fuel,
>making 2 tons to be landed. To land 2 tons on the moon needs about 15
>tons in Low Earth Orbit. So a 15:1 ratio from Low Earth Orbit to Lunar
>surface to Lunar Orbit.
>
>So why not seek to minimise the mass launched from the lunar surface to
>the orbiting CEV?

The idea has hope.

>This could be done by landing on the lunar surface a standard 10 ton
>pallet* consisting of a 7 ton habitation module, an asecender stage and
>fuel for the ascender.
>
>Given the astroanuts will need to suit up to leave the hab module, and
>the journey from surface to CEV needs to be only and hour or so, an
>unpressurised, unfueled ascender could weigh in at 1.5 tons, even with
>a crew of 4.

That makes 2.5 to 3 tons fueled then?

>The current approach can only land a 5 ton hab module as part of a 10
>ton landing.

They are sure to land their hab module, and more, as part of a cargo
only landing. Should they actually have the hardware to be able to do
that, which seems likely with a little foresight. No use linking
people and cargo into a locked joint system.

To begin with though they won't bother with a hab module at all. Just
a usual land, look around, and depart. NASA I guess is unlikely to
think "base" until 2020. That is if they land on the Moon in 2018 as
planned.

Not that this seems like the best plan if you ask me.

>Alos, with the proposed approach the hab module can be
>reused for later missions, should these come to the same location. (As
>they will when a proper base needs to be established)

So that is a one shot mission. Not the best idea to build a new man
rated vehicle for a one shot use. And what about when they want to
visit another location? No chance of them dropping a hab module down
every place that they go.

>Is this approach feasible or likely?

You seem to forget the Apollo 13 problem. As just what would your
astronauts do if their CEV breaks down somewhere during this lunar
trip? Based on your idea they would die.

The Lunar Lander can be used as a back-up should the CEV break down.

Cardman.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Improved lunar landing architecture
    ... Apollo approach, namely, land your capsule on the moon, explore, launch ... At least the Apollo ... Approximately, to launch 1 ton from the moon requires 1 ton of fuel, ... The current approach can only land a 5 ton hab module as part of a 10 ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Improved lunar landing architecture
    ... So a 15:1 ratio from Low Earth Orbit to Lunar ... >>the orbiting CEV? ... >>This could be done by landing on the lunar surface a standard 10 ton ... > They are sure to land their hab module, and more, as part of a cargo ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: ATHPEDIA
    ... Ich werde in diesem Land beschissen und verarscht vom Hacken bis zum Nacken. ... Du fragst mich, woher mein Ton kommt? ... Aber Herr Hans-Jürgen Lukaschik, das Aushängeschild der deutschen Linkspartei, schwadroniert vom Arbeitsmarkt und all den Möglichkeiten. ... Es gibt in diesem Land halt Gewinner, das sind Beamte, wie Du, oder Leute wie Lukaschik, zu dessen Vita ich jetzt nichts sage, das soll er selber tun. ...
    (de.soc.weltanschauung.christentum)
  • Re: CEV launch - Stick or HLV?
    ... > The problem is that the Moon train is 130 ton... ... the lunar surface access module should weigh 3 tons on the ... > four astronauts on the Moon surface instead of two. ... with a hab module for a week, and then it removed the entire hab module ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Digesting UMRA
    ... marginal land not on arable land. ... at $600 per ton, it makes more sense to grow wheat than biofuel. ... marginal land where where other crops won't grow, ...
    (uk.media.radio.archers)
Loading