Re: Lunar Architecture Poll
- From: Cardman <do-not@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:19:37 GMT
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 16:50:36 +0200, "John Thingstad"
<john.thingstad@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>support.
>
>I like the idea of mining the moon.
We will have to see how much NASA embraces the "mine" concept, when
they would more likely be into minor regolith processing.
>(If this indeed get's incorperated into the program.
>But why would the make a methane/oxygen rocket if they didn't at least
>consider this.)
They will certainly be
>A heavy weight launcher is good news. Much cheaper than many smaller
>launches.
That is the idea in theory, but this $500 million per launch does not
include the operating costs. I would like to see those numbers, when
you must be talking over $1 billion per year.
The problem here is that you cannot do much to lower your launch
costs, when your handling costs for such a massive rocket will always
be high.
Lets for now say that each of these half yearly launches costs $1
billion including the ground costs. So with the initial 100 ton SDHLV,
your launch cost would be $10,000 per kg.
For comparison, then SpaceX's planned Falcon 9 rocket can launch your
mass at $2903 per kg. It is also likely that their costs could
decrease as their launch rate increases.
So in terms of efficiency, then SpaceX would start off over three
times cheaper. The only problems are with cramming your cargo into a
smaller payload fairing, then to move large volumes of mass towards
the Moon, where an orbital refueling depot would be helpful.
And to top it off the SDHLV will cost $5 to $10 billion to develop,
excluding future upgrade costs, where being another SpaceX customer
would cost NASA (including congress and the US tax payer) nothing.
So let me hear you justify the SDHLV, when it would both cost more to
build and to operate.
>125 tonnes is good news.
That could well be your Mars phaze of this launcher's life, when it
will start around 100 tons and work up.
>I thought they were going to go for a 80 tonn launcher
>which seems inadequate for launching heavy equipment twoards the moon.
NASA decided to go with the inline design, instead of the shuttle-like
side mounted cargo pod. That is a wise choice to minimise their long
term development costs, but as a result the initial SDHLV will take
longer to develop.
Also I should point out that you do not get those 80/100/125 tons on
the Moon, when that is only the launch to LEO amount. And from what I
have been reading, then they should be able to put 14 tons of cargo on
the Moon.
>A capule based design seems like the way to go.
>Much safer than a plane.
We will have to see if NASA takes advantage of the natural advantages
of the capsule design. From what I have seen, then they are skipping a
couple of points.
So in the end the difference between them doing winged or capsule will
be minimal, where the biggest gain is in losing the mass of the wings.
>Less time preparing it for launch.
NASA is not quite up to the two hour turn around of a commercial
passenger aircraft. If they are not able to turn around one CEV within
two months, then I would be disappointed.
>But why is it so huge? 25 tonnes seems excessive.
Maybe because they are going beyond LEO. Also they can use the "stick"
in their Moon plan as required.
>Still curious to see if they manage to cut launch costs.
Compared to the Shuttle, then every NASA employee should be lined up
and shot if the new system provides less efficient launch costs.
They have good odds of cutting the cost now that all their astronauts
will all ride the stick. Oh, that sounds naughty. ;-]
>On the whole it is about as exciting as could be expected.
The exciting aspect is not in doubt for us space supporters, but
efficiency and useful progress is a different matter. In other words
we do not want them to start up another shuttle-like or ISS-like
system.
This is a good point in time for getting something useful done, when
NASA has a whole history of doing crazy plans. In other words the
strong questioning of their current plans is a lot more helpful than
with simply going with the flow.
>On a mere 1% of US budget Mars was definatly out
>and this is about the best you can do.
They will "do" Mars one day. All about getting closer and closer
towards that goal, so that the final leap does not appear that large.
>(I don't really see why they think the money will surface in 20 years
>though.)
An evolution from the money that they are already spending.
>I like the fact that humans are leaving earth orbit. (well strictly not..
>but..)
The Moon is a planet worthy destination.
>Far more interesting than looping the earth.
NASA overlooked that there is nothing worthwhile in orbit.
>Particularly it stimulates the imagination of the younger generations.
Time will tell.
The commercial people could be more impressive, they have better video
coverage. Not to mention that seeing Bigelow Aerospace's Nautilus Moon
Cruiser in business would be vastly too impressive. :-]
Cardman.
.
- References:
- Lunar Architecture Poll
- From: Ed Kyle
- Lunar Architecture Poll
- Prev by Date: Re: NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture
- Next by Date: Re: Lunar Architecture Poll
- Previous by thread: Re: Lunar Architecture Poll
- Next by thread: Re: Lunar Architecture Poll
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
