The XEUS, United Launch Alliance’s concept for a lunar lander based on their ACES cryogenic stage. Such a vehicle could be ready for flight within a few years. From Barr (2015).
Last month’s national election results have confounded this year’s annual crop of retrospective pieces on space. Instead of a guarantee of business as usual, America has elected a President that defies normal political calculation. Hanging in the balance are questions over what President Donald Trump will do about the U.S. space program. His statements over the course of the 2016 campaign have been ambiguous, first advancing the idea that filling in America’s potholes was more important than space, then proclaiming that our civil space program was one of the things that “make America great.” So what might this ambiguity of attitude portend for the coming years?
Decisions made over the last eight years have left us with a hollowed out space program and an agency in complete disarray. So regardless of which strategic direction the new Trump administration decides to pursue, they must first repair the agency tasked with executing our national space policy. Appallingly, a programmatic decision made in conjunction with the earlier Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) architecture (the retirement of the Space Shuttle) was not halted in light of President Obama’s cancellation of that direction, and instead, was permitted (with great fanfare) to proceed apace as these workhorses were shuttled off to museums. That decision terminated America’s ability to deliver astronauts to space, while at the same time, Mars was proclaimed as the agency’s end goal. Lunar return was declared a dead-end repeat of past glories, unworthy of our efforts and replaced with a call for the development of technology for a “Journey to Mars” sometime in the distant future.
Vague promises of an “asteroid mission” and the far-off Mars journey couldn’t fill the void left by the termination of the VSE. A call to permit the more nimble “private sector” to develop and provide human transportation to and from the International Space Station was touted as a new way of conducting spaceflight, but nothing from that quarter is yet available to deliver American crews to space. No American human spaceflight capability – government or private – exists and we continue to purchase Soyuz seats from the Russians as our only access to the ISS, a facility that America largely built and paid for.
The relevance of this history is that the current version of NASA has seen the hemorrhage of competent, experienced spaceflight personnel, along with many businesses that have simply faded away. Hanging around waiting for someone to decide where and how to proceed does not feed families or attract talent. So many of the people who had prepared and operated the Shuttle system were lost to retirement, workforce reduction, and to their own crippling frustration and eventual resignation over an apparently nonexistent future in space.
Meanwhile, NASA management resorts to producing meaningless PR hype (“#Journey to Mars”), hoping to convince the public that the agency is viable and on-track for a human Mars mission “sometime in the 2030s.” In fact, the #Journey to Mars is a complete fraud. There is no architecture that enables a 2030’s mission, no strategy to develop one, and no money to implement such a plan, even if one existed.
The net effect of this institutional drift and strategic confusion is an agency bereft of technical knowledge and capability, an entity claiming to be going somewhere, but without any knowledge of how or when it will do so. Despite a reasonably constant budget of about $20 billion per year (not chicken-feed by any stretch of the imagination), the current program is a hodge-podge of disconnected, disparate efforts that have led to no new or innovative capabilities. Is there a way to recover from this state of disarray? There is, but it will take both strong leadership and purposeful conviction to do so.
Honesty about our situation is the first step. We need to recognize that recovery will not come overnight and that a careful, but constant, movement towards a clear direction of reform and retrenchment must begin. There is no “Journey to Mars,” except in the minds and fantasies of some space buffs. We do not have the technological base, the skilled personnel, or the money to conduct a human mission to Mars by the end of the 2030s. There is no government space hardware or infrastructure to conduct an Apollo-type “flags-and-footprints” mission to Mars on decadal timescales. And there are no reusable “Mars Colonial Transports” waiting to whisk hundreds off to the new world to begin construction of Muskopolis. Dreams and inspiration are important, but human endeavor is ultimately answerable to nature. Facts and a workable architecture must exist in the mix if America wants a stake in a future space economy.
The only way we will ever get to Mars is by incrementally developing an expanding, space-based transportation infrastructure, one that gradually extends human reach – first beyond LEO, and then beyond cislunar space – into the Solar System. The key missing skill set necessary to build such a system is the knowledge and ability to find and use what exists in space to create new spaceflight capabilities.
It is for this reason that I advocate a return to the Moon – not to “plant the seventh American flag” or to one-up the Chinese – but to go and learn how to use and exploit what the Moon has to offer. I often hear the argument that it will “cost more to go to the Moon and make rocket propellant for a Mars mission than it would to launch the water directly from Earth.” This belief nicely misses the whole point of going to the Moon. We do not go there simply to “make propellant” but to learn how to make propellant – and all of the other commodities necessary to sail on the ocean of space. Using off-planet resources is a skill set that must be mastered in order to become a true space faring species.
To return to a vibrant, forward-moving civil space program, we need to plan and execute a series of small robotic missions to the lunar poles to characterize their environments and prospect for water ice. When the Vision for Space Exploration was announced in 2004, we did not know to what extent water was present on the Moon. Now we know that promising deposits exist close to areas of near-permanent sunlight near both poles. Because the availability of power is of overriding importance in any off-planet environment, we can confine our detailed explorations to within a few tens of kilometers of these sunlit areas. This localization simplifies prospecting requirements. Initial work can be done with inexpensive, small, expendable spacecraft, such as hard landers and small, fixed soft-landers, eventually followed up by long-lived surface rovers (depending on the findings of the earlier missions). These surveys will reveal in short order the optimum locations for future surface operations.
After the best locations have been identified, a series of increasingly sophisticated robotic craft can land near the site to demonstrate that the ice can be recovered and processed. After that is done, building infrastructure for a lunar outpost can begin. The basic needs are water-bearing feedstock (ore), a nearby zone of near-constant sunlight for power generation, solar arrays to generate that power, and a small array of equipment to harvest, extract and store the water. These tasks do not require a huge industrial facility on the Moon – the initial robotic equipment needed to undertake this work has a total mass of about 20 tones. Emplacement of all the equipment necessary for initial operations on the lunar surface would require only 2-3 launches of the forthcoming SLS heavy lift launch vehicle.
The Orion spacecraft and its SLS launch vehicle are currently in final stages of development, with initial test flights planned for 2018. We can use these existing systems to return to the Moon; indeed, as the remnants of the cancelled Constellation program, they are already optimized for cislunar missions. The only missing piece is a lander to put people on to the lunar surface. NASA’s Altair lander program was cancelled in 2011, but fortunately, a lander may be ready very soon. The United Launch Alliance has outlined a plan for a human-rated lander based around the venerable Centaur stage, using modified RL-10 engines. This vehicle is almost perfectly configured to return people to the Moon, as it is intended to be reusable and utilizes the LOX-hydrogen propellant that we will produce on the lunar surface.
By re-focusing the agency toward the achievable and enabling, instead of the improbable, unrealistic and unattainable, we will be on the Moon developing a permanent, space-based transportation system that opens many possible destinations in space – and all doable within the agency’s existing (or slightly enhanced) budget.
We must return to a program template that knows how to distinguish reality from fantasy. And we must follow a path designed for space permanence, one that assures our nation’s leadership in space. This recovery will happen by a return to the Moon to learn how to use its resources. There we will add to our skill set and demonstrate what is possible – and create an atmosphere in which entrepreneurs can use that knowledge to build new space industries. Our space program requires clear direction, decisive leadership and competent technical implementation. We need for those who understand this – those willing to pursue these vital tasks – to speak up, engage and make our space program great again.
I don’t disagree with you at all but looking down on “America” from 100,000 ft I can see all the hallmarks of a system that is fundamentally broken and potentially beyond repair. As long as America decides to stay out of touch with reality by continuing to make grandiose and empty statements like, “We’re the greatest”, “We’re the best”, etc. as I’ve now heard from so many people, including in NASA, DARPA, Armed Services, Congress, etc., nothing substantial will ever get done. I’m not even sure that America is willing to even honestly self-diagnose itself from its psychosis of keeping on substituting virtuality for reality. I mean, just look at the littany of social media psychopaths at the very top tweeting incessant and utter nonsense, and casually prepared to totally waste hard earned taxpayer money on going nowhere pet projects. I’m no pundit but my first impression is that this has all the hallmarks of a tree that is too large and unkept and begining to collapse under its own weight. At this rate, and I’ve no doubt, the Chinese will take over because they ARE consumed with thoughts of doing, not being, and TEAM. The only salvage solution to this rabid poblem is an army of prune-cutters or better yet some doer wielding an axe and hacking off dead limbs. And, I get it wouldn’t be pleasant, but we’re past that point … it’s just simply unavoidable and necessary.
Thinly disguised anti-NASA state-hate has been the fare presented on space forums for years. The whining defeatist rhetoric presenting NewSpace as the only hope of salvation has crippled any discussion of space exploration on these venues. I am sick of it.
The scam being perpetrated on the public is classic bait-and-switch. The first part is to appeal to basic human greed by proclaiming we can get something for almost nothing- in this case by way of the miracle of “entrepreneurship”. The second part is to substitute a hopelessly inferior service and hype it as the only possibility of success.
Two-faced double agents in the senior executive service of the space agency have played along with this game so far. Such strategies have been defeated in the past by momentous events sweeping the board clean. When those changes occur they can either create or destroy. Unfortunately the act of destruction is gleefully sought after by the scavengers.
“Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
That certain people have always called for giving NASA the axe and handing it over to Musk or some other private concern is transparent. It is how historically empires fall and the mob ends any hope of progress.
An article about the new additions to the transition team
http://www.wsj.com/articles/thiel-others-push-for-trump-nasa-team-expansion-1482263645
Interesting article.
Particularly the following quotes:
(1) “The names of the new members are going through final vetting and could change, people familiar with the matter said.”
So the new potential appointees are not yet approved.
(2) Mr. Thiel’s support for an expanded NASA team has been criticized by legacy aerospace contractors, according to people familiar with the matter. These critics have complained in conversations with transition officials and others that Messrs. Thiel and Musk, longtime friends and business associates, are working together for their own financial benefit, these people said.
Founders Fund, one of Mr. Thiel’s companies, was an early and significant investor in SpaceX. As a result, these critics argue that Mr. Thiel stands to personally gain from enhanced federal support of commercially run space programs at SpaceX.”
So Thiel becomes a big Trump campaign donor and then tries to stack the NASA transition team to his own financial benefit.
Isn’t crony capitalism wonderful.
I already posted that.
The best that can be hoped for is these NewSpace transition team members are shunned and ignored.
Otherwise their scam will contaminate any of the new administrations efforts to make America great again by way of the space agency.
The Xeus lander would be an excellent choice. The Centaur and RL-10 engine have a great deal of flight experience. Dave Masten has indicated that it should take about $20 M to create a Terrestrial Demonstrator that could exhibit all of the propulsive maneuvers necessary for the terminal lunar landing sequence. Consider what a lander, large enough to deliver crew to the Moon, demonstrating that capabilities over the skies of the Mojave desert would do to convince people that we really could return to the Moon at much lower cost than it took the first time.
Masten is also on record of estimating that it ought not to take more than $200 M to modify an existing Centaur to become a flight-worthy vehicle capable of landing on the Moon. If funded via a set of public-private programs with fixed price, milestone payments, then it seems to me that such a program shouldn’t cost more than the current large public-private programs at about 5% of NASA’s budget. With uncrewed missions first sending telerobots aiming for the ice, flight experience could be built up before risking the lives of crew on the Xeus landers. This sort of hardware and architecture would be the right approach for establishing humanity’s first permanent off-Earth base.
This sort of hardware and architecture being promoted by “entrepreneurs” is the path for establishing a human presence Beyond Low Earth Orbit guaranteed to fail.
The NewSpace ideology sometimes described as “the flexible path” is the worst thing that has ever happened to space exploration.
Worse than both shuttle disasters.
The cast of characters that have advertised for this approach year after year have done tremendous unrealized damage to public opinion. I have zero respect for any of them.
There is no cheap and no reason the Human Space Flight budget cannot be doubled, tripled, or quadrupled by simply choosing to do so. The DOD budget makes this obvious. There are several extremely important reasons for the U.S. to pursue a permanent human presence Beyond Low Earth Orbit. Why such projects are not being proposed is also simple enough to explain but any such activity is suppressed by entities with a vested interest in maintaining the present status quo. Norm Augustine could certainly explain it.
The first step is expose the NewSpace scam as the dead end it has proven itself to be. Only a state sponsored program approaching the 40 billion dollars a year spent during the Apollo program can effect any progress. The NewSpace influence on the present administration has made any suggestion of this or a lunar return verboten and effectively prevented any change in the collective consciousness of the citizenry.
It is very clever to confuse the ULA project with Masten but not edifying.
I hope the figures are correct.
$200 million does seem reasonable, since the modifications ought to simply involved side mounted thrusters and landing gear.
I can imagine funding coming mostly from NASA’s budget, rather than some private funds.
Might not matter much where it is derived.
Testing of the lander for the telerobotic operations seems a great way to prove its use.
Yes, for the Terrestrial Demonstrator it would be essentially four copies of their current VTVL modules on each corner for landing in the belly down orientation. With ULA’s integrated vehicle fluids (IVF) concept, the flight-ready version wouldn’t have the external propellant modules but simply thrusters on the corners which would use the main tank’s LH/LOX.
“The New Shepard reusable launch system is a vertical-takeoff, vertical-landing (VTVL),[1] suborbital manned rocket that is being developed by Blue Origin as a commercial system for suborbital space tourism.[2] Blue Origin is owned by Amazon.com founder and businessman Jeff Bezos and Rob Meyerson.”
From: ‘New Shepard’ Wikipedia
At: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Shepard
Add fatter and larger propellant tanks and a second hydrolox BE-3 rocket engine to an enlarged New Shepard reusable launch system and it could work well on the Moon.
Flight experience with a reusable rocket vehicle is extremely useful. The New Shepard reusable launch system currently has had five suborbital flights into space.
A larger two engine version of the New Shepard reusable launch system could have many suborbital test flights here on Earth prior to its first mission from Low Lunar Orbit to the Lunar surface.
And yes:
“Our space program requires clear direction, decisive leadership and competent technical implementation. We need for those who understand this – those willing to pursue these vital tasks – to speak up, engage and make our space program great again.”
While the Bezos engine entry is in the thrust range for an extremely large lunar lander, the liquid hydrogen is not the best choice- at least not until very extensive underground facilities have been established on the Moon for production, storage, and transfer of this propellant. Throttled down to it’s minimum 25,000 pounds of thrust such an engine would be landing six times that mass on the lunar surface, if I am not mistaken. At a full power setting of 150,000 pounds of thrust it would be lifting in the neighborhood of well over 300 tons off the lunar surface. The larger Bezos entry is a methane burner but is actually the wrong propellant and should be hydrogen and much too small for a Super Heavy Lift Vehicle. Thus, while Bezos talks a good game his two engines do not complement either lifting large payloads off the Earth or landing on the Moon.
In my view methane is the best choice for a lunar lander because it can be produced using the volatiles in lunar ice as catalysts for well understood industrial conversion processes. Methane is easier to store and transfer and the turbopumps are less expensive than those pushing hydrogen.
The two future iterations critical to making the SLS a success are in my view replacing the SRB’s with more powerful pressure-fed boosters, like those originally specified for the shuttle, and a wet workshop capable of being partially filled with water for cislunar and GEO shielded habitat/crew compartment applications.
I am I fear (at least in some quarters) famous (or perhaps infamous would be a better term) for having a rather skeptical view of SpaceX activities. It may come as a surprise to some that my opinion of Blue Origin is more favorable.
For purposes of this particular discussion there are three top level reasons for this:
(1) While your analysis of the sizing of the BE-3 engine is essentially correct, if the development of Cis-Lunar space is successful it will eventually require larger Lunar Landers and larger inter-orbital transports as well. The BE-3 may very well be suited for those vehicles.
(2) The development approach being taken by Blue Origin (to me at least) makes sense where as the SpaceX approach does not.
(3) Bezos does not have an army of “flying monkeys” spread across the internet demanding that SLS/Orion (or anything not directly financing him for that matter) be shut down and the money thus” saved” be sent to him. In fact he is financing Blue Origin with his own money (and yes I know the state of Florida is assisting in building Blue Origin facilities in the state, but that is a local matter and not diverting funds from other federal space projects).
If Bezos succeeds everybody wins, if he loses he loses. I do not discern
a down side to that (except possibly for Bezos).
Therefore, I wish Bezos luck and will watch Blue Origin’s efforts with interest.
“-if the development of Cis-Lunar space is successful it will eventually require larger Lunar Landers-
I am all about lifting a couple hundred tons of water at a time off the lunar surface Joe. In my view several thousand tons of water shielding will be required for each large space station or spaceship. I do not consider such wet workshop constructs to be a half century or longer away, but possible within a decade.
However, there are those who automatically consider any large numbers contrary to, “- re-focusing the agency toward the achievable and enabling, instead of the improbable, unrealistic and unattainable,-”
Sadly, it is only large numbers that have any meaning in regards to Human Space Flight Beyond Low Earth Orbit (HSF-BLEO).
That the public has been conditioned over the last decade to expect all things to be cheap and easy is tragic and crippling.
“I am all about lifting a couple hundred tons of water at a time off the lunar surface Joe.”
Perhaps something we can agree on.
If Bezos succeeds (as is the stated intent) of making the BE-3 a reliable, reusable/refuelable in space engine you are that much closer to your goal.
If he fails he has wasted a lot of his money. However since he has not even asked for any federal dollars or criticized SLS/Orion (or any other projects) why not just wish him luck and use what he produces if he is successful?
You can not lose either way.
“Dreams and inspiration are important, but human endeavor is ultimately answerable to nature.”
I am sure the Bezos dream of a suborbital amusement park ride is important to him, but not so much to those advocating a lunar return. As I stated, the BE-3 is barely in the thrust range for a workable “Super Lander” able to lift water shielding off the surface of the Moon. The throttle down number is not a big deal considering something big will probably always need to be landed- even empty upper stages.
The other question is propellant. While deriving a hydrogen pump from a kerosene pump is not going to work the RL-10 was years ago converted to methane from hydrogen by NASA in a test project. It is conceivable the same kind of derivation might allow a methane BE-3 to be almost immediately useful in a cislunar infrastructure. As Dr. Spudis inferred, the laws of physics are the ultimate factor in what works and what does not. If methane can be produced from lunar ice the ease of storage and transfer may make it the workhorse that makes it all happen.
“The only missing piece is a lander to put people on to the lunar surface.”
Robots could go first. I would argue that Bezos could build methane Super Landers on a production line and eventually send dozens or more of them to the Moon on SLS missions as his new project- and forget about tourism.
“I am sure the Bezos dream of a suborbital amusement park ride is important to him, but not so much to those advocating a lunar return.”
It is not my job (or desire) to spend a lot of time defending Bezos. You have the right to have as low an opinion of Bezos (or anyone else for that matter) as you choose. But that statement is just plain a distortion of Blue Origins publically stated intentions.
If you want to learn about the total scope of what they are planning you could read about it here:
http://www.space.com/34034-blue-origin-new-glenn-rocket-for-satellites-people.html
There are plenty of other articles about the New Glenn and New Shepard rockets easily available as well.
The BE-3 engines are intended as upper stage engines for both of those boosters and the ULA Vulcan as well (as noted in the technical paper Dr. Spudis linked in the article to which this comment section is attached).
If you choose to ignore that information, that is your privilege as well; but it does nothing increase your credibility.
I will now abstain from any further discussion of this subject with you.
“There we will add to our skill set and demonstrate what is possible – and create an atmosphere in which entrepreneurs can use that knowledge to build new space industries.”
Creating “atmosphere” is not going to give “entrepreneurs” what they want.
Profit is the only oxygen breathed by those organisms.
The only significant revenue generator in space besides the military is the GEO telecommunications satellite industry- to the tune of close to a couple hundred billion in yearly revenues. The only way to combine Human Space Flight with this industry is to make it more profitable to use humans in GEO than rely on the present satellite junkyard floating up there.
We still pay people to climb cell phone towers to work on that equipment and it is interesting to note these people are very low-paid due to several layers of companies between them and service providers insulating those corporations from health insurance costs. It’s disgusting to see people doing such challenging work and making little more than flipping burgers.
That’s “entrepreneurship”.
A parallel can be seen with the satellite industry and space debris. Square one is radiation.
As Dr. Spudis mentioned, “- it will “cost more to go to the Moon and make rocket propellant for a Mars mission than it would to launch the water directly from Earth.” But rocket propellant for a flag on Mars makes no sense at all. What that lunar water becomes valuable for is radiation shielding for GEO human-crewed telecom platforms. The junkyard and all the problems associated with satellites disappear. The problem is the same one shipping companies had before the Panama canal was built, or that civil engineers had before Hoover dam was built.
When Musk and Bezos stop being bored billionaire hobbyists and start building robot lunar landers to harvest that ice they will stop being the worst thing that has ever happened to space exploration and become…..entrepreneurs.
Concise statement of the situation.
I have no idea what the incoming administration will do, but the approach proposed is essentially correct.
(1) Use of the SLS for early implementation of Lunar Surface infrastructure is exactly the correct approach as is use of SLS/Orion for initial crew delivery to LLO.
(2) The XEUS lander approach is also appropriate. The RL-10 engines are well understood/capable.
(3) Additionally the Life Support/Crew Accommodations work being done on Orion can be applied to the Lunar Lander and future inter-orbital Cis-Lunar space transports. This would reduce cost/time/risk for these vehicles development and streamline maintenance/logistics activities (further reducing cost/time/risk).
This use of existing hardware capabilities to implement new activities and then produce new hardware as requirements dictate has been proposed before, but never implemented. Hopefully it will be this time.
– “This use of existing hardware capabilities to implement new activities and then produce new hardware as requirements dictate has been proposed before, but never implemented. Hopefully it will be this time.”
Absolutely agreed on this!
This is the smart approach.
Hopefully it won’t take much to make the appropriate modifications.
Hopefully, returning permanently to the surface of the Moon will be prioritized by Congress and the new administration. And, hopefully, this human return will focus on the exploitation of lunar ice resources.
The SLS should be launched at least twice a year starting in the 2020’s mostly as a cargo vehicle for deploying large and heavy objects to EML1 and to the surface of the Moon.
Utilizing solar powered propellant producing water depots is the key to allowing easy access for crewed vehicles to the lunar surface. And that pretty much makes the Orion spacecraft and its European made Service Module a dead end, IMO.
Marcel
“And that pretty much makes the Orion spacecraft and its European made Service Module a dead end, IMO.”
Will respectfully disagree with that.
(1) While the eventual Cis-Lunar Space transportation system will almost certainly involve: (a) An LEO vehicle. (b) An inter-orbital Cis-Lunar space transport, (c) A Lunar Lander; in the initial period use of the Orion for delivery of crew to LLO is likely to be the most efficient approach. Additionally the life support/crew accommodation systems being developed for Orion will be directly applicable to the Lunar Lander.
(2) When that initial period is completed the life support/crew accommodation systems being developed for Orion will be directly applicable to the Cis-Lunar space transport as well Lunar Lander.
Therefore the Orion is anything but a “dead end”.
Thanks for your comments Joe!
It is my belief that once single staged reusable propellant depot based lunar landers are developed then the Orion/Service module becomes immediately obsolete.
The depots at LEO and EML1 could be initially supplied with water from private commercial launch vehicles until lunar water is available. A lunar lander capable of a round trip to and from the lunar surface from EML1 would easily be able to transport crews from LEO to EML1. So no Orion/Service Module would be needed.
Also, the latest cardiovascular studies concerning the long term health of the Apollo astronauts may suggest that the Orion capsule can’t be adequately shielded from heavy ions. And this could require the addition of a water shielded habitat module for beyond LEO missions or an alternative approach.
The only thing “obsolete” is the idea that “private commercial launch vehicles” are going to make it all cheap and easy.
If am not mistaken this is about NewSpace sending people into LEO on the hobby rocket or other small rocket and a lander is going to dip down into Earth’s gravity well, rendezvous, and then boost back to the Moon. Over and over again.
The idea that such a human-rated spacecraft can be refueled and maintained in space for any significant number of launch and landing cycles is…..completely impractical.
As I have opined several times on this forum, it you want to transport people with a reusable lander you are going to need an lunar underground pressurized hangar, a work force of technicians with spare parts, and a fully equipped maintenance shop.
I believe he means the lunar vehicle would only travel about 30k miles to a habitat at the EM1 of 2?
“-the lunar vehicle would only travel about 30k miles to a habitat-”
A “lunar vehicle” sounds like travel to the Moon to me.
In my view there are three destinations in the immediate future:
1. The lunar poles by robots to get water shielding.
2. Wet workshops in lunar “frozen orbits” that astronauts will eventually crew.
3. These workshops transited to GEO to take possession of the telecom arena.
A permanent lunar base is further out and any constructs in the L-points even further.
The first place humans are likely to go are workshops in lunar orbit…after radiation shields have been filled with lunar water by robot landers.
Other fanciful destinations do not make much sense if a step-by-step infrastructure is the goal.
“It is my belief that once single staged reusable propellant depot based lunar landers are developed then the Orion/Service module becomes immediately obsolete.”
(1) Agreed, but first you have to get there and that will require people on the moon and elsewhere in Cis-Lunar Space before you can get there.
(2) Then as previously stated the life support/crew accommodation systems of Orion will be directly applicable to Cis-Lunar space transports as well as Lunar Landers.
So Orion is an enabling capability not a “dead end”.
“Also, the latest cardiovascular studies concerning the long term health of the Apollo astronauts may suggest that the Orion capsule can’t be adequately shielded from heavy ions.”
Not familiar with any studies of the affect of radiation on the cardiovascular function of Apollo Astronauts as impacting Cis-Lunar Space missions. Could you please specify.
I am just curious about a lunar lander taking off from the Moon and going down into LEO to take on passengers, and then going back to the Moon to land.
1. The initial take-off to escape velocity from the Moon.
(If it is not from an underground base than I would love to see a tentative procedure for preflight and fueling on the lunar surface).
2. Inserting into LEO.
3. Boosting out of LEO to escape velocity back to the Moon.
4. Powered descent to the lunar surface.
That is a minimum of 4 burns. How many times is this wondrous craft going to fill up at the good ole gas pump?
Going to the Moon can be direct and does not really require that lap around the Earth in LEO that Apollo took for a systems check. Going back to Earth is pretty simple what with a heat shield and parachutes and half the planet covered in water to splash down in.
What is incredibly complicated is this idea that it can all be done on the cheap with hobby rockets and fuel depots.
Apollo Lunar Astronauts Show Higher Cardiovascular Disease Mortality: Possible Deep Space Radiation Effects on the Vascular Endothelium
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep29901
I also posted a blog on the subject a few months ago:
Protecting Spacefarers from Heavy Nuclei
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2016/08/protecting-spacefarers-from-heavy-nuclei.html
Marcel
Marcel,
Thanks for the link.
There is (in addition to the article) a very good discussion in the comments section (by other researchers) as to the limitations of the study that should not be ignored.
This is not an attempt by those respondents (or myself) to dismiss the subject only to note that the research is not dispositive of a final answer.
I agree that for long term missions BEO some level of increased radiation protection is required (don’t really know of anyone who does not).
The real question is how much/of what kind. This will likely require monitoring of crew on various length missions and for decades after to reach final answers (as is being done on the ISS for the LEO environment).
In the meantime the Orion is really built to be a transport not a habitat and various habitat designs (including the Cygnus derived one you reference in your article) will all have shielding capabilities included.
It should also be noted that the Cygnus pressurized volume is small enough to directly benefit from synergy with Orion Life Support/Crew Accommodation Systems.
Insightful article, as always!
I believe the key here is now to try and sell the idea to Trump.
I imagine Congress would like it, far more than any Mars fantasies.
I also like the XEUS lander approach. Similar to what I’ve read about ULA’s DTAL on their site.
It’s what I like about ULA; practical approaches that don’t need some fantasy physics.
My big hope is that we don’t sell the development of the Moon as enabling Mars missions, but as enabling missions to everywhere.
ULA and Masten would likely be partners in developing the lander. ULA has lent Masten two of their Centaur stages and at least one RL-10 for Masten to develop into the Terrestrial Demonstrator. Unfortunately, right now those stages are sitting idle in a Masten warehouse. All that it would take is a modest amount of funding for Masten to start up that work. The lander is very doable.
I should add that the ULA-ACRS-DTAL concept envisions attaching either a cargo or a crewed on to the front/top of the lander. The crew module has a separate propulsion system which would allow abort to LLO or to the surface.
“-SLS should be launched at least twice a year-”
That will accomplish next to nothing. 8 to 10 launches a year are required as a bare minimum.
“And that pretty much makes the Orion spacecraft and its European made Service Module a dead end, IMO.”
Orion and service module are for transporting humans Beyond Earth Orbit.
That is not “a dead end” Marcel.
Actually, I would consider any Earth/Moon orbital propellant depots to be the dead end. There is a huge difference between storing water and cryogenic propellants. Add processing that water into cryogenic propellants on a platform in space and it is not worth the trouble if you can do it on the Moon.
I greatly dislike analogy concerning space since it is so often completely misused, but I will venture one concerning depots.
The military refuels their ships at sea and their airplanes in flight. Nobody else does. You know why? It is dangerous, expensive, and nobody else needs to. No reason to. The same applies to craft in cislunar space. A lunar lander can be fueled up in an underground hangar on the Moon and lift into space, then dock with anything that needs to be moved. Anything you care to name in the cislunar sea from GEO to the Moon can be pushed around by a robot lander. The lander can maintain methane/oxygen propellants for weeks or even months if necessary, and when it uses up most of it’s load goes back to the Moon, lands, and is refurbished for another mission.
In comparison, transferring cryogenic propellants in space is nothing but time, risk, and expense. Because of several additional factors transferring liquid hydrogen is far more challenging than methane- which is not easy to start with.
Some of the things that folks ignore could add unneeded risk to Cislunar spaceflights. Remember what saved the Apollo 13 crew? The LM (or Lunar Lander).
The argument has been made that the unacceptably high risks of human Lunar missions, as exemplified by Apollo 13’s near disaster, were a part of the political factors that helped end our trips to the Moon.
Science and what is affordable, doable, and useful have been excluded as has mission risk analysis during the the last six years in NASA’s leaders’ and Elon Musk’s ongoing ‘Mars Soon and Cheaply Too’ blather.
Both going to and returning from the Moon require some significant backup options for when things go bad. And most assuredly, things will sometimes go very bad.
The Orion and its European Service Module offers the useful option of directly heading fast for a wide ocean on Earth, and that is one risk reduction aspect of the International Orion that might remain quite valuable for many decades.
An enlarged version of the Orion’s Service Module seems a likely future evolution of the system. The Service Module may someday have a different propellant combination.
If we Americans and Europeans are serious about building infrastructure on the Moon and in the rest of Cislunar Space and servicing, modifying, and expanding that infrastructure, then various versions of evolved International Orions could fly lots of missions for many decades into the future.
Use of the Orion for many decades should compliment or enable the use of a wide variety of other human rated spacecraft in Cislunar Space.
As far as resupplying spacecraft with propellants while in orbit, we do have some experience in doing that at the ISS. Maybe some of that experience will be relevant for a wide variety of propellants.
Perhaps very large cylinders of liquid propane and oxygen could be exchanged for near empties in space and thus avoid some of the risk issues with refilling spacecraft propellant tanks in orbit. The empty cylinders could eventually be refilled on the Moon.
Propane or maybe propene (also known as propylene) could be more useful for Landers than methane.
“The P-19 first stage vehicle is undergoing refurbishment in preparation for continued flight test operations with the LOX/propylene 5K-lbf engine and closed-loop thrust vector control.”
From: ‘Current Projects – April 2015 – P-19’
At: http://www.garvspace.com/Current_Projects.htm
‘Vector Space Systems, a micro satellite space launch company comprised of new-space industry veterans from SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, McDonnell Douglas and Sea Launch, today announced it has finalized the acquisition of Garvey Spacecraft Corporation.’
From: ‘Vector Space Systems’ Jul 20, 2016
At: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/vector-space-systems-completes-acquisition-of-garvey-spacecraft-corporation-to-enhance-micro-satellite-launch-capabilities-300301053.html
It is all about who has the money and who is getting appointed to these positions. Billionaires are so far getting all the toys they want so it may not turn out well for those expecting Trump to keep his pledge to get us out of the LEO business.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/thiel-others-push-for-trump-nasa-team-expansion-1482263645
“The names of the new members are going through final vetting and could change, people familiar with the matter said. All of the appointees favor the type of private-public partnerships exemplified by Mr. Musk’s SpaceX.
Mr. Thiel’s support for an expanded NASA team has been criticized by legacy aerospace contractors, according to people familiar with the matter. These critics have complained in conversations with transition officials and others that Messrs. Thiel and Musk, longtime friends and business associates, are working together for their own financial benefit, these people said.
Founders Fund, one of Mr. Thiel’s companies, was an early and significant investor in SpaceX. As a result, these critics argue that Mr. Thiel stands to personally gain from enhanced federal support of commercially run space programs at SpaceX.”
I think Dr.Spudis did an excellent job of characterizing the current state of US human spaceflight. Its amazing to see how quickly we fell during the term of a single misguided President. I’ve been with the program nearly 40 years. Career prospects were a lot brighter in 1976. I had the opportunity to work with some of the true masters of spaceflight, both US and foreign. Today I see NASA managers on a daily basis who seem to lack even the most rudimentary knowledge of how to do space. I often wonder how did they get those leadership position s? Were they a member of some protected minority? A relative of an astronaut? Because for those I am familiar with their backgrounds and they seem to reflect zero of the experience or skills that would lead one to leadership. By the same token, those who question the experience or success of M.r. Musk. Musk has done more in the last 8 years than all of NASA. He has done it with comparatively minuscule funding. My hat is off to him. In time maybe NASA will regain some of those capabilities but it is hard to imagine it since I see no signs at all of visionary leadership. Not only do the present day NASA leaders have no technical skills, but they lack the basic knowledge of what even makes sense in terms of a logically laid series of steps. About the only thing I’ve have seen has been Dr. spudis’ blog which lays out a potentially achievable roadmap.
More thinly disguised NASA hate and NewSpace advertising.
You can take your hat off to him and state NASA “leaders” have no technical skills and lack basic knowledge but the SLS is looking pretty good.
Mr. Musk has soaked the taxpayer for several billion in funding and subsidies- much of it “free” support from NASA facilities. His hobby rocket has blown up twice and NASA would actually be showing poor leadership if they risked their people on it. I have zero respect for anyone singing his praises while damning NASA.
In terms of a logically laid series of steps splashing the space station to nowhere and it’s worthless LEO taxi’s, dumping the Absurd Retrieval Mission, and indefinitely shelving the J2M would be the way to go. But largely due to the pernicious influence of NewSpace on the space agency that is going to be a battle.
https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/21/nasa-dominated-space-and-social-media-in-2016/
Winning the social media battle is one area where the Space Agency is taking wrong turn after wrong turn.
Supporting the “horizon goal” of Mars is…..going to fail miserably. It is like saying fusion reactors will be online “very soon.”
The space station to nowhere has never been a real draw. It is essentially a bunch of tin cans going around and around. There is no progress, no exciting discoveries, no bright new future in LEO. Just circles.
Elon Musk taking his throne in Muskopolis on Mars is not fooling anyone either. Making scientifically inaccurate sci-fi dramas is one thing but actually going there is not happening. No way.
The Moon is waiting and so is social media. If Trump wants to build infrastructure then the Moon is the only place that is going to happen.