Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Of course, the better urban legend about the space pen is the one about Neil Armstrong breaking a switch in the LEM cabin with his moon suit backpack, and jamming his space pen into the broken switch to fire the ascent rocket...

Posted by Jon Acheson at May 5, 2003 07:51 AM

Bring back the Apollo capsule?

There is an interesting angle on this. There is an unused Lunar Excursion Module which has been sitting in the Huntsville space museum for the last thirty years, along with the last Apollo capsule to return from the Moon. The capsule's heat shield needs refurbishing, of course.

I believe that there is also an unused Apollo Command Module in some other museum -- maybe the Smithsonian?

The nominal diameter of the Apollo capsule is 13 feet. It should fit inside the Shuttle cargo bay.

Since we don't have a Saturn V launch system available, we'll need to build one new item of hardware, which is an additional LEO to lunar orbit booster system for the Apollo that can fit inside the Shuttle cargo bay.

So: Apollo capsule, command module, LEM, and new build booster. Let's assume that we can get these four items into LEO with two Shuttle launches. In LEO, we assemble the four component lunar system, transfer some people for the Shuttle to the Apollo,

... and away we go, back to the Moon after a 1/3 century interruption. No Space Station necessary.

Posted by David Davenport at May 5, 2003 09:05 AM

Well, I'm not so sure it's as simple as dusting off a few museum pieces, hauling them up on the Shuttle, and latching them to some kind of new booster.

The U.S. hasn't known what it wants to do in space since July of 1969. We haven't built spacecraft that fulfill a clearly defined mission, because we have no "clearly defined mission".

You want to take people up and bring them back? Maybe you don't need something with wings.

You want to build something that can take off from Your Basic Airport, enter LEO, and return? Well then, you'll probably need wings. (But, ask yourself: What's the payoff? Is there a reason to build a spacecraft that can fly from most any airport? Whose mission is that?)

The U.S. has sunk billions of dollars and decades of time into a Shuttle and a space station that, in the final analysis, lack cearly defined missions. (Sorry, "research" doesn't count.) Before we have a debate about Big Capsules versus Small Space Planes, we need to begin a debate about what we want to do in space.

Me, I'm opting for Big Capsules and a return to the moon, using a space station whose expressed purpose is to support lunar missions.

Posted by enloop at May 5, 2003 09:57 AM

That (the need to figure out what we're trying to accomplish before we decide what hardware to build) will probably be the theme of my Fox column this week.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 5, 2003 10:11 AM

THE TRANSCENDANTLY IMPORTANT MISSION OF RETURNING TO THE MOON BY THE END OF THIS DECADE

What would *I* like for the USA to accomplish? Answer: return to the Moon, soon!

[... Me, I'm opting for Big Capsules and a return to the moon, using a space station whose expressed purpose is to support lunar missions.]

But the ISS is not even necessary for Earth-Moon travel. The way to return to the Moon is as follows:

(1) Either replicate the Apollo capsule or build a winged mini-Shuttle -- call it the Orbital Space Plane if you like.

(2) Either way, build a lunar landing module and, probably, an interface module similar to the Apollo command module. Also build an inflatable moon shack and a new, higher performance moon dune buggy.

(2a) OK, we may need a landing system aside from the manned LEM to get our moon buggy, moon shack, and other supplies down to the lunar surface ahead of the manned landing.

(3) Build a Low Earth Orbit/Lunar Transfer propulsion vehicle to transfer these items from LEO to lunar orbit. It would be nice if this vecihle were an aerobraking, re-usable Space Tug, but a cheap one shot LEO to lunar booster will do.

(4) Select a launcher smaller than the Saturn V system to launch these items into low Earth orbit. More than one launch can be allowed to do this, since hardware can be pre-positioned in LEO and on the Moon before astronauts are launched.

Please make the launch system a new, reusable system if at all possible. However, in the worst case, use [not very ]Evolved Expendable Delta or Atlas launchers to launch hardware and the Shuttle system to put people into low Earth Orbit.

Note that there is no need to stop at the Iternational Space Station when either going to or returning from the Moon! The only important function for the ISS is to be a support platform for the reusable Space Tug, and this reusable vehicle is not strictly necessary for THE TRANSCENDANTLY IMPORTANT MISSION OF RETURNING TO THE MOON BY THE END OF THIS DECADE. ( Shades OF JFK IN 1963, GEDDIT? )

... An additional reason why the ISS is not an important stepping stone to the Moon: the highest concentration of H2O ice on the Moon is believed to exist at the Moon's south pole. Therefore the lunar south pole might be a good destination for a manned prospecting mssion. However, the ISS is not in a convenient orbit to transfer a vehicle from ISS docking to lunar polar orbit.

And whether our lunar travellers are returning from the Moon's poles or its equatorial regions, I see no benefit in stopping over at the Space Station when they return home to Earth.

Tough luck for the dear old ISS. Maybe it'll eventually earn its keep as a space tourist hotel.

-- david.davenport@mindspring.co

Posted by David Davenport at May 5, 2003 01:56 PM

Check this out:
http://www.spacecamp.com/SaturnV/restoration.asp

Maybe we should get involved in the Huntsville Space Museum's Saturn V restoration project. You know how some people restore rusty old vintage airplanes to flyable condition? The Museum has an entire Saturn V rocket system, a real one, which has been slumped on its side in the Museum's back yard ( really, a grassy back lawn area ) since the 1970's.

I believe that this Saturn V together with manned payload would have been Apollo 17. The Apoolo capsule inside the museum is Apollo 16, which was the last mission to the Moon and back, in the long ago year of 1972.

President Richard Nixon cancelled Apollo 17 to free up funds for the Space Shuttle!

Posted by David Davenport at May 5, 2003 02:10 PM

Dave, you're one off. Apollo 18 got canned, 17 was Cernan, Schmidt, and Evans

Posted by Syd Barrett at May 5, 2003 02:27 PM

Oh we all know that if NASA started to build another capsule craft it would take long before the project landed in someone's lap and they turned everything into a technology project to study the technology feasibility stufy of how to create a manned capsule that can morph/transform into a orbital space plane at the flip of a switch

Posted by Hefty at May 5, 2003 02:28 PM

The Russkies used a pencil?

Well, hell. I don't know that graphite dust floating around my space capsule is something _I_ would want...

Best to have a pen. Or a crayon - at least wax flakes don't penetrate like graphite dust, and aren't, er, conductive.

(And to think I thought of this objection BEFORE looking at the Snopes link!)

Posted by Sigivald at May 5, 2003 02:31 PM

Okay I guess when I posting comments at work doing 4 things at once my grammar and spelling suffer

Try this again:

"We all know that if NASA started to build another Apollo style capsule it wouldn't take long before the project landed in someone's lap that wanted turned everything into a technology demonstration project of how to create a Apollo style capsule that can morph/transform into a orbital space plane after the plunge into the atmosphere. Then, it could just glide in for a landing at a conventional runway -- so easy, so fun, so not ever going to happen.

Posted by Hefty at May 5, 2003 02:43 PM

Dave, there are a lot of ways to get to the Moon. It just seems to me that building a space station to do something useful like assembling small chunks of hardware into one big spacecraft makes more sense than building it for research. (Use it for research, but don't claim you're building it for that purpose alone.)

If we're gonna go back to the Moon, let's at least build an infrastructure that gives us the foundation for continued exploitation and growth. Space stations are not sine qua non, but consider this:

Put one station in Earth orbit and another station in lunar orbit and you have the beginnings of an infrastructure that could support a long duration or permanent presence on the Moon. Simple and reusable ships would ferry crew from Earth to that station; crews would move from the Earth space station to the lunar station in craft assembled in Earth orbit and designed solely to operate in space -- never landing on Earth or the Moon; landings on the lunar surface would take place, again, via simple and resusable ships designed for that purpose. Both stations would also serve as supply and maintenance depots, and command, control and communications sites.

Posted by enloop at May 5, 2003 03:01 PM

From Mark Ward's spaceref.com site:

STATUS REPORT
Date Released: Wednesday, April 30, 2003
NASA HQ
Report on Top-Level Assessment of Use of Apollo Systems for ISS CRV (part 1)

1.0 Background

A small team (Appendix 1) was chartered by NASA to make a top-level assessment of the viability of using the Apollo Command and Service Modules the basis for a Crew Return Vehicle, and potentially for a Crew Transfer Vehicle, for the International Space Station. This assessment was conducted 13-14 March 2003.

2.0 Leverage Provided by Apollo

The Assessment Team focused in on a small set of factors that might make the application of the Apollo Command and Service Module (CSM) an attractive option for serious consideration for the OSP CRV and perhaps the CTV.

The Apollo CSM proved to be a highly successful, rugged, and robust system. The Apollo system was intrinsically simple. The Command Module (CM), with its ablator heat shield and internal systems afforded a low risk entry and recovery system. The Apollo systems were thoroughly analyzed, validated, developed, tested, qualified, and used operationally in earth orbit, in expeditions to the moon, and in entry at speeds 50% greater than that from low earth orbit.

The extant drawings/microfiche for all Apollo systems and subsystems plus the library of reports from all specifications, test, qualification, and operational results would be of use as guidance in the design of a derivative system.

There are still many experts in Apollo systems, some still in the aerospace community, and some in retirement. They could offer (part-time) advice and technical support at some level and in so doing, transfer some knowledge and experience to a new generation of designers.

The virtually full-envelope abort and recovery system provided a very high level of safety for the crew. The Launch Escape System LES) itself was a very simple but robust system to provide for crew escape starting from the pad through the most critical ascent phase.

The 1972 preliminary study of modifications to the CM concluded that the CM could carry 5 crew members back to earth from Skylab in a contingency rescue mode.

3.0 Major Conclusions

The Team concluded unanimously that an Apollo-derived CRV concept appears to have the potential of meeting most of the OSP SRV Level 1 requirements. An Apollo-derived CTV would also appear to be able to meet most of the OSP Level 1 CTV requirements with the addition of a Service Module. The Team also surmised that there would be an option to consider the Apollo CSM concept for a common CRV/CTV system.

It was further concluded that using the Apollo Command Module (CM) and Service Module (SM) as an ISS CRV and CTV has sufficient merit to warrant a serious detailed study of the performance, cost, and schedule for this approach.

( CM -> Command Module -- the manned capsule. The Service Module was the cylinder that attached next to the CM's heat shield and contained electgrical power, life support, and orbital maeuvering propulsion. I tend to get CM and SM confused. )

4.0 Cost

It was not possible to make an estimate of the cost of the design, development, and manufacturing of an Apollo-based CRV in the time available for this assessment. On one hand, the Apollo system is well understood, and the documentation should e helpful as a starting point. On the other hand, it was concluded that virtually every system would have to be redesigned , even if it were decided to be replicated.

It was judged that use of existing Apollo hardware (museums, storage) would not be possible due to obsolescence lack of traceability, and inability to qualify these components for flight.
( **Implying that some other guys are indeed arguing for using the museum pieces.** )

It is also doubtful that many Apollo drawings could be used directly in the manufacturing of the CMCRV because no tooling remains, and because of the incompatibility of these drawings with modern CAD/CAM design systems used by the US aerospace industry. ...

Posted by David Davenport at May 5, 2003 03:10 PM

[ Put one station in Earth orbit and another station in lunar orbit and you have the beginnings of an infrastructure that could support a long duration or permanent presence on the Moon. ]

Good idea. Know what else is inside the Huntsville space museum? A Skylab. Yep, the complete, real item. Not a mockup. NASA built a second Skylab, but never launched it.

Alternative to Skylab in lunar orbit: Skylab near the Moon at libration point L1.

Posted by David Davenport at May 5, 2003 03:14 PM

Actually, I believe the Skylab B is in the Air and Space in Washington, and the Huntsville one is a mockup.

Quite frankly, though, some of the thoughts I've seen here depress me. Scraping up bits of technology from museums and firing them off strikes me as neither very realistic nor a good way to run a space program. Sure, I'd love to see the Huntsville Saturn V fly, but what else could we do in space for the money it would take to refurbish it, rebuild its launch facilities, and fire it off? A poster (can't remember if it were here or elsewhere) suggested ganging some Apollo hardware and going back to the Moon from the cargo bay of a shuttle. What would that get us, besides one trip to the Moon and then back to where we started? Space stations? Great idea, but why does it have to be an old Skylab? Couldn't we build something better now?

Now, it may be that capsules are the best way to do a crew return/transfer vehicle. I even think it's likely. And the basic Apollo CM is a good aerodynamic shape, so by all means use that. But let's make improvements with modern computer and control technology so that it can carry more people and payload, or improve performance, rather than just dredging up some museum pieces. If you're going back to the Moon, don't just recopy what they did in the 70s- use the technology we have now to do it better, and maybe cheaply enough that we can stay.

Apollo was one of humankind's greatest achievements, but it was one based on rational inquiry, careful thought, and looking forward. Treating it as some kind of secular god, and suggesting that all we need to do to be great again is to re-use the old hardware, is missing the point. The spirit of the institution is what matters, not what spacecraft you fly: I'd rather see Rutan's SS1 fly than an Apollo run by the current NASA

Apologies for the rant, but I needed that off my chest.

Posted by Jeff Dougherty at May 5, 2003 04:23 PM

Getting back to "let's decide what we want to do in space before someone starts building hardware"....

I like to use the word 'infrastructure' because I think building infrastructure is essential for making human space travel repeatable and routine.

If "what we want to do in space" turns out to be scoring a series of unique exploratory milestones -- go to the Moon, then Mars, then to an asteroid, then someplace else -- without repeating ourselves, then we won't need as much of an infrastructure, and, in, the end, we won't have routine and repeatable space travel. (Frankly, it would be analagous to nonstop transAtlantic flight ending with Lindbergh.)

Whatever we decide to do in space, it makes sense to me to build the infrastructure that makes it possible to continuing doing it on a permanent basis. It doesn't make sense to me to go "all out" in a one-time sprint simply to achieve one "transcendental" moment... and then walk away from it all.

Posted by at May 5, 2003 05:06 PM

[ If "what we want to do in space" turns out to be scoring a series of unique exploratory milestones -- go to the Moon, then Mars, then to an asteroid, then someplace else -- without repeating ourselves, then we won't need as much of an infrastructure, and, in, the end, we won't have routine and repeatable space travel. (Frankly, it would be analagous to nonstop transAtlantic flight ending with Lindbergh.)

Sorry, but I simply don't agree with your philosophy. I think the first Apollo round trip in 1969 putweighed all the routine Shuttle and ISS activities that ever have been or ever will be.

Your attitude seems to be that of today's NASA: heavy into infrustructure routine or routine instructure, never any high, brilliant deeds.

Or are you plugging again for the space tourism industry? Oh yeah, fly 'em up and down from the ISS, get it down as pat as SouthWest airlines. Yawn.

OK, Mr. Ruitan is going for the X-prize. He's kinda cool. Of course, Ruitan is sort of 1970's retro ... similar to Apollo or SkyLab.

Posted by David Davenport at May 5, 2003 06:04 PM

I'm glad to see we're talking about space once again (and it took an urban legend!)

I agree completely that we need to examine our reasons for going into space (as long as we acknowledge there could be different and valid reasons coming from different groups.)

There's no place nicer to live in this solar system than good ol' earth. So migration seems like a non-starter. Or is it?

Exploration can be done better with robots. Or can it?

Tourism has it's interesting aspects. I cheer for anyone willing to pay for a ticket. Somehow, and I wish to be wrong, I don't see it moving us anywhere.

Inflate a stadium (a really big one!) on the surface of the moon giving players a shirt sleeve environment, install lots of cameras where the bleachers would be, and a world of people would enjoy the soccer matches. Could that pay for itself?

Does the military need to capture the high ground? Maybe, but that doesn't really get us very far out into space. And as long as the U.S. has such a substantial qualitive lead over any other country, what's the point? The space race occurred because of an imagined parity in the blue and red military.

Mining? Nope, we're too efficient right here... and if someone did put a really valuable piece of metal in close orbit it might lead to panic (marketwise as the price of that metal drops and... what if something else drops Martha? it's right there over our heads!)

Frankly, I, myself, am not going to go into space (even as a tourist) but I'm more than willing to spend some of my own cash to sponsor a project I believe in.

I don't remember if Lindbergh used sponsors (I suspect he did, but I know he could have.) I don't like the way NASA has been spending the peoples money (for the most part.)

I like what the engineers are saying, and although the details may vary, I like Zubrin's plan for Mars. Especially since we get most of the moon for the same development costs. ...and perhaps other destinations.

While I'm rooting for the development of the mini-Orion or some other development (sails are cool) I don't see the need to wait for them.

So I vote for Mars... and like the war in Iraq, I think the justification will become more obvious only after we go there (with intentional colonization!)

...and that's all I've got to say about that right now.

Posted by ken anthony at May 5, 2003 06:55 PM

I think speculation about going back to the moon or on to Mars is way too premature. According to NASA?s latest time table they won?t have a fully operational OSP until 2012. I?m not real enthusiastic about a capsule design, as I understand it, water landings make a fast return with injured crew members more difficult (but not impossible). Also I still harbor a faint hope that if we build a winged OSP we might be able to sell a few additional vehicles to our partners in the ISS, increasing the total number of players in orbit. I?ve heard that the EU has made some inquiries, and Japan might get interested, if China successes in its October / November manned launch.
I?ve been a member of the National Space Society since 1981 and in that time I think we?ve spent way too much time thinking about what we were going to do once access to space was cheap and easy and not nearly enough time thinking about how we were going to make access to space cheap and easy. There?s no shortage of idea?s about what we could do once we get there it?s getting there that?s the problem.

Posted by Shawn at May 5, 2003 08:17 PM

David, I don't believe I've ever espoused space tourism, here or elsewhere. If someone wants to sell tickets, let 'em.

Harping on infrastructure doesn't negate the importance of actually doing something. But it does mean enabling us to do something repeatedly and routinely. The first time we reach a hitherto impossible goal is always thrilling. Apollo 11 was thrilling. But the real value and purpose of space travel won't be harvested until we send so many missions to the Moon that we stop numbering them. Or when we make so many flights to LEO that each flight is no more remarkable than a Concorde's flight from Heathrow to New York. Or when the most difficult part of going to Mars is weeding out the candidates who will have to wait until the next trip.

Doing great things for the first time can be, as you argue, transcendental. But if there is never a second time , a third time, a fourth time, and on and on, what have we gained?

So, do the great things for the first time. But don't forget to give yourself the capabilities to do it again, or else the first time may also be the last time.

Posted by at May 5, 2003 08:30 PM

With regards to non-space tourism, I would think that Australia would stand to gain the most from an LEO program or other hyper-sonic transport. The current flights to the continent are extremely long, and I would imagine that a flight time of 3-6 hours would go a long way to increasing the tourist traffic "down under".

With regards to Space Tourism, I'm going to make another Hollywood reference.

I was watching Space Cowboys a few weeks ago on cable. It was only on about a dozen times in 2 days, so it was hard to miss. Anyway, Tommy Lee Jones' character, after many plot points, makes it into space, and when he looks down at the Earth, it about all he can do to thank Clint Eastwood's character for getting him into space to see the view (after his missed opportunities all through his life).

Almost all accounts I hear of those who have been up include a sense of awe in being able to see the earth from a distance like that. And while LEO might not offer the same view as the Shuttle, I'm going to reiterate Rand's usual point that there have got to be quite a few people willing to pay ca$h to take in such an awesome view.

Every time I see a plane landing or taking off from the airport here just south of town, I keep hoping that someday I'll watch LEO's and other space vehicles taking off with the same regularity, and with the same "routine" feeling about them.

Posted by John at May 5, 2003 08:31 PM

Last post was mine. Curious, the comment code didn't catch my failure to enter a name and email address.

Posted by enloop at May 5, 2003 08:32 PM

Re-Vamping Apollo
The value of ISS: the real issue at hand

The scientific value and hopes for the International Space Station were wearing thin even with an operational Space Shuttle. The ISS has sucked the life out of planetary science, NASA’s work on a new replacement shuttle, and Russia had problems too.
Now (with sections of the space station that will be old by the time it flies) we are thinking of building Apollo capsules just to ferry a crew to it. I say, we cut to the real issue at hand and ‘can’ the space station! It’s funding could be funneled to building a Next Generation Space Shuttle: designed far larger and better than any before it with an eye on Mars and the Moon. Perhaps using Titanium Shrouded recoverable Nuclear engines for use within the atmosphere. Alpha can be supported by US-funded Soyuz spacecraft until it is happily deorbited!

Posted by Christopher Eldridge at May 6, 2003 07:28 AM

Christopher, the notion of cancelling ISS and diverting funds to a "Next Generation Shuttle" begs the question of "What Do We Want To Do In Space?"

Is the creation of a reliable and reusable winged spacecraft that can carry several people and cargo to LEO a means to an end or an end in itself? If the former, what objective will this spacecraft enable use to achieve? What other objectives will its existence frustrate? If the latter, then why are we hauling these people and this cargo to LEO in the first place?

Sustained human presence in space will require long-term commitments, whether or not the private or public sector leads the way. We will not make those commitments unless we build a broad and lasting consensus about our goals and objectives: Where Do We Want To Go and What Do We Want To Do When We Get There?

Posted by enloop at May 6, 2003 08:34 AM

There won't be a new Orbital Space Plane for 15 or 20 years, if ever. Bring back Apollo capsules? I don't think NASA will actually do that.

The only human-capable launch systems that will be available for years and years are the Shuttle and the Soyuz and perhaps the Chinese Soyuz.

Maybe the X-Prize guys can privately develop a craf that can reach the ISS. Or maybe not.

In general, it doesn't look like humans are going to be going beyond low Earth orbit during the liftetimes of anyone reading this.

What is the purpose and goal of manned spaceflight, then, with the above considerations in mind?

Why, the goal is to not abandon the ISS.

Posted by David Davenport at May 6, 2003 09:30 AM

Reasons for manned Space Flight

I think we can all agree that there is life-altering, monumentous reasons for sending robotic missions into space. I think Casini will aptly demonstrate this in the years to come!
It would probably take 43 such missions for us to understand the history of the solar system to the extent that we understand the geologic history of Earth. A space interferometers flying ‘in-sync’ so strong that it could see the cloud tops and land formations on other Earth-like worlds around other stars would alone be a mission to die for!

Sending people into space is indeed a very limited almost senseless notion unless you have a big BIG re-usable/fly-back booster/shuttle system of some kind to give them the ability and resources they need to actually do something of value. It may be possible to consolidate a lot of communications and weather platforms into maintainable/upgradeable mini-outposts of sorts that would be periodically visited (even in Geostationary Orbit) by a repair/maintenance crew. Inter-orbital Transit Sleds (INORTRANS) that are only used in space (as we both seem to agree upon) could be built to allow efficient, cost effective, and repeated trips from LEO/GEO to Lunar or Martian orbit. Like a re-usable shuttle system in space, they would be the pillar of colonization/space industrialization and are wholly doable with an empty ship mass of 200 tons and a fuel payload of 1-2,000 tons: a ship with the size and power of a fully-fueled Energiia parked in LEO! Setting up these types of platforms, transit sleds, and colonies would, indeed, call for a very large shuttle ‘system‘ replacement: High-energy (nuclear) fly-back boosters most likely.

It all begins here on Earth. The more efficiently we can place large payloads into orbit, the more long-term political commitment and public support there will be.

Posted by Christopher Eldridge at May 6, 2003 11:48 AM

I would like to make the following comment. The reality of a manned presence in space is only going to be driven by a definable set of goals. One of these goals, in my opinion should be the explotation of commercial ventures. I think that ISS should be retasked as a orbital sattelite repair and refueling facility. Also, reconstruction of an operational Apollo style cm/sm is intergral to this idea. Using a cm/sm as a orbital "tow truck", The business of retieving, refurbishing and upgrading orbital assets at ISS could become a reality. While I don't claim to be a finacial wiz, it is my opinion that the cost of the system I am decribing would be substantially less than constantly boosting new sattilites into orbit from Earth to replace failed ones in orbit. Who knows, maybe that's the future of spaceflight, a fleet of orbital vehicles performing a useful (profitable) service.

We could continue to speculate on going back to the moon using 30 year old tech and making trips to mars for exploration, but until a sound reason for man's presence in space can be proved, that may be all we ever do. Speculate...

Posted by Eric Fooder at April 12, 2005 02:50 PM

Post a comment