From the Chair Force Engineer. He thinks that EML1 is a good idea, though, rather than lunar orbit rendezvous. So do I.

.

from chairforceengineer post: "Why do we need new 10m tankage when we already have 8.38m tankage? Why develop the essentially-new J-2X when we have the RL-10 and RS-68? Why develop 5-segment boosters when we already have 4-segment boosters?"

agree 100%

this is EXACTLY the point of my (May 12, 2006) "FAST-SLV" article: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html

use only TRUE "shuttle-derived" hardware (or other READY available parts like th RS-68) ...use the SAME boosters, the SAME tank, the SAME engines, the SAME launch pad/crawler (with NO changes!) etc.

in my article I suggest a BETTER solution: resize the moon mission to 3 astronauts to have a SINGLE launch and FOUR missions per year with 10 days on the moon (instead of two missions per year with 4 astronauts and 7 days on the moon)

TWICE the moon missions (and the lunar exploration time) with the SAME funds (or less!)

if NASA will not resize the missions, the best way to use the (May 2006) "FAST-SLV" (or the August 2005 "Direct" or the Jan 2007 "AresIV") is to use a Multiple Launches Architecture (MLA) as suggested in my article here: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/007arianeX.html

last... the best way to use my "MLA" is NOT to accomplish simple missions but to build (from early launches!) stable lunar INFRASTRUCTURES this way:

launch #0: unmanned test of a remote-controlled ("SwissKnife") Orion to an Apollo8-like lunar mission

1st launch: a small Lunar Space Station (with 6+ months life support) for operational/assembly/safety purposes

2nd launch: cargoLSAM with a lunar habitat for 4+ astronauts and 6+ months life support landed on a first (equatorial) luanar outpost

3rd launch: second lunar habitat for safety back up and future missions

4th launch: cargoLSAM full of lunar exploration and science hardware (including some lunar-SUVs)

5th launch: reusable single stage crew-only LSAM with 10+ days life support docked to the LSS

6th launch: crewed Orion to dock in lunar orbit with the LSS for the first manned lunar mission

etc.

Actually, EML-2 is now being touted by some as being superior. Using a lunar swing-by, the delta-v to EML-2 is substantially less than for EML-1. There is a terrific thread on this over at nasaspaceflight titled "Alternate Lunar Architectures" with posters "vanilla" and David Portree (of Romance to Reality fame) waving the EML-2 flag.

As for an L point facility such as a fuel depot and terminal to change trains to a re-useable LSAM, I would prefer that the private sector to deploy such a facility (Bigelow?) rather than NASA. Which means they need a non-taxpayer sourced revenue stream.

= = =
My reading as led me to these conclusions:

L points are superior for building up mass for a permanent presence on the Moon;

Direct return (carry your Earth return vehicle to the lunar surface) is a better touch and go solution than LOR IF lunar LOX is available -- Zubrin called for this a few years ago.

LOR is fastest and cheapest for a touch and go series of missions to free up NASA for Mars, if paying for ISRU LOX is not immediately feasible.

(I can hear Dennis Wingo already: ISRU, ISRU, ISRU . . .)

= = =

An L point architecture also requires a robust ("bigger"?) LSAM as the delta-t to/from EML-1 or EML-2 is about 3 days. If we are going to do L point architectures might as well go all the way to a large single stage re-useable LSAM combined with ISRU LOX as soon as possible.

But then again, NASA's budget may not be sufficient and our existing EELVs would seem too small to loft a BIG single stage re-useable lander.

Hence my #1 talking point: We NEED non-tax dollar sourced revenue as soon as possible.

.

POST EDIT: ...August 2006 "Direct"... (NOT "2005")

.

.

with a reusable LSAM we can have THREE-FOUR lunar missions with EVERY (single) crew, simply using (only) a FAST-SLV to send two-three LSAM's re-fuels

.

Nasaspaceflight also has interesting commentary as to whether an Ares IV core (without solids) could even lift off the pad in the first place.

Add SRBs and then Ares IV simply beomes a variation on the DIRECT proposal which itself is "merely" an in-line shuttle derived vehicle studied for 20 years.

Exactly right

with a reusable LSAM we can have THREE-FOUR lunar missions with EVERY (single) crew, simply using (only) a FAST-SLV to send two-three LSAM's re-fuels

Add lunar ISRU LOX and the leverage is even more tremendous.

Park a reuseable LSAM at EML-1 or EML-2 and one Soyuz plus one Proton can carry three crew to/from Earth. Add lunar LOX for the LSAM and the incremental cost of lunar access for three falls below $300 million using today's rockets.

.

Bill,

both AresIV or AresV will be very expensive (with or without the SRB) then, launch an Orion to LEO with their core stage is possible but too expensive for ISS/LEO missions, so (six months ago), I've suggested to launch the Orion with an Ariane5 (or a DIVH) for orbital missions: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/010arianecev.html

.

Bill,

true, ISRU Lox is the perfect solution, but lunar LOX quantity production will need many infrastructures (and time) to happen, so, in the early 3-5 years, the propellant must be sent from earth

.

Bill,

about the use of a Soyuz, in 2005 I've published an article suggesting to use the (Soyuz derived but 15% larger, better and cheaper) Shenzhou: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/LSAMshenzhou/lsamshenzhou.html

(...however, I admit there are some "political problems" for this solution...)

And you have been told repeatedly the reason the US finds the Soyuz shape unacceptable is they do not want returning crews to experience the G-Loads that shape provides. The Apollo moldline provides lift and the ability to disspate the forces of reentry over a greater peroid of time.

Mike Puckett is correct (albeit wrong thread).

Soyuz / Zond re-entry at lunar velocities would be - ahem - an interesting ride. The whole atmo-skip at the South Pole thing is kinda cool but very scary and 10g for direct entry is tough. Okay, design a Soyuz descent module that is shaped like the Apollo capsule.

Also, I guess this means the CEV shape actually is optimal. As Mike Griffin said, the Apollo guys got a lot of stuff right.

.

Russia seems want use an (upgraded) Soyuz for its circumlunar travels with tourists... then, they think a Soyuz can have a safe reentry... or, they plan to add a small Soyuz SM burn to slow its speed... or... their (new) "Digital-Soyuz" will be bigger and with a different shape... the latter is the #1 guess ..after claimed they will send "two tourists + two professional" around the moon ...where they can put the 4th astronaut in a standard Soyuz?

The Russians will use it because its what they have, not because it is optimal by any means. I am sure if they had the cash, they would opt for something better. We don't have sunk consts in a soyuz moldline, there is no sane reason to buy the same handicap that the Russians are saddled with.

Nasa plans to use the CEV for Mars return. I do not want a crew that has spent up to two years in a low/zero G environment or 6 months in a 1/6th G environment in case of a moon base pulling 15 G's on return. Neither does NASA.

I suspect the G limitations will force the Russians to tightly screen any potential passengers and may severely limit their base of potential customers. If your ticker ain't 100%, you won't ride.

Ah, the Classics.

"She's Got a Ticker to Ride" followed by "(Flat on My) Back in the USSR."