Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

The article notes (correctly, IMHO) that cancellation of X-38 was part of the process to stifle threats to the shuttle orbiter. Successful deployment of a lifting body re-entry vehicle would have aided the selection of a lifting body CEV.

And this remains a point that I believe New Spacers should remember;

It looked like the errors of the original Apollo program would be repeated. A three-module spacecraft, as used successfully on Soyuz and Shenzhou, was rejected. Instead the sole crew habitat space would be the re-entry vehicle, which would be a 41% scaled up version of the Apollo command module.

Using a Bigelow module (even a Genesis 1) as the functional equivalent of a Soyuz orbital module (even if the return vehicle is an RLV) adds functionality at lesser cost and mass. If there were an available LEO station, a Bigelow-style crew accomodations module could be left on-orbit for future use before the re-entry of the crew either in a descent capsule or via RLV.

= = =

Long term, the solution is for private sector players to provide space access to private sector payors without the intermediation of Uncle Sam.

Posted by Bill White at June 13, 2007 01:03 PM

"A three-module spacecraft, as used successfully on Soyuz and Shenzhou, was rejected."

Probably for the same reasons Max Faget sited for not using such a design on the original Apollo.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 13, 2007 01:50 PM

I also found the following passage from Mark Wade's article to be interesting:

Although each contractor conducted thousands of pages of rigorous trade studies against NASA's proposed requirements, they came to very different conclusions. However there were some common themes identified by more than one contractor:
* The optimum CEV would have a mass of under 9 tonnes and a crew of four or less.
* The lowest cost launch solution would be to use existing expendable launch vehicles (Atlas V and Delta IV) or derivative. This would allow launch of the CEV on earth-orbit missions by a single booster existing ELV. Three-booster versions of existing ELV's could orbit elements of lunar or Mars expeditions.
* The most flexible and logical lunar exploration architecture was to assemble lunar expedition components at the L1 Earth-Moon Lagrangian point. This allowed unconstrained launch and landing schedules, and provided a permanent way station for not only lunar, but Martian exploration.

I see no reason why Russia could not begin deployment of this exact architecture, today, using Proton and Soyuz as the core launch vehicles. (With the quibble that EML-2 is better)

No reason, except for funding that is.

Posted by Bill White at June 13, 2007 02:28 PM

The Boeing CEV appears to use a Soyuz-esque pressurized mission module and an EML-1 architecture.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/cevoeing.htm

Posted by Bill White at June 13, 2007 02:34 PM

Probably for the same reasons Max Faget sited for not using such a design on the original Apollo.

Which was?

Posted by V-Man at June 13, 2007 06:41 PM

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4223/ch14.htm

"One of the other things that was being studied was the possibility of a two-compartment vehicle as opposed to a one-compartment vehicle. Now I'm not talking about LM's or anything like that. The mission during this period was merely to go into orbit around the Moon or just circumnavigate the Moon and back. We were looking at about a one to two-week long mission and it would terminate with the reentry. Now in order to have enough volume, of course, they had to make the thing bigger which meant we had to carry along a lot of extra heat protection systems, so it seemed a very attractive thing to divide that volume in two pieces. We had for a long while a command module and a mission module, the mission module being where everybody was supposed to do their business.

This started off to be a very attractive idea but as we went through our own studies and the contractors went through their studies it became clear that less and less things were going on in that mission module, and everything that was vital for one reason or another also was vital during entry so you either did it twice, once in the mission module and again in the command module, or you did it once in the command module. So it seems that the mission module was turning out to provide nothing but extra room. There were no systems and no particular activity that anyone really wanted to carry out in the mission module other than to stretch out and perhaps get a little sleep. The consequence of this was that it didn't look like it was worthwhile to have a mission module. So in the final analysis we ended up with a single cabin version. You might have noticed that the Russians ended up going into something very close to our two-compartment vehicle that we were considering. I don't know where they got their ideas, but it might have been from us. We made no secret of these considerations."

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 13, 2007 08:02 PM

For one thing, the Mark Wade article has been up for a while - not exactly tomorrow's news.

Max Faget is someone I am in awe of, but the interview about the one-compartment vs two-compartment spacecraft is still one man's opinion. Faget and his team had one opinion and built Apollo one way; Korolev and later Mishin and colleagues had another opinion and built Soyuz another way. One could argue until the cows come home whether Apollo should have had a two-compartment design, but at some point one has to decide, build the thing that way, and move on.

As to the sleep and stretch out part, that is the whole point of the "mission module." My understanding is that none of these spacecraft, apart from perhaps Skylab, are particularly spacious -- Shuttle is a big vehicle but the part where they pack 7 people in for up to two weeks is not all that big. On the other hand, there have been reentry vehicles which are particularly tight -- Mercury and especially Gemini were pretty cramped, and the Soyuz RV with three people in it is a squeeze. The question is whether you want to pack people in that tight for the duration of a lunar mission.

Gemini had the 8-days or Bust mission and the 14 days of Frank Borman and Jim Lovell in close fellowship -- Lovell offers comments while Borman is not talking. You could keep two people in the "Gusmobile" for the duration of a lunar mission, and pioneering explorers put up with various manners of privation and stark, Spartan accomodations to get the job done. But realistically speaking you need a little bit more room, and an extra module where the sole purpose is to stretch out may not be that indulgent if it can save weight over making the RV that much roomier.

Posted by Paul Milenkovic at June 13, 2007 08:22 PM

There were no systems and no particular activity that anyone really wanted to carry out in the mission module other than to stretch out and perhaps get a little sleep.

Spacious mission modules would make the ride more attractive for tourists, with enhanced kitchens and toilets among other things, and could be used to stow disposable or consumable supplies like food and water to reduce the overall mass of the descent module.

Also, if the mission module could be parked in LEO between uses and was an inflatable enhanced radiation protection could be added to the mission module and that would not have to be lifted with every mission, nor returned to Earth.

Sleeping in the mission module wrapped with an enhanced boron doped hydrogen rich plastic shield would reduce overall rad exposure during the mission.

Other ideas are possible as well.

And, as we move from disposable capsules to RLVs, having a pre-deployed re-useable mission module waiting on orbit becomes even more useful.

Posted by Bill White at June 13, 2007 08:31 PM

For one thing, the Mark Wade article has been up for a while - not exactly tomorrow's news.

Did you miss the very beginning of my post, where I wrote: "I hadn't noticed this before..."?

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 13, 2007 08:31 PM

You could keep two people in the "Gusmobile" for the duration of a lunar mission

In fact, that's what Jim Chamberlain had in mind from the very beginning.

But realistically speaking you need a little bit more room

That's arguable. Remember that until Apollo, no one became spacesick. That's because Mercury and Gemini did not give astronauts room to move around during the ~3-day adaptation period.

Posted by Edward Wright at June 13, 2007 08:45 PM

One more thing . . .

The Mark Wade entry on the Boeing CEV proposal touts the benefits of parking a re-useable LSAM (yes, Ed the article does call it a re-useable LSAM) at EML-1 and changing trains between CEV and the LSAM during an EML-1 rendevouz.

And, with Armadillo looking good for the X-Prize Cup (Paragon trying to jump in?), the technology needed for a fully re-useable LSAM may be far closer than we think.

Now, all we need is lunar LOX production capability and the Moon shall be open for business.

Posted by Bill White at June 13, 2007 09:20 PM

The NASA plan bears a lot of resemblance to a bid from Orbital Sciences Corporation.

Posted by Adrasteia at June 14, 2007 06:23 AM

If you're using a reusable LSAM, the other reason to have a seperate mission module is for resupply and garbage disposal. You really don't want to carry back several tonnes of trash in your return capsule.

Posted by Adrasteia at June 14, 2007 06:35 AM

The contractor studies had a rather obvious tendency to conclude that the best way to go back to the moon would require the maximum possible use of that contractor's hardware. It's not surprising NASA didn't follow them that closely.

Posted by Will McLean at June 14, 2007 09:22 AM

No, instead, NASA decided that the best way to go back to the moon was to develop its own hardware. Obviously, contractors that recommended new vehicles would have wanted to build them, but note that Boeing did not specifically recommend Delta. They simply said that derivatives of existing vehicles would be the lowest cost.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 14, 2007 09:30 AM

Armadillo looking good for the X-Prize Cup (Paragon trying to jump in?), the technology needed for a fully re-useable LSAM may be far closer than we think.

Bill, you just don't grok.

No serious analyst thinks the technology for a fully reusable lunar lander is far away. That's your major malfunction.

The primary reason why there won't be a reusable LSAM is not technological, it's political and institutional. The NASA Administrator doesn't want a reusable lander. Technology is irrelevant, grasshopper, as long as Mike Griffin makes the decision and doesn't change his mind.

The second reason is economic. A lunar lander will be a complex machine comparable to, say, a jet fighter or the DC-X. That means it will have similar maintenance requirements.

Who's going to maintain that lunar lander on the Moon? Dennis says robots can do it. I'll believe that when Dennis shows me a robot that can replace the maintenance staff of a fighter squadron -- and maintain itself to boot.

Lacking such a "Commander Data," a small workforce of human technicians will be needed to maintain the lander on the Moon. It might be similar to the crew used to maintain DC-X, around a dozen people, but that's still more people than NASA can afford to maintain on the Moon with ESAS. So, you'll have to do a lot of cross-training so your PhD geologists can try to be mechanics, avionics technicians, and hydraulic specialists (and still not do a really good job).

Maintaining a reusable lander does not make sense for an ESAS lunar base with only four astronauts. It begins to make sense when you have dozens of people, but that requires significant reductions in the cost of getting humans to orbit and then from orbit the Moon. Which, for some bizarre reason, you reject.

Now, all we need is lunar LOX production capability and the Moon shall be open for business.

What business is that, Bill? Your ESAS-nauts will end up spending all their time maintaining the lander and the base, just like the ISS-nauts do today. When are they going to find the time to start businesses?

Please don't tell me Hollywood is going to pay NASA billions of dollars for movie footage of astronauts maintaining a lunar lander. How much money have they paid for footage of astronauts maintaining ISS?

Posted by Edward Wright at June 14, 2007 12:57 PM

Rand Simberg writes:

"Obviously, contractors that recommended new vehicles would have wanted to build them, but note that Boeing did not specifically recommend Delta."

Not specifically. They just designed the mission so that an upgraded Delta IV-H could do the job, but Atlas required a brand new airframe and a Shuttle derived vehicle was overkill.

Posted by Will McLean at June 14, 2007 02:55 PM

To repeat, I really really LIKE the Boeing EML-1 architecture. Seriously, it's a terrific plan with many ingenious ideas.

Except, the Russians could do pretty much that exact same architecture using Soyuz and Proton for maybe 20% of the price as compared with using Delta IVH as the core launch vehicle.

And, the Russians already have a spare FGB module sitting on the shelf which could be the core of an EML-1 / EML-2 station, with a rad shielded Bigelow-style hab as a crew sleeping compartment.

Add a 4 bay docking module for Progress, Soyuz and the LSAM and fly tourists to the Moon as fast as Baikanur can get them up there.

= = =

As an aside, doesn't (or didn't) the Bigelow artwork feature Soyuz rather prominently?

Posted by Bill White at June 14, 2007 08:14 PM

There's some weird assertions on Wade's page. For instance, "The selection of an Apollo-type configuration for the re-entry vehicle represented a step back sixty years."

Okay, the selection was made in 2005, meaning that it was a step back in technology to... 1945?

Huh?

Huh?!

And note that Wade seems fixated on the idea of the orbital module as the "best" one. But it has its drawbacks. The Russians put it atop the Soyuz, meaning that the escape system has to pull both of them off the rocket. It is not inherently "better" than the Apollo capsule approach.

Posted by Will Darvo at June 14, 2007 11:44 PM

60 Venus years maybe?

Posted by Adrasteia at June 15, 2007 03:28 AM

I really liked the Boeing EML-1 architecture for the CE&R as well (and the Andrews Space one). It was that set of studies that decided me against continuing to beat up on the 'dinosaurs', as some like to call them. I've talked with a few folks at Boeing since then and I'm convinced that some there do see the advantages of staging at L-1. They even mention orbital refueling options, bless their hearts. They just don't have the free capital and free will to stake on being the company that leads the opening up of cislunar space for America the way they helped open air space to America (and the world).

The more corporate strategy is to wait for the asset to develop on its own and then buy that asset as needed or to the extent it can feed the bottom line. I'm also getting the sense that Boeing is being steered more towards defense space-work (cash cow, an eventual Carlyle buyout?), leaving the human spaceflight field (cash pit, for the moment) more to LockMart.

Did y'all notice the ShaftCEV in the Boeing proposal? The precursor-ESAS architecture was around at that time; I've always wondered why they didn't compete with everyone else in the CE&R studies.

Posted by Ken Murphy at June 15, 2007 05:10 PM

Post a comment