...without heavy lift. Jon Goff lays out a potential lunar architecture. I don't think that a lunar orbit is practical for the depot, though, if you want to have any-time access from the lunar surface. I think that, even with the time and velocity penalty, EML1 is a better location.
 |
|
Currently all the fuel is coming from earth, so depot #1 needs to be in Earth orbit and easily reached. After that the discussion became safety and sorties.
I think if you are going to the Moon, go to the Moon. Store fuel on the moon. There's no reason to limit ourselves to one base or buggy radius. If safety is more important than exploration put pairs of bases within a percentage of buggy radius.
The lander itself should be robust and safe enough for people to move from one spot on the surface to others.
They should have a bulldozer or it's equivalent for building a base. I haven't heard of any designs for a Moon dozer? The best radiation shield is dirt.
Now here's a thought. A Mars lander, capable of getting from the surface of Mars to it's orbit, aught to be able to get from an Earth refueling depot to the Moons surface and back again. Don't you think? Especially if fuel was waiting on the Moons surface.
Should have googled first. Here's some Moon dozer info...
http://kenanthony.bustablog.com/2008/11/moon-dozer/
Rand,
As I was saying in my comments, it all depends on what you're trying to achieve. In fact there isn't one right answer, and I expect that as time goes on there will be multiple stations in many different locations.
I just think that for the sortie missions, that there may be a case that rapid response to transportation issues is more critical than anytime return from the surface. Sure a medical emergency on the moon would suck (about as bad as a medical emergency on Antarctica), but if you have a transportation related failure, the timeline for rescue may be much tighter.
I'm willing to be convinced either way, and I've been a huge L1/L2 fan in the past, I just want to make sure people are really thinking through all the pluses and minuses. Because the reality probably is that one orbital location probably doesn't fit all needs.
~Jon
PS, I actually got an RSS feed from your blog. Looks like at least something is working again.
"Now here's a thought. A Mars lander, capable of getting from the surface of Mars to it's orbit, aught to be able to get from an Earth refueling depot to the Moons surface and back again. Don't you think? "
I think it might have trouble with the lunar aerobraking.
You shouldn't get hung up on the Martian atmosphere Mike.
Use of aerobraking means you can save some fuel on a Mars landing but it does nothing to help an ascent.
So a Mars vehicle capable of going to Martian orbit would be able to get to and beyond the Moons orbit from it's surface.
What does fuel saving using aerobraking mean when comparing Mars and Moon landers? Either the Mars lander requires less fuel or it does not. Whichever, you should be able to design for both.
So what's the point of saying the Moon has no atmosphere? Mars has an atmosphere. The Moon has a lower gravity. Sounds like a wash to me.