I mean really, 1/5th the cost? How much does it cost to build a movie set in the desert anyway?

The plan, which is spearheaded by NASA shuttle program manager John Shannon, uses the space shuttle system (with the current versions of the solid rocket boosters (SRBs) and external tank (ET). It, however, replaces the orbiter with either an unmanned cargo container or the manned Orion space capsule mounted on the side of the ET just like the orbiter is attached today.




Thanks for the super-clever idea, Sparky.

If the space shuttle can land like a plane, why can't it take off like one, at least in low gravity like the moon? (i pretty much understand why it can't on earth) If it's really impossible, could it be modified in its current state to BE possible?

RobertBruce: If the space shuttle can land like a plane, why can't it take off like one, at least in low gravity like the moon? (i pretty much understand why it can't on earth) If it's really impossible, could it be modified in its current state to BE possible?

Why would you want to?

The object in leaving the surface of the Moon would be to put distance between the ship and the Moon's center of mass. Yes, there's horizontal velocity to consider but you want to get your periapsis set up as high as you can as soon as possible. The path of the eventual elliptical orbit for the spacecraft is more "up" than "across" from the surface.

And with no atmosphere, you're not getting any lifting force from wings.

I can see a lot of rocket scientists are going to chime in here.

I'll get mah popcorn.

Could be even cheaper is we just bum a few Soyuz capsules from the Russians and upgrade the heat shields for a moon mission reentry.

A few Russian rockets and some Delta IV rockets and you would have what you needed. The only thing left is the lander.

RobertBruce: If the space shuttle can land like a plane, why can't it take off like one, at least in low gravity like the moon? (i pretty much understand why it can't on earth) If it's really impossible, could it be modified in its current state to BE possible?

Not really. Keep in mind there are several options for air vehicle power, and all of them have specific airspeed operating ranges and/or are air-breathing. At the lowest end is the propeller, which can handle from 0 to just below sonic range. Next is air-breathing low or high bypass turbofans, which can do up to about mach 2.5, and worse, they need oxygen from an atmosphere. Next is ramjets, and above those, scramjets, which takes us to the hypersonic range of mach 10 or so, but both of those engines won't even work well until they're going really, really fast. And finally, rockets, which can produce continuous, massive thrust independent of airspeed or altitude because they carry both their fuel and their oxygen internally.

There is only one type of engine that can currently get us the speed required at the altitudes required to manage orbit, and that's the rocket. And other than JATO packs which have been occasionally used to assist aircraft taking off, a couple experimental designs and the Me-163/263 from WWII, we don't have rocket-powered conventional takeoff/landing aircraft because it's a really bad idea. Rocket engines don't throttle well and they for sure don't know how to produce the continuously variable very low levels of thrust required for a powered landing.

So if you want something to take off like an airplane, go to space, and land again like an airplane, you're going to need several engines, each with its own fuel, controls, electronics, all of which add lots of weight. Not to mention that you're adding a zillion more ways for your vehicle to fail with each set of engines that you add.

Basically, we need to stop trying to do what is absurd, which is getting to orbit from the surface of a planet using atmospheric thrust and aerodynamic control vehicles. We need to build an elevator, and just lift whatever we want to orbit where vehicles designed solely for space operations can carry that cargo to and fro.

We tie a very thin fishing line to the shuttle. When it gets to the moon, we start reeling in the line, gradually attaching heavier and heavier lines to it. Eventually, we can have a nice, heavy rope between the earth and the moon that the astronoauts can use to climb back and forth.

Or we can do two lines, and make a suspension bridge.

RobertBruce

If the space shuttle can land like a plane, why can't it take off like one, at least in low gravity like the moon?

Two words: no atmosphere.

/Airplanes do not work so well in an absence of air.

oldebayer: We tie a very thin fishing line to the shuttle. When it gets to the moon, we start reeling in the line, gradually attaching heavier and heavier lines to it. Eventually, we can have a nice, heavy rope between the earth and the moon that the astronoauts can use to climb back and forth.

Or we can do two lines, and make a suspension bridge.

You may want to look at the Space Elevator concept. Similar, but not to the Moon. Just attached to a space station/captured asteroid about 36k miles up. Stays nice and stationary relative to a point on the ground if the station is positioned just right.

/Geosync FTW.

vossiewulf: We need to build an elevator, and just lift whatever we want to orbit where vehicles designed solely for space operations can carry that cargo to and fro.

Great! Except for the matter of torque, and the danger to every satellite below GSO altitude, and what a catastrophic failure would mean to anyone living within 22,000 miles of the anchor point...

oldebayer:
If the space shuttle can land like a plane, why can't it take off like one, at least in low gravity like the moon?

Two words: no atmosphere.

/Airplanes do not work so well in an absence of air.

Even better. Put the shuttle craft into a low orbit...like 6ft...and have the landing astronauts hop off and roll. If they're whiny pussies about it, give them one of those inflatable impact suits like used on the Mars landers.

Pick them up like Navy Seals, snatched from the water.

Before anyone gets snarky about the safety record of the shuttle, note that this plan uses only the fuel tank and solid rocket boosters, not the orbiter itself. The jist of it is to use the existing shuttle launch platform except with the orion capsule or an unmanned cargo vehicle in place of the orbiter.

It's no longterm solution but it should be considered as a stopgap solution for the five or so years that we'll be without the shuttle.

can someone explain to me why, in 2009, we need to go to the moon again? When we did it the first time, there was a justifiable reason between showing our gigantic cocks to the world and a matter of national security in the space race.

Yes, yes. space exploration is important and working together in an international effort unites us. So why cant we just fark the moon and go beyond? It seems pointless to go there unless we are going to mine that farker.

NeuroticRocker: Yes, yes. space exploration is important and working together in an international effort unites us. So why cant we just fark the moon and go beyond? It seems pointless to go there unless we are going to mine that farker.

Because a trip to the Moon is about 110 hours away from Earth orbit, but the time of flight on a Hohmann transfer to Mars would be 259 days. So, we can test out all the Orion gear on a week-long Moon voyage in relative safety before we commit to a 17-month round trip to Mars.

I thought one of the big reasons for retiring the shuttle design was to eliminate the need to have foam hit the shuttle. Having an orbiter or cargo vessel attached like the configuration now still leads to the possibly of foam striking the vehicle.

NeuroticRocker: "can someone explain to me why, in 2009, we need to go to the moon again? When we did it the first time, there was a justifiable reason between showing our gigantic cocks to the world and a matter of national security in the space race.

Yes, yes. space exploration is important and working together in an international effort unites us. So why cant we just fark the moon and go beyond? It seems pointless to go there unless we are going to mine that farker."

Take a look at this and tell me what jumps out at you.

Zamboro: Take a look at this and tell me what jumps out at you.

If there is even a tiny hydrogen leak, the Moon is going asplode!

TheOther: "If there is even a tiny hydrogen leak, the Moon is going asplode!"



/In all seriousness. we'd definitely bring liquid hydrogen along as it would add potable water and rocket fuel to the list of things we can make from the oxygen we refine from regolith.

Zamboro: Take a look at this and tell me what jumps out at you.

I'll take OTHER (new window) for the win, Alex, and it's the ONLY reason the nuke club is in a race to get to the moon - the ONLY reason.

Zamboro:
Take a look at this and tell me what jumps out at you.

Thank you for reminding me that I'm not getting enough calcium in my diet.

TheOther- If there is even a tiny hydrogen leak, the Moon is going asplode!

That's not what the parrot said.
Anyone else remember that short from back when Showtime needed an antenna?
Get off my lawn.

I dislike this idea, why? No way to insure crew safety. Stick the Constellation, its the best choice at the moment and we'll have our first test flight in August anyway. Delta Delta IV and Atlas V? Fark that, your talking about completely redesigning rockets and its easier to build an entire new rocket from scratch. The Falcon 9? No, Space X is a company that has barely done anything, certainly haven't proven that they can be a major player just yet. DIRECT? No, vaporware, the two launch system is safer and we're already got Ares-I ready to be tested in August.

So folks, lets stick to the game plan. Keep your eye on the ball.

acanuck: "I'll take OTHER (new window) for the win, Alex, and it's the ONLY reason the nuke club is in a race to get to the moon - the ONLY reason."

"Nuke club"? Got something against nuclear power, buddy? Fusion power is so far off that mining Helium 3 seems a poor reason to return to the moon, at least not one you can sell congress on in the present. An upcoming impact probe may reveal underground deposits of plutonium however, which would add to the list of necessary elements for human habitation that we won't have to bring with us.

I don't know why we're having so many space-related articles on Fark today, but I like it. Bring them on!

bbfreak: "I dislike this idea, why? No way to insure crew safety. Stick the Constellation, its the best choice at the moment and we'll have our first test flight in August anyway. Delta Delta IV and Atlas V? Fark that, your talking about completely redesigning rockets and its easier to build an entire new rocket from scratch. The Falcon 9? No, Space X is a company that has barely done anything, certainly haven't proven that they can be a major player just yet. DIRECT? No, vaporware, the two launch system is safer and we're already got Ares-I ready to be tested in August.

So folks, lets stick to the game plan. Keep your eye on the ball."

I agree. The vibration issues are to be expected given that this is the most powerful launch vehicle in history. The Ares V is pushing the upper limits on practical size for manned rockets, so some allowance for a rough ride ought to be made. From what I've read it's not a credible safety concern, it'll just be extremely unpleasant for those on board.

vossiewulf: RobertBruce: If the space shuttle can land like a plane, why can't it take off like one, at least in low gravity like the moon? (i pretty much understand why it can't on earth) If it's really impossible, could it be modified in its current state to BE possible?

Not really. Keep in mind there are several options for air vehicle power, and all of them have specific airspeed operating ranges and/or are air-breathing. At the lowest end is the propeller, which can handle from 0 to just below sonic range. Next is air-breathing low or high bypass turbofans, which can do up to about mach 2.5, and worse, they need oxygen from an atmosphere. Next is ramjets, and above those, scramjets, which takes us to the hypersonic range of mach 10 or so, but both of those engines won't even work well until they're going really, really fast. And finally, rockets, which can produce continuous, massive thrust independent of airspeed or altitude because they carry both their fuel and their oxygen internally.

There is only one type of engine that can currently get us the speed required at the altitudes required to manage orbit, and that's the rocket. And other than JATO packs which have been occasionally used to assist aircraft taking off, a couple experimental designs and the Me-163/263 from WWII, we don't have rocket-powered conventional takeoff/landing aircraft because it's a really bad idea. Rocket engines don't throttle well and they for sure don't know how to produce the continuously variable very low levels of thrust required for a powered landing.

So if you want something to take off like an airplane, go to space, and land again like an airplane, you're going to need several engines, each with its own fuel, controls, electronics, all of which add lots of weight. Not to mention that you're adding a zillion more ways for your vehicle to fail with each set of engines that you add.

Basically, we need to stop trying to do what is absurd, which is getting to orbit from the surface of a planet using atmospheric thrust and aerodynamic control vehicles. We need to build an elevator, and just lift whatever we want to orbit where vehicles designed solely for space operations can carry that cargo to and fro.

Ah, the space elevator. Easier said then done, its all theoretical at the moment, from the actual building to the materials needed. Which is sort of a problem, not to mention it isn't something you can build quickly and people want results yesterday not several years down the road.

Crosshair: bum a few Soyuz capsules from the Russians and upgrade the heat shields for a moon mission reentry.

No upgrade needed. Soyuz was designed for the Soviet Lunar Program and its heat shield is enough to handle that reentry. Ablative heat shields are really wonderful things. I don't have a link handy, but there was a study done that found that the Apollo CMs could be used for reentry on a Mars mission - but (if memory serves) you'd be pulling 8Gs (instead of the average 4Gs that they pulled reentering on the moon missions).

Zamboro: Got something against nuclear power, buddy?

I am a huge fan of nuke power, BUT

It's for weapons, pinhead

The reason for this all-of-a-sudden scramble is that the Indians and Chinese are ahead of the US program's schedule to get there and return weapons-related He3, for those too lazy to read my prior link on what material we are going to mine.

Given the HUGE economic cost of going there to mine, you can bet (look at history) it is of MILITARY significance ONLY. You purists need to wake up and look at history.

Safety of astronauts is a calculated bet on their lives, just as deploying soldiers to steal others' resources is/was. If you are a pansy worrying about astronaut safety, you don't understand the game, or the thrill.

I'd go up there on a 50% bet....

Tofu: No upgrade needed. Soyuz was designed for the Soviet Lunar Program and its heat shield is enough to handle that reentry. Ablative heat shields are really wonderful things. I don't have a link handy, but there was a study done that found that the Apollo CMs could be used for reentry on a Mars mission - but (if memory serves) you'd be pulling 8Gs (instead of the average 4Gs that they pulled reentering on the moon missions).

It would depend also on what kind of Earth parking orbit you put the ship in for the return trip. Stepped delta-Vs on return could match a rendezvous with extra fuel/engines, and the ship could take a less steep course back for a landing.

ActionJoe: I thought one of the big reasons for retiring the shuttle design was to eliminate the need to have foam hit the shuttle. Having an orbiter or cargo vessel attached like the configuration now still leads to the possibly of foam striking the vehicle.

Foam strike damaging the wings and re entry heat shield doesn't really matter when what you're sending up doesn't have wings and the heat shield bit is a small bit at the top, a long way above the foam.

Biggest problem on a Mars trip is going to be Galactic Cosmic Rays. Nobody's come up with a good defense for GCRs -- NASA's fooling around with some hydrogen-rich fiberglass designs but there's really nothing hardened enough to keep interplanetary astronauts from being cooked in gamma rays for several years during the journey.

Zamboro: An upcoming impact probe may reveal underground deposits of plutonium

He3 lies under the Luna's surface - that impact probe is intended to assess potential mining site material concentration. I don't know where you are getting the plutonium fantasy from - do you have a link?

DarthBrooks: Biggest problem on a Mars trip is going to be Galactic Cosmic Rays

There isn't going to be a manned Mars Mission...Mars was a cover story by Bush & Co to get a lifter large enough to get heavy mining equipment out to Luna. He3 for fusion power generation (new window) is the secondary shell of deception. Don't forget, Donald Rumsfelt's corporation now runs the PRIVATELY OWNED Lawrence Livermore Labs (yup - they GAVE AWAY our national lab) where these He3 experiments will be conducted in the NIF

The cat's out of the bag (half the scientists are on H1Bs so what did they expect?) regarding He3 having high availability on the moon and its unique contribution to producing higher yield fusion weapons (new window), and the Chinese and Indians are kicking ass and taking names to get there FIRST.

This is why we need re-use lifters and to stop farking around on an entirely new platform - got to get there first and build tiny, high-yield nuclear bombs FIRST, possibly controlling access to Luna at some point, which will thrill you Star Wars fanboys.

Zamboro: NeuroticRocker: "can someone explain to me why, in 2009, we need to go to the moon again? When we did it the first time, there was a justifiable reason between showing our gigantic cocks to the world and a matter of national security in the space race.

Yes, yes. space exploration is important and working together in an international effort unites us. So why cant we just fark the moon and go beyond? It seems pointless to go there unless we are going to mine that farker."

Take a look at this and tell me what jumps out at you.

"i went into a pizza shop and the dude gave me the smallest farking slice possible. if the pizza was a pie chart for whats on the moon, he gave me the OTHER slice....id like THE OXYGEN!"

DarthBrooks:

It would depend also on what kind of Earth parking orbit you put the ship in for the return trip. Stepped delta-Vs on return could match a rendezvous with extra fuel/engines, and the ship could take a less steep course back for a landing.

We're talking about a Mars mission here?? I encourage you to download Orbiter Spaceflight Simulator and give that a try. Your extra fuel rockets have to be just ahead of the returning Mars mission, right when it reaches perigee. Then they have to perform their own ejection maneuver so as to match the velocity of the Mars mission. Now you've got two sets of spacecraft in the same vicinity, and near Earth, but here's the great part: they are both on hyperbolic trajectories. There is no free return option like with Apollo. So, the Mars mission rendezvouses with these extra fuel rockets, docks with them, then the whole stack slows down into LEO.

Oh, it's possible. I'm not telling you that isn't possible. I'd even go so far as to say it sounds like fun (and seriously, give it a shot in Orbiter). I'm just saying it's crazy. If anything at all goes wrong with your extra fuel ships - they can't launch on time because of a problem on the ground, they don't reach the right orbit, they miss their one and only opportunity to do the ejection burn, you have some problem docking, anything at all - you've now got people on a hyperbolic orbit with respect to Earth. Wave at them as they go by, because they aren't coming back!

I think it's cool that you knew enough to suggest it. I just think it's something that Heinlein would suggest - not something that mortal man would do.

Zamboro:

/In all seriousness. we'd definitely bring liquid hydrogen along as it would add potable water and rocket fuel to the list of things we can make from the oxygen we refine from regolith.

Even better send up big dumb unmanned tanks of methane or better still butane clathrate. Stable at -20C rather than -252C, no sloshing, no explosion risk, and you get carbon to use with as well.

acanuck: He3 having high availability on the moon and its unique contribution to producing higher yield fusion weapons

So, let me see if I've got this straight: regular nuclear weapons aren't armageddonny enough. I mean sure, we can already kill every man, woman, and child on this planet several times over, but only a quitter would stop there! So instead, we're going to spend gazillions of dollars sifting thousands of tons of regolith so that we can build more powerful nuclear bombs, which we'll never actually use.

Does that pretty much sum things up?

Tofu: We're talking about a Mars mission here?? I encourage you to download Orbiter Spaceflight Simulator and give that a try. Your extra fuel rockets have to be just ahead of the returning Mars mission, right when it reaches perigee. Then they have to perform their own ejection maneuver so as to match the velocity of the Mars mission. Now you've got two sets of spacecraft in the same vicinity, and near Earth, but here's the great part: they are both on hyperbolic trajectories. There is no free return option like with Apollo. So, the Mars mission rendezvouses with these extra fuel rockets, docks with them, then the whole stack slows down into LEO.

You're not getting the scenario -- the spacecraft carries enough fuel getting back to Earth's Sphere of Influence in order to break the hyperbolic path and bump it into an elliptical transfer orbit. The ship would be in about the same amount of danger as the previous arrival to Mars's SOI (as they're both hyperbolic courses).

In order to alter the elliptical transfer orbit at return to Earth's SOI, *that* would be where a refuel rendezvous would take place. The ship wouldn't be in a heliocentric orbit, so it's just a matter of rendezvousing a supply ship at some point on the Earth orbit.

acanuck: Mars was a cover story by Bush & Co...

You are getting a bit repetitive.

Not sure if I was clear in that last paragraph: the ship carries enough fuel from the Mars trip to brake into an elliptical transfer orbit around Earth, and then has a rendezvous (as target) with a fuel ferry (as interceptor) to drop out of the elliptical for landing is what I was trying to convey.

Tofu: I think it's cool that you knew enough to suggest it. I just think it's something that Heinlein would suggest - not something that mortal man would do.

Awesome words, I may quote them.

Yeah, it'll be cheaper to get to the moon, but you have to sign a 12-month contract for Mars and Venus travel and digital telephone, too. If all you want is moon travel, stick with your current plan.

DarthBrooks: the spacecraft carries enough fuel ...to break the hyperbolic path and bump it into an elliptical transfer orbit.

oh ok. I don't see where you said that the first time. But yeah, you could do that with a ballute or by passing close to the Moon probably.

But consider this, an elliptical orbit with apogee out near the orbit of the Moon isn't stable (even if the Moon isn't in a position to influence it). So for your plan, we're talking about an elliptical orbit that's well inside the orbit of the Moon. Well think about it, we've already built spacecraft that can fall all the way in from the moon and enter the atmosphere. Now you're in a position for an even easier reentry. So, if you had the fuel to get into that orbit, then I don't think you need any more fuel - just come on home.

Unless, you want to leave a booster in Earth orbit for the next mission - like if you had a big Nerva booster. Then, we use your plan and we park the (now empty) Nerva booster in LEO. Refuel it, dock another hab module/lander/whatever to it, and head off to Mars again.

And that would be the best thing ever.
I need a sock.

Tofu: Does that pretty much sum things up?

All I'm saying is that major nuclear powers (China, India, USA, Russia) are not spending a good chunk of their GDP, or risk going broke, to bring back material to make lighter bicycle pedals, or to fulfill some Buck Rogers fantasy/"curiosity"...historically, it's almost NEVER happened.

Somebody must think there's value in taking out an entire city with a backpack sized device deployed by one soldier. Or perhaps it's for a space-based X-ray pump for a DEW?

RobertBruce: If the space shuttle can land like a plane, why can't it take off like one, at least in low gravity like the moon? (i pretty much understand why it can't on earth) If it's really impossible, could it be modified in its current state to BE possible?

No air on the Moon, sparky. How you want those wings to work?
/Never mind the fuel problem

acanuck: (China, India, USA, Russia) are not spending a good chunk of their GDP, or risk going broke, to bring back material to make lighter bicycle pedals

A common misconception is that when someone says "we spent $X on space" that people think it means we either just burned the money or actually somehow spent it in space (like there's a Walmart on the moon or something).

In actuality, most of that money goes to pay scientists and engineers to design things, and even goes to a lot of blue-collar workers on assembly lines and so on. The rockets themselves are aluminum cans and rocket motors are glorified fuel pumps. You personally are only paying pennies per day for all of this, and most of what you're buying with your pennies is people.

And creating a market for engineers results in more engineers going to school, more kids taking an interest in science, and so on. Basically, a space program is like a big public works project. You're creating a lot of jobs and a lot of economic activity and helping the economy quite a bit. A lot of spin-off technologies come out of it too, you can google that if you're interested.

It actually is a pretty good investment, but the point is the journey, not so much the destination. In 100 years or so, we may find an asteroid on a collision course, and a rush to develop space infrastructure then is likely to fail. If it's already in place, we have a much better chance of survival. In 200 years or more, we may be able to live on the moon or Mars. We may be able to get every natural resource we need from space (consider for example, that one moderate-sized asteroid contains more iron, more nickel, more of a lot of metals than has ever been mined on Earth - image a future where Earth is a nature preserve, people live here and vacation here, but there are no mines, no factories, no power plants). So in the future, in the distant future, there may be a worthwile destination. But for now, the economic benefits are sufficient justification.

Just think, if we had developed follow-ons to the Saturn V instead of going with the shuttle, then right now (now that solar panel technology is improving exponentially) we might be able to loft entire power stations into orbit. But we can't, because we didn't. And in the future, we'll continue to miss opportunities like that unless commit to an ongoing program now.

Problems with these plans:

1) The proposals don't believe there will be any development costs or unforeseen problems... which is bullshiat. Rockets are not Legos. You don't mix and match bits and figure its just going to work because it looks right.
Little things like harmonics and thrust oscillation (troublemakers for Saturn and Ares respectively) tend to rear their ugly heads and cost you money.

2) The efficiency and reliability on the SSME's that they have a hardon for using just sucks. Lacking a star trek warp drive or some other solution, the best we can do for a start is to finally retire the things and go back to proper Von Braunian staging.

3) Most of the alternative ideas deliver less than a half to a third of what the Saturn did, or what Ares is set to do. Which means the final payload to reach the moon will be smaller still. Throwing a monkey wrench into the works for any mission beyond simply landing.

If we are going to the moon then we should go and accomplish everything we've been putting off for the last thirty years. Bases, rovers, science, the works.
If we are simply going to keep pace with the Chinese and then leaving for another half century, there is no point. Buy space on Arian to launch the handful of landers you need and get rid of NASA's in house rocket building. Devote the resources for these other projects towards finding a realistic solution around the problem of launch costs.

Half stepping just to save money and face will do neither in the long run.

way south: 1) The proposals don't believe there will be any development costs or unforeseen problems.

I have a strong suspicion that Boeing is blowing smoke up everyone's ass. Boeing is making estimates on work it hasn't done yet. Ares I is underway, the major problems are now actually visible, and they are giving essentially concrete development costs. I agree with you that it would be insane to cancel Ares I now. I love the Delta IV heavy, but I promise you, it'll end up costing just as much as Ares is. Everyone talks about vibration problems with Ares. Read up on the crossfeed problems with the D IV-H.

There will be unforeseen problems.

2) The efficiency and reliability on the SSME's that they have a hardon for using just sucks.

Apparently, there are a lot of powerful politicians with vested interests in building SSMEs. I wouldn't be surprised at all if we have to keep all the factories open and just throw the engines into a landfill somewhere becuase it turns out that's politically easier than replacing them altogether.