Backstage - OOC Forums

General Discussion => The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion => Topic started by: orange on 06 Dec 2012, 22:08

Title: Who will be next to the Moon?
Post by: orange on 06 Dec 2012, 22:08
Golden Spike Company (http://goldenspikecompany.com/)

France, Germany, Japan, Brazil, Britain any guesses?
Title: Re: Who will be next to the Moon?
Post by: Esna Pitoojee on 06 Dec 2012, 22:58
Assuming you're referring to a manned landing,

The question lies in HOW they choose to get there, in my opinion.

During the Cold War, both the US and USSR pursued "single launch to moon" designs in which an orbiter, lunar lander, and associated support systems were to be launched in a single vehicle and propelled to the moon with no further assistance. "Assembly in orbit" systems in which several segments would be launched individually, connected, and then launched out of LEO were considered but ultimately disregarded because (if I remember correctly) at the time the mechanics of sending up a first module and maintaining it in orbit while a second launch could be prepared for some time weeks or months down the line were considered "to complicated" and time-consuming compared to simply building a bigger rocket.

Now, however, the largest rockets are built for significantly smaller payloads. Comparing some current common launch vehicles to the Saturn V (260,000 pounds / 120,000 kg to LEO) and Soviet N1 (200,000 lb / 90,000 kg to LEO), we see:
Atlas V - 64,820 lb / 29,400 kg to LEO
Delta IV - 49,740 lb / 22,560 kg
Long March 4 - 9,300 lb / 4,200 kg
Proton-M - 49,000 lb / 22,000 kg
Liberty (planned) - 44,500 lb / 22,000 kg
Falcon Heavy (planned) - 120,000 lb / 53,000 kg
(numbers snagged from Wikipedia)

All the rockets today carry a mere fraction of the payload that did or were expected to get us to the moon. This leaves two options: Assemble something in orbit, or build a bigger rocket (again). The US seems to be leaning towards the latter option with the descriptively-named Space Launch System, which will even surpass the carrying capacity of the Saturn V. Frankly, though, I think most of the private companies will go for the "build it in orbit" idea.

First off, we're a LOT better at putting things in orbit and keeping them there than we were during the Space Race; there are several generations of engineers who participated in the Skylab, Salyut, Mir, and ISS programs - the latter two being particularly significant as they also involved building things in orbit which didn't even always come from the same country of origin.

Second, computers are a lot better today. While I'm not a electronics engineer or computer scientist, I'd be surprised if we couldn't rely on computer systems to mate two unmanned components safely. Compare this to the theoretical "build it in orbit" ideas from the space race, where humans had to be part of the immediate docking process - in turn, forcing you to either resupply them, recover and then relaunch a crew later, or be ready to head out as soon as docking was complete.

Finally, I'd dare say that some of these companies - SpaceX in particular - would love the PR they'd get from building something in orbit, particularly as it pertains to SpaceX's stated goals of expanding the human presence in the solar system.
Title: Re: Who will be next to the Moon?
Post by: orange on 06 Dec 2012, 23:20
There was a link.

The how is being worked by a private company - Golden Spike Company (http://goldenspikecompany.com/).

 ;)

It was more of a what countries do you think might be interested in spending part of a year's space budget (France, Germany, Japan) or a few years of their space budgets (India, Italy, Britain, Brazil, Canada, S. Korea).
Title: Re: Who will be next to the Moon?
Post by: Nicoletta Mithra on 07 Dec 2012, 01:43
China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Lunar_Exploration_Program).
Title: Re: Who will be next to the Moon?
Post by: Lyn Farel on 07 Dec 2012, 07:38
I think we might rather see France/Germany together through EADS&Co than anything else.
Title: Re: Who will be next to the Moon?
Post by: orange on 07 Dec 2012, 09:02
Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 07 Dec 2012, 01:43
China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Lunar_Exploration_Program).

We will see; they are always slow and purposeful.

Quote from: Lyn Farel on 07 Dec 2012, 07:38
I think we might rather see France/Germany together through EADS&Co than anything else.

The French and Germans would first have to agree on goals, like whether to develop a new Rocket or provide their contribution to ISS by providing two service modules for NASA's Orion.  The second was chosen by ESA, despite the best efforts of France to get funding for a new European rocket (commercial market share for the Ariane V is dwindling).  Two possible Orion missions (2017/2019 if the program survives the next few years) will be supported by an ATV derived service module.

The European teams competing in the Google Lunar X Prize can probably beat ESA to the moon unmanned.
Title: Re: Who will be next to the Moon?
Post by: Lyn Farel on 07 Dec 2012, 14:16
Ah I see.
Title: Re: Who will be next to the Moon?
Post by: Nicoletta Mithra on 07 Dec 2012, 16:03
Quote from: orange on 07 Dec 2012, 09:02
Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 07 Dec 2012, 01:43
China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Lunar_Exploration_Program).

We will see; they are always slow and purposeful.

If hare and tortoise are up for a race (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdZIfafAlaU), I bet on the tortoise.
Title: Re: Who will be next to the Moon?
Post by: hellgremlin on 07 Dec 2012, 17:04
Everyone knows the moon belongs to Moon Nazis.
Title: Re: Who will be next to the Moon?
Post by: lallara zhuul on 07 Dec 2012, 19:12
Iron Sky!
Title: Re: Who will be next to the Moon?
Post by: orange on 07 Dec 2012, 19:32
 :(

I miss Ken.
Title: Re: Who will be next to the Moon?
Post by: Nmaro Makari on 07 Dec 2012, 22:23
Frankly, its most likely to be a BRIC country, although NASA still has a fair shot despite the budget cuts by dint of being the foremost of the world's space agencies.

The ESA might one day, but probably after the others, especially considering Europe's economic situation and getting Europeans to agree on anything is a mammoth task in itself. Add onto that, the Ariane V rocket is still their main vehicle and there is simply no political will to shell out for a replacement, then it looks not-so-bright for the ESA.

Related to that, just a bit of personal lament here, the lack of a British space programme is a source of great dissapointment to me. Even thought the UK has astrophysicists and engineers coming out of its ears and plenty of capable potential astronauts, there seems to have never been the political will, and I daresay public interest either. So, in short you can rule Britain out for a moon landing. If we do, it will probably be through the ESA.

However, the British space industry isnt completely dead, encouraging projects like Skylon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)) are still going, so yay for that!

Worth bearing in mind here that atm Russian Soyuz rockets are the only means to get to the ISS at present.

I am hopeful for ventures like SpaceX and asteroid mining.

Personally though, I believe Mars is a far nobler goal.
Title: Re: Who will be next to the Moon?
Post by: orange on 08 Dec 2012, 00:01
My original intent behind posting was to share the announcement by Golden Spike Company.

Only thanks to my space community friends was I reminded that as of yesterday, it has been 40 years since homo sapiens have gone more than 550 km away from the Earth's surface.  If the Earth was a basketball, we haven't gone more than 1 cm above its surface since 1972.
Title: Re: Who will be next to the Moon?
Post by: Lyn Farel on 08 Dec 2012, 02:57
Quote from: Nmaro Makari on 07 Dec 2012, 22:23
especially considering Europe's economic situation

The economic situation is not especially specific to Europe. And medias have the stupid habit to make it seem like Greece bankrupt and the shitty situation in some south countries are de facto the whole situation in Europe.
Title: Re: Who will be next to the Moon?
Post by: Nmaro Makari on 08 Dec 2012, 09:38
Quote from: Lyn Farel on 08 Dec 2012, 02:57
Quote from: Nmaro Makari on 07 Dec 2012, 22:23
especially considering Europe's economic situation

The economic situation is not especially specific to Europe. And medias have the stupid habit to make it seem like Greece bankrupt and the shitty situation in some south countries are de facto the whole situation in Europe.

You missed the point.

In Europe now, the key buzzwords are: "Austerity Drive" and most of Europe's nations are adhering to it. I.e. most of Europe's nations are making massive cuts and others are having to spend less money.

Plus, at the moment, Europe's mind is firmly on the ground concerning the economy, its what politicians talk about, it's what society talks about. There is very little appetite for sojurns into space. Of course, the resources of space are vast and within our reach, but even now we have difficulty convincing people about it's usefulness.
Title: Re: Who will be next to the Moon?
Post by: Lyn Farel on 08 Dec 2012, 10:46
Definitly.
Title: Re: Who will be next to the Moon?
Post by: orange on 08 Dec 2012, 12:52
(http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/2012/12/articles/main/20121208_wwd000.jpg) (http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/2012/12/articles/main/20121208_wwd000.jpg)

Space is fun, and I love space, but I think this captures it a bit.
Title: Re: Who will be next to the Moon?
Post by: Esna Pitoojee on 08 Dec 2012, 21:09
Hrm. I did ramble a bit in my initial post, which I apologize for. Perhaps what I was more getting at is that to get to the moon -quickly- requires a single-launch-to-moon concept, not waiting weeks or months to put something together in space through several launches.

However, the current crop of private companies and most rockets available for national or private use do not have the lifting capacity of previously used or trialed for single-launch-to-moon rockets - so, they're stuck with the assembling something in space, unless they develop a new, gigantihueg rocket.

I would then say that the true "tortoise and hare" race here is not between specific nations, but between those that would use existing technology to build something slowly and those that would develop an entirely new rocket that would be able to get people to the moon straight from a single launch.

Right now the US is the only one even appearing to look at the latter concept, but since we've gone through something like 5 rocket programs in the past decade, that's not saying we're far along in the development.
Title: Re: Who will be next to the Moon?
Post by: orange on 08 Dec 2012, 21:57
In my not so humble opinion, if we want to go to stay (or keep going) you assemble in space over a series of launches and reuse the in-space hardware extensively.   This is regardless of whether you have a big rocket (Saturn V or SLS) or just a bunch of Falcon 9s.
Title: Re: Who will be next to the Moon?
Post by: Nicoletta Mithra on 09 Dec 2012, 05:30
I think the Chinese are working on carrier systems to reach the moon as well, Esna.

As for the US-American space program:

(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/space_launch_system.png)
Title: Re: Who will be next to the Moon?
Post by: Louella Dougans on 09 Dec 2012, 05:35
From the pic on the website here:
[spoiler](http://goldenspikecompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/trans-architecture.jpg)[/spoiler]

It looks like they're looking at Four rockets per mission. (possibly more)

It's blurry, but I think I can make out the names.

An Atlas V launches, with the "LTV",  (Lunar Transfer Vehicle?), and somehow the LTV is refuelled in orbit.
A Falcon launches, carrying the Lander.
The LTV and Lander rendezvous in Earth Orbit, and transfer to the Moon, leaving the lander in orbit of the Moon.

A 2nd Atlas V launches, with a 2nd LTV, and the LTV is refuelled in orbit again.
A 2nd Falcon launches, carrying the crew vehicle.
Crew vehicle and LTV rendezvous in Earth Orbit, transfer to the Moon.

The Lander and Crew vehicle rendezvous in Lunar orbit, the lander goes down to the surface, comes back up, rendezvous with the Crew vehicle again, and the Crew Vehicle transfers back to Earth, and the crew capsule seperates, splashes down and is recovered.

4+ launches for that first mission. (unclear on how the LTVs are refuelled).

Not sure on how much of that could be re-used. If the Lander descends and ascends complete, then it would just need refuelled in Lunar orbit again, wouldn't it ? The LTVs appear to be discarded, as is much of the crew vehicle.

4 launches, 6 craft rendezvous, 1 recovery, looks like a lot more potential for delays and problems, solar flares and whatnots.

Possibly also spacejunk proliferation too, depending on where those LTVs and other bits go, the LTVs look like being discarded in Lunar space.
Title: Re: Who will be next to the Moon?
Post by: orange on 09 Dec 2012, 11:45
[spoiler](http://i.space.com/images/i/000/024/261/i02/golden-spike-moon-landing-plan-121206d-02.jpg?1354833824)[/spoiler]

Above is a better quality infographic from Space.com (http://www.space.com/18805-golden-spike-private-moon-landing-graphic.html), which is based on an interpretation of Golden Spike Company (GSC)'s 3 Dec paper (off their website).

I did the first order calculations on whether a Falcon Heavy can lob a Dragon around the Moon and safely return it to Earth.  It can and it is something GSC looked at in their paper.   Falcon Heavy hasn't flown yet, so they are not relying on it.  Essentially it brings it down to 2 launches instead of 4.

I think the LTVs might be reused, depending on how much reuse they want to get out of them.

I would pursue a different architecture, but I would also have it be an initial "customer" for fuel depots.

Title: Re: Who will be next to the Moon?
Post by: Mithfindel on 10 Dec 2012, 12:55
Just a few things I could note on the top of my head.

The Lunar Transfer Vehicle in that example would be essentially a booster stage? Not sure if that would need to be "refueled" in the orbit, if it comes with its own fuel for the journey to the moon. Of course, if it had the fuel for a two-way trip then it might be reuseable. Though the return trip, specially if you need to return only the crew module, requires very little fuel, so it comes down to calculating which is cheaper, making a reuseable, refuelable LTV capable of a two-way trip, launching it to the orbit, and then launching refuel missions, or launching a new LTV for every module.

While I admit re-using the LTV sounds elegant, I doubt it would be cheaper than using simpler one-way boosters for an already very complex plan. Difference in boost from Moon to back probably isn't that much, so the main cost is the cost of designing and launching refuel missions. If it costs almost as much to launch the fuel (specially if the refuel vehicle cannot be reused) than launching a LTV, it probably isn't worth it economically. Sure, the refuel vehicle can probably be relatively "flimsy" compared to the LTV, but that's still extra weight. Also, while space vehicles are probably engineered with large marginals, you'd eventually need to service and repair it, which would then require a separate mission (or a new LTV).

Alternatively, there would need to be a way to refuel in the Moon (& supply fuel from the relatively small gravity well of the Moon), but having a base there is way beyond this plan. Repair on orbit would probably also be easier with a properly equipped station, but that too is way beyond this plan.

Finally, the reuse of the lander depends on whether it is made to be serviced in Moon orbit and reused, and more importantly, whether it even returns whole or whether part of it stays on the Moon as a kind of a launch platform (discarding landing gear meaning again possible fuel savings due to reduced weight, specially if the module isn't reuseable).