----

I think that great part of VSE moon missions may fail due to a problem in its architecture.

I explain why that may happen (and how to avoid it) in my article (with SLV concept image) here: www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/004.html

If you can't access my website try later or read the text-only version of the article here: http://gaetanomarano.bravehost.com/articles/004m.htm

----

------
If you think that the SLV is only sci-fi and can't really happen, look at this:

Five months ago I've written an article on my website about a possible USA-China cooperation in the next moon missions: www.gaetanomarano.it/LSAMshenzhou/lsamshenzhou.html

But now, that is happening [ Florida Today Blog ] and, since the next moon missions will need 10-15 years to come, the probability of an USA-China (and, maybe, Russia and Europe) moon exploration is very high...

Maybe the SLV the next NASA claim about a further ESAS change...

Hi gaetano, You website does a lot of handwaving, but doesn't really state the issues in clear numerical terms. For example, you discuss that a new rocket and CEV will have many parts that might fail, and then compare the shuttle favorably to this. I have the impression that the shuttle is much more complex than the new system.

Bear in mind, I'm not an advocate of the new system either, but the two ideas you seem to be arguing for are an improved reusable shuttle, or a giant old fashioned Saturn V like rocket.

I didn't think your position was especially clear.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

It's impossible to give "numbers" about the CLV, etc. because...

1. the CLV and CaLV design news from NASA change every day

2. the real rockets don't exist and will be available only in 2011 (CLV) and 2017 (CaLV)

3. the most important parameter to evaluate the risk of missions' fail is the reliability of the rockets and that number will be available only after many real flights

I agree with you that the Shuttle is more complex than a rocket

The problem is not the "fail of the rocket" but the "fail of the mission"

The CLV may work well and safe after lift-off, but, like near all rockets and launches, may have some delays due to sensors' alarms, problems, defective parts to change (like the ECO and SSME in to-day's Discovery), weather, launch windows, etc. (don't forget that in 2018 the two rockets will still be largely "experimental")

If the "sum of delays" exceed the "max orbital life" of the EDS/LSAM the entire mission will fail, because there is no reasons to launch the CEV/CLV if the EDS/LSAM can't work well (and safely for the astronauts)

With an SLV that can't happen not even with a 10 months of delays!

About the Shuttle... I'm not favorable to the present model (that is too old and dangerous to fly with crew and can be used only to fly CREWLESS) but to a new, little, safer and cheaper Shuttle that may use the Shuttles' experience and to-day's best technology (of course, the new Shuttle will be used only for cheap LEO flights)

After the most recent example of launch delays I wish to add a simple consideration to my opinion about the "one-and-half" launch architecture.

It's too easy to talk of the Shuttle as an "example of launch delays" (one year of delays from last launch and we are not sure that it will really fly in july...) but the delayed launch of the CloudSat and Calipso is a clear evidence of the problem: a very long delay due to a strike by Boeing workers and now SIX delays in a week due to technical and weather problems!

And this was a very simple launch of two simple (and unmanned...) satellites with a little, simple and reliable rocket!

Just imagine what may happen with two, big, new (then, experimental), very complex and (one) manned launches like the CEV/SM/CLV and the LSAM/EDS/CaLV!

The delays of to-day's satellites and Shuttles launches may be multiplied by TEN!

I've read hundreds of posts in dozens of threads/forums (and articles on newspapers and websites) but near ALL users/journalists prefer to ignore the problem.

They all (but also NASA and press) talk about the CEV dimensions, the SSME/J2X CLV 2nd stage dispute, the 4/5-segment 1st stage change, etc. etc. etc. but NEVER of that problem.

That is VERY INCREDIBLE for me because it's like talk about the dimensions, materials, use, elevators, floors, color, windows, price, parking, air conditioned, furnitures, lighting, streets, doors, etc. etc. etc. of a giant and very very expensive 2000 feet new skyscraper with all (engineers, buyers, etc.) ignoring that it is built on a sand-like terrain and may collapse after its inauguration!!!

I think that, BEFORE start making the building NASA must give it a solid ground with a reliable "single launch architecture".

Ignore the problem is not a good and savvy policy!

I too see a lot of handwaving, which completely ignores the inherent safety in the 2 launch concept, as well as the capsule. All of this decreases complexity and increases safety, and all the handwaving in the world will not change this unless you give numbers.

Numbers... who knows the real ESAS/VSE "numbers"?

NASA changes the "definitive" ESAS "numbers" every day... and the most important REAL numbers (like rockets' reliability) will be available ONLY when the rockets will fly.

The two most important numbers of a manned mission are the "Loss Of Crew" and the "Loss Of Mission".

About LOC... I've seen many figures about different LOC with different (new) rocket's configurations (and... of course... the safest CLV is the model that NASA & contractors have decided to build...) but ALL these numbers are a nonsense.

I don't know which rocket may be safer (little or big, solid or liquid engine, etc.) but I know (and you know) that (as I explain in my article) the life of the astronauts don't depends from the LOC of the rocket but from the reliability of the LAS.

If the LAS will be really fast and very reliable the life of the astronauts will be safe WHATEVER will be the rocket under the capsule, also an old Redstone!!!

I think that the LAS will be fast and reliable (1 in 500 or more), then, the life of the astronauts will be safe with (both) a big or a little rocket.

For the success of the missions the most important parameter is the LOM, but no one can know now (not even NASA) the real LOM of two (or one) rockets that will exists and fly after 2015.

But we don't need to wait 10+ years because we can use our LOGIC.

It's clear that TWO rockets may fail a mission if there will be too much delays of the second launch, while the "single launch" can wait months or years before the launch without any LOM.

Of course, also the SLV may fail but ONLY if will happen BIG technical problems like with Columbia and Challenger and NEVER for a "sum of (simple and stupid) delays that happen (to-day, in the past and in the future) every day with every rocket's launch.

To-day I've added a note at the end of my article about the one-and-half launch architecture, because I've realized that the second launch will not have ALL the 95 days of the LSAM/EDS max loither time in earth orbit.

The REAL total time available for the second launch will be of ONLY a few dozens hours inside the 95 days!

This additional problem increases very much the risk of a mission's fail if the launch delays will happen in these few, very critical, hours.

I really have to question this. The moon is only a few days away. This isn't like trying to insert a fast moving probe into a far reaching planet or planets moon. The astronauts would be able to orbit the moon at their leasure, and land when they're ready. They're not going to go from Earth orbit and instantly try and land. We have been there before, contrary to some peoples beliefs.

As others have said, lots of handwaving here. You're going to have to come up with a lot better arguments than whats written on the web page in question.

edit -- grammer

__________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." - G'Kar

Without any atmosphere (and no Time Square lights..) the moon's night is COMPLETELY BLACK.

Also the first and last days of the moon day are unusable because the shadows are too large.

The number of usable moon days is around 10-12 max and in these days the LSAM must land, remain a week for the exploration and come back to lunar orbit.

Then, to arrive on the moon in the "right days", the CEV/LSAM must leave the earth orbit exactly 3-4 days before the better moon days.

This is the first (unquestionable!) ARGUMENT that reduces the 95 days of max orbital loither time to less than 30 (really usable) days.

But not all the hours of these days can be used for the launch of the CEV because, while the LSAM/EDS rotates with its orbital inclination, also the earth rotate by itself.

Then, inside these 30 days, will be a number of "launch windows" that must be used to launch the CEV in the right orbit, with the right inclination to rendez-vous the LSAM/EDS (not before nor after!).

If the delays will happen in these critical hours the mission will fails.

But... how many delays will happen with the second launches?

I don't know and no one can know to-day the real figures.

We must wait the 2018-2020 to know them.

I only make a simple statement (that, I think, is another unquestionable ARGUMENT): "with the "one-and-half" launch architecture, a (possible) "sum of delays" will be equal to a MISSION FAILS, while, with a single launch architecture, also DOZENS of delays (for weeks, months or years!) will NEVER mean a FAILS (with a GIANT loss of hardware and money!) but ONLY a simple "delay of the mission"!" (and this is clearly an ARGUMENT)

And why must it land on only one part of the moon?
You forget that there is ALWAYS a location on the moon which you could land on - there is ALWAYS a spot in lunar dawn. As for your reliability arguements, you have failed to prove anything with your handwaving. You'll need to make more specific claims before we can make anything of them (specific as in NUMBERS. I don't care if the plan is always changing - the changes right now are minor. Do calculations based on its current state).

The moon has a day and a night, the travel from earth to the moon is of three days and the exploration time of each mission will be of seven days.

These are arguments and NUMBERS that cut over 60% of the 95-days max orbital loither time.

About the place to land...

The first VSE/ESAS moon missions plan was to build a CEV able to change its lunar orbit (also to polar) and an LSAM able to land in everyplace on the moon, but recent news say that both will be too heavy for the planned rockets, then, the new plan is for equatorial landing only and (probably) only three astronauts (that must remain 10 days on the moon instead of seven).

However, the most important reason for the "single place" landing is "MONEY"

The LSAM will have a cargo version to send up to 21 tons of hardware on the moon, but the moon-hardware, the cargo-LSAM and the launch will be VERY VERY VERY expensive!

I don't think that the NASA budget (and common RATIONALITY) may suggest to spend $6 billion for the manned mission and $5/10 billion for one-two cargo-LSAM with EVERY mission!

Then, to avoid waste GIANT quantity of money (that NASA will not have) the only way is to concentrate this VERY VERY VERY expensive moon-hardware on one or (max) two places and explore the surface around these places with pressurized rovers.

Ok, so explain to me why we're going to the moon if it's so expensive?

__________________
If I set the budget, we'd have Ares and more. Unfortunately, I don't set the budget, and Ares is just too expensive and too far out for us to accomplish our goals within the budget we were given.

If we halt the ISS, all versions of Ares, and transport Orion and Altair aboard DIRECTv3's Jupiter family of Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles, we just might make it back to the Moon by 2020.

That was a Bush's decision and the official NASA claim is "to explore the moon" (better than with Apollo).

The max number of missions depends of the budget available (that will be of only $104 billion).

You don't think there's more to it? Bush just woke up one day and said "what should I do today? I know, let's go to the moon."
(I know some may think that, but I'd like to think the decision was based on something)

you're right, but, if NASA will receive the funds, it will make that missions (its engineers already work around the project)

the "final word" about the moon's exploration will be when the exploration will really starts (the "scientific results" of the real missions will be "the right reason")

I only suggest some changes to avoid an high number of missions' fails

I do. I don't understand the chemistry (nucleogy?) but some friends tell me it was so that in 20 years we'd have a supply of He3 for fusion.

People have tried explanating it, but supposedly fusion using He3 is more obtainable? I think they mean viable energy production using fusion better with He3 than D and T.

__________________
If I set the budget, we'd have Ares and more. Unfortunately, I don't set the budget, and Ares is just too expensive and too far out for us to accomplish our goals within the budget we were given.

If we halt the ISS, all versions of Ares, and transport Orion and Altair aboard DIRECTv3's Jupiter family of Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles, we just might make it back to the Moon by 2020.

it's not easy to have "numbers" (since we don't know now the reliability of the two new rockets) but I try to calculate them in a specific thread: It's a little complex problem. Can we solve it together? >>>

As long as we get an HLLV--I'm fine with whatever iteration.

I think that an orbital-CEV for ISS (launched with CLV or EELV) is completely unnecessary because it's only a waste of time and money (TONS of Billion$$$$$$) and a duplication of (many) 10+ times cheaper (present and future) orbital vehicles (Digital-Soyuz, Progress, ATV, etc.)

.

None of which have a capability of 25 tons to low earth orbit.

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett

true, but each Soyuz/Progress launch costs less than $60M

then, for the price of ONE (cargo or crew) CEV launch, you can send in space 20 Soyuz/Progress!

.

.

Build the SLV is faster and cheaper than build the CLV and the CaLV.

The way to save 3+ years is to build the SLV not with "shuttle-derived" technology but with the SAME (ready available) Shuttle's hardware!

Full story here: www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html

.

He3 fusion produces almost no radioactive waste (something on the order of nuclear medicine waste) while D and T will irradiate the walls around the reactor, which will need to be replaced every 20 years or so, and will have the same radioactivity at that time as our current nuclear waste.

At least this is what I recall from reading Jack Schmitt's book a while back. (A book I heavily recommend to people wondering why we should go back to the moon)

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

i'm still trying to figure out why we would need to land on the moon on a certain "day" of the lunar "day". i can understand the problems with rendezvous in LEO, which would limit things somewhat, but not to the extent that is being claimed here.
with all the stuff we'll have orbiting around the moon by then, i'd think we'd be able to land pretty much anywhere, anytime, and not need a direct "line of sight" for communications back to earth. some of those satellites could be used as communications relays- like the Mars rovers use the satellites around Mars to communicate with earth.
if there are delays, we just move the landing sight "over" an appropriate distance to land at the optimal time in the lunar "day". we'd even be able to check out the "dark side of the moon" and see what we never get to see from earth.

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

From what I recall, NASA planned the lunar landing times so that the sun would be roughly 10-12 degrees above the horizon. This made sure there were shadows visible to provide the astronauts with some visual contour data.

As to the degree of problem this will cause on the future missions as claimed above? I don't see it. We managed to land just fine 6 times, and I'm sure 13 would have landed fine as well, without any issues. Why those problems would suddenly crop up when our technology and knowledge is even greater I don't know. Those NASA guys are pretty smart, heck they can send out a probe on a 7 year mission, for millions and millions of kilometers, make it pass within 236 kilometers of a comet at 14,000 miles per hour, and then return that probe to earth to look at what it caught. I think they'll figure out the moon phase issues

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

land on the far side of the moon will be possible after many missions when they will be confident with the hardware, when there will be more funds, when they will send comm-GPS sats around the moon, when they end the exploration of the near side, etc.

the only way to have a few more days on the near side is to land in different places with different delays of the CLV launch, but...

1. a few days more don't change so much the risk of the 1.5 l.a. because the delays that will kill a mission never will be of "a few days"

2. it's very dangerous to trasform the (risky) moon missions in a sort of "last-minute-space-travel"

3. if the astronauts will be trained to land in a given "location" of the moon (then, they will know ALL of that location and what to do there) they can't land in another (UNKNOWN) location due to a "train-delay" because they can't know (nor be trained) for the entire moon!

4. land in different locations at every launch is VERY EXPENSIVE because, at every mission, all the moon-hardware is lost; since NASA funds are low (and the missions, with that funds, only a dozen) NASA must use one or two landings' sites, send all the hardware with a few cargo-LSAM and REUSE many times the hardware to explore the moon via surface

.

true, but all missions you quote (apollo, probes, etc.) was ALL "single launches"

with a "single launch" you can wait months to have the right "launch window" to rendez-vous a comet, and, if the first launch windows can't be used due to a problem, you can wait and use the second (that may be six monts after the first) or the third, the fourth, etc.

with a "single launch" a mission (big apollo or little probe) NEVER can fails due to a "sum of delay", its only problem can be the "delay of the full mission"

the new moon missions will be the most complex ever made and the first that don't use the "single launch" architecture (like the apollo), also, the second launch will have a few "windows" in a few days; after 95 days the "windows" ends and the LSAM/EDS dies

.

Not true, they had several multi-launch missions during Gemini that worked just fine. Even when they had system problems with the 2nd launch they were able to turn around in 2 days or less and make the next launch window without fail.

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

The triple-launch Soyuz mission also comes to mind, but I am not sure they rendezvoused successfully.