If it's only function was external cover, it will never be one inch thick. Even at the time of Apollo they knew that would be ridiculous, and using such approaches would have made Apollo totally impossible. Yes they can build lighter now, but Apollo already was built up of nice lightweight things.

One issue with composites is the outgassing problem, which makes many of them unsuitable in space. There certainly will be weight savings in a new craft. Just think of miniaturisation of systems. On the other hand, a new craft probably will use more systems. I think that savings in materials won't be spectacular. Better mechanical calculations might give a better improvement than other materials. Though there are some new materials that are light, strong and space rated. I can't give a saving percentage, but again I wouldn't guess it too high, certainly not compared to other parameters such as miniaturisation and complexity.

But anyway, they never would have used a one inch thick metal plate just for the outer plating. It must have had another function (as well).

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

probably you're right

in my previous post I say that I don't remember exactly the "part" read in a fast look of a long document (written with an old typewriter and scanned...)

however, a big difference of weights will exists between '60 and to-day's technology

maybe, some materials will be similar while other will be lighter and (right) the main weight saving probably will be in the internal part of the vehicles that don't need to be full-metal but can use plastic, fibers, etc.

.

btw I checked today, and for example an Ariane 4 engine pickup point (hinge) is INCREDIBLY thick. It is shaped a bit like this:

|_|_| with holes for the acis in the vertical parts (axis comes in like this: -----)

And each part is at least 3 cm thick (I could not measure as I couldn't reach the top of the engine). I don't know what metal it is made from though. But that part carries all lift force from the engine (well, there are more of those parts, but that is their task). So it is very logical that those parts are really thick, both in the past as present.

The engine contains multiple parts of this extreme thickness, most of them the main load paths. Other parts such as the nozzle are much thinner.

(the Ariane 4 stage 1 main engines are those built by Volvo Aero, Volvo Flygmotors. )

*******************

I don't know how much lighter the craft would be. As said, there is miniaturisation, better calculations and some new materials on one hand, but on the other hand craft tend to have added functionality(complexity) these days, though quite a bit of that is by means of software. I don't know what net weight saving you could take into account overall. I assume weight would be lower indeed as the added complexity is only rarely by means of heavy equipment, but I don't know how much the weight saving would be in total. SMAD did not give an answer on a first look.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

According to astronautix.com, the Apollo CM and SM mass breakdown was as follows:

Command Module:
structure 1,567 kg
heat shield 848 kg
reaction control system 400 kg
recovery equipment 245 kg
navigation equipment 505 kg
telemetry equipment 200 kg
electrical equipment 700 kg
communications systems 100 kg
environmental control system 200 kg
crew seats & provisions 550 kg
crew mass 216 kg
misc. contingency 200 kg
propellant 75 kg

Service Module:
structure 1,910 kg
electrical equipment 1,200 kg
maneuvering system 3,000 kg
propellant 18,413 kg

I imagine some things like electrical and telecomm equipment have seen considerable miniaturization since the Apollo days. Composite materials will likely help reduce structure weight to some degree, though there are certainly some structural components for which there is no adequate substitute. I wouldn’t expect to see much mass reduction at all in things like heat shield, RCS, recovery equipment, environmental control, propulsion, etc.

As you say, Nicolas, it's difficult to say just how much of a total reduction is possible.

__________________
Webmaster, Rocket & Space Technology

If IRC, NASA wants to send a 6 man team to orbit, 4 of who land, so trying to compare it to a 3 man orbit 3 man land (which is silly in itself as it means no-one is flying the recovery craft) is comparing apples and oranges.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

The plan is to make CEV capable of unpiloted operation. The Block 2 version, for lunar missions, will have a 4-man crew with all 4 crewmembers landing. The 6-man version is the Block 3, which will be used for Mars missions.

__________________
Webmaster, Rocket & Space Technology

since we don't (and can't) know the real design and materials of the final CEV, I've used the ESAS' figures to calculate (by comparison) the weight of a possible "resized-CEV"

of course, I suppose that NASA's evaluation of CEV/SM weights is careful... since they will build the new rockets to lift THOSE weights!

.

the weights of the Apollo vehicles is interesting under the historical aspect, but to-day's (and future) story is completely different

the saving of weight may come from many ways:

- new materials and alloys developed in last 40 years

- new engineered structures made with old materials to have 1/10th of weigh with twice the resistance

- "sandwichs" of materials, like a metal-carbon/glass/fiber-metal, where the heavy metal may be thin and only external

- new researches like nanotubes and nanostructures, now only in the labs, but ready to use when the CEV will be built

- etc. etc. etc. (like... "something new we don't know to-day"...)

.

According to NASA's ESAS Final Report dated Nov-2005, below are the masses of the lunar CEV CM and SM:

Lunar CEV CM:
structure 1,883 kg
protection 894 kg
propulsion 413 kg
power 819 kg
control 0 kg
avionics 435 kg
environmental 1,091 kg
other 1,159 kg
growth 1,339 kg
non-cargo 821 kg
cargo 100 kg
non-propellant 367 kg
propellant 184 kg
TOTAL 9,506 kg

Lunar SM:
structure 819 kg
protection 167 kg
propulsion 1,423 kg
power 417 kg
control 0 kg
avionics 117 kg
environmental 98 kg
other 290 kg
growth 666 kg
non-cargo 579 kg
cargo 0 kg
non-propellant 0 kg
propellant 9,071 kg
TOTAL 13,647 kg

Please explain how each of these numbers will change in your "resized-CEV" and provide justification for each reduction. And don't just multiply everything by 3/4 because few items are scaleable like that.

It is for the historical aspect that I provided them. And although I agree the CEV is different, it is not completely different. There are enough simularities between the vehicles that the historical data can be useful. For example, just look at the first three items on the list - sturcture, protection and propulsion. For the Apollo CM we have 1,567 kg, 848 kg, and 400 kg respectively, and for the CEV CM we have 1,883 kg, 894 kg, and 413 kg. Note how very similar these numbers are.

__________________
Webmaster, Rocket & Space Technology

I'll read your data and I'll post an answer to-day.

.

the calculations you want are simply impossible to do because exact calculations need exact data to start

the numbers you post can't be used to start a calculation (but only a discussion) because:

1. the data you post (apparently) are those of the early (very heavy!) 5.5mt. CEV/SM, not of the new 5mt. version

2. the new 5mt. CEV is still designed for up to SIX astronauts, while my proposal is to build ONLY a 4x lunar version

3. to match my idea of SLV or FAST-SLV the diameter don't needs to be 5mt. but can be 4.5mt. or 4mt.

4. the final weight of the "resized-CEV" may be different with different cone's angle/volume (like explained in fig. 5-2 of the ESAS report)

5. the multi-role-CEV needs to be larger than a lunar-only-CEV because the first will be the ONLY "home" of the astronauts in a 10+ days orbital mission, while, the latter will be the "home" of the astronauts only for three days (since, in the earth-moon travel and on the moon, they will live in the very large LSAM)

however, my "3/4-resizing" calculation is vaild for many reasons:

1. with the better choice of dimension/angle/volume the 3xCEV can weigh very close to (or less than) the 75% of a 4/6xCEV (especially a very little, "3-days-travel-and-reentry" CEV)

2. despite some weights can't be reduced to a full 3/4 (structure, protection, avionics, etc.) other weights can be reduced 3/4 or more (spacesuits, electronics, sensors, etc. of the 4th astronauts), so, the final weight of a resized-CEV is more close to 75% (maybe 80%) than 90%

3. the weights-reduction of a resized-CEV is not "linear" but like a "cascade"; also if the resized-CEV can't be exactly 75% of a full-CEV but only 80-85% (with only a few tons saved) that weight saved "on the top" must be multiplied by 3/4+ for the light-SM, the light-LSAM, less propellant for LOI and TEI, etc., and the total weight saved must be multiplied 2+ times for less propellant/dimensions/volume/metal/tanks of the EDS (and, maybe, one EDS' engine instead of two), so, the final result can match "my" FAST-SLV rocket's payload

4. the final design (made in this thread) of the FAST-SLV (with 4/5 SSME instead of three) can lift the full 110 mT for a 3xCEV moon mission, but the max weight of the 3xCEV/LSAM/etc. (calculated, by comparison, with the "simple" 3/4-method, from the new, resized, 5mt. CEV) is NOT of 110 mT but only of (about) 95 mT; the difference between the max payload of the FAST-SLV and the min. weight "3xCEV-system" is very large (up to 15 mT), then, if the REAL vehicles will need more payload-tons than "my figures", there are LOTS of extra-tons that a full-5xSSME-FAST-SLV can lift to match the "3-astronauts moon missions"

5. (last but not least) I think that, a single-launch moon mission, has so many advantages (less R&D time and money, less hardware, no risks of the 1.5 l.a., first moon mission 5+ years sooner, more missions per year, etc. etc. etc.) that EVERY ADDITONAL CHANGE the "base-SLV" will need (10+ tons of extra-payload, a 6th engine, etc.) still does my proposal an ABSOLUTE WINNER compared with the planned (bad) "1.5" version!!!!!

.

I find it interesting that you can state all these definite advantages, and yet when asked to quantify your reasoning, all you can come up with is excuses. What he asked you to do is very specific and easy. Regardless of what NASA is or is not doing, all he wants is for you to take each of those categories of mass for the proposed vehicles, and state what in each category you believe could be lightened, how much you think it could be lightened, and why.

true, an analytical calculation from the ESAS data CAN be easy made but I prefer to don't start doing it for two reasons:

The FIRST reason is that it will results ONLY in an ENDLESS (and USELESS) discussion about kilograms and grams!

I (already!) know that, if I calculate the heat shield mass for a 4mt. CEV with a simple circle area calculation, that will be not good because (e.g.) "the 4mt. heat shield must be larger in some points like a 5mt. CEV" or "I've not calculated the weight of the explosive-bolts that connects the shield to the capsule or the size of the capsule is too little or, if I suggest to build a 4mt. bell-shaped capsule (to have more internal volume), you say me that NASA don't have the tools to build it or, if I say that the non-cargo weight is too much and (maybe) duplicated with LSAM non-cargo weight, you say me that all the 819 kg. are absolutely necessary also for 3 astronauts, etc. etc. etc.

if you (absolutely) WANT that the CEV/LSAM/ESAS will be AS IS (without any change!) you will (endless!) demontrate me (or try to) that ALL changes I suggest are absolutely IMPOSSIBLE despite, in a few months, NASA has made many BIG changes in its original "final" and "perfect" ESAS plan... like the engines/thrust change of the CLV and CaLV, the propellant of the SM/LSAM, etc.

all these changes are MORE RADICAL than (simply) resize the CEV dimension!

The SECOND reason is these calculation can be only used to demonstrate that, if I'm "wrong" in dozens of little evaluation, then I'm "wrong" on all my ideas and proposal, then, also about the SLV, FAST-SLV, 1.5 l.a. risks, etc.

This is NOT TRUE because, the single weights may vary, but the full project is VALID

I wish (again) to demonstrate that using LOGIC:

If you (or me or both) do a complete calculation and the final result is that a 3-astronauts moon missions' hardware can't be (exactly) 75% of a 4x mission but over 80%, this new figure don't change NOTHING in my proposal

I've suggested to build the SLV with the 4-segments SRB only to save MORE time and money but the NASA's design (with 5-seg.SRBs) ALREADY can lift 125 mT that EXCEEDS all requirements for a 3-astronauts moon mission!

Then, if my calculation (by comparison with the CaLV thrust) of the FAST-SLV (made with 4-seg.SRB) max payload (110 mT) is right but NOT SUFFICIENT for a 3x moon mission, NASA can (simply!) use its original 5-seg.SRB-CaLV to accomplish it!

Also, don't forget that my evaluation of a 3-astronauts moon missions' hardware (made with the "simple" 3/4 calculation) is NOT of 110 mT but of only 95 mT

Then, if I'm WRONG (completely wrong!) about the 95 mT figure (calculated with the "too simple" 3/4 method), an 80% or 85% resized-CEV can perfectly match the 110 mT payload of the FAST-SLV , and, I repeat... if I'm TWO TIMES WRONG and its weight don't match my design, NASA can, simply, use its original 125 mT design!

In other words... the SLV 3-astronauts moon missions CAN BE DONE in MANY different ways (with "my" rocket OR with NASA rocket!) , then (please) discuss (or critic) the CONCEPT, not the details (that, of course, are important, but don't change so much the full s.l.v. architecture)

The new 5mt. CEV (with light-SM, light-EDS, etc.) will be less than 150 mT of the early ESAS plan... I think it will be around 140 mT in total... but, we can start from 145 mT... ok?

75% (with my 3/4 "easy calculation") of 145 mT is about 109 mT >>> matches both the FAST-SLV and the SLV/CaLV

80% of 145 mT is about 116 mT >>> matches both the FAST-SLV (without the exploration-hardware) and the SLV/CaLV (with the exploration-hardware)

85% of 145 mT is about 123 mT >>> matches only the original 125 mT SLV/CaLV

90%-up of 145 mT >>> don't matches my FAST-SLV nor the NASA's original CaLV (...but can match if NASA adds a 6th SSME to its CaLV)

.

Then why did you write the following?

You say above that you’ve already calculated the weight of resized CEV from ESAS’ figures, yet when I post the figures you claim such calculations are impossible because the data isn’t exact. If you don’t like the data I posted then please post the data you did use and share with us the calculations you claim to have already made.

You haven’t calculated anything. All you are doing is pulling numbers out of the air and demanding that we agree with them. Your “3/4-resizing” is dubious until you can substantiate it with valid computations.

__________________
Webmaster, Rocket & Space Technology

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

please, don't play with words

the calculation is IMPOSSIBLE if we want the TRUE result because we don't have all data (see my five points in the previous post) of the FINAL 3-astronauts CEV/SM/etc. (because there are many, different, possible options about its dimensions, shape, moon exploration time, etc.)

but some calculations CAN be made if we start from the old-ESAS' data to have the dimensions/weight of a 4mt. or 4.5 mt. CEV or the volume of a cone (or bell) shaped capsule, etc.

I've made a simple 3/4-resizing of the original 4-astronauts moon missions' hardware weights

of course, I accept that a simple 3/4 calculation can't give the exact result (that may be some % more or less in the, real, resized, moon mission)

however, as I've expalined in my previous post, ALL the possible "final weights" of a "3x mission" match "my" rocket or the NASA rocket or an upgraded NASA rocket

in other words... a moon mission with a single rocket/launch CAN BE DONE (but, if you still have some doubts... look at another SLV-like moon mission... Apollo...)

not true, the resized-CEV needs a resized rockets for the same reasons that a little satellite needs a little launcher while a big satellite needs a big launcher or 100 passengers need a little airplane while 300 passengers need a big airplane etc. etc. etc. ...it's elementary logic!

.

the answer to your doubts already are in new CEV/SM and in its dimensions/weights (simple) comparison with the Apollo

about the 1/10th weight... probably the figure is a little "extreme" but I dont refer to a light-iron or a light-copper but to a different use of the same materials with new "smart" structures that are resistant despite they are not made of full-metal, but, of air

about microelectronics, CRT, etc... I can't "forget" it... since "electronics" was my first job for years...

.

Gaetanomarano, when you’re able produce some real calculations to support your opinions then please let me know. In the meantime I've got no further time to waste on your hand waving.

__________________
Webmaster, Rocket & Space Technology

I don't want to design the SLV calculating all the weights from engines to CEV toilet.

I only want to claim that NASA can do (if they wants...) a 3-astronauts-single-launch-moon-mission.

However, we don't need to discuss too much about this question, since NASA have ALREADY accomplished (35 years ago and with OLD technologies) an SLV-like moon mission, then, they can only do it again!

If they want, of course...

.

.

3-astronauts-SLV-moon-mission weight-saving short list:

1. the first weight-saving was the NASA decision to reduce the CEV diameter from 5.5mt. to 5mt.

every weight reduction "on the top" means a big weight reduction on the rest of the "system"

the original weight of the ESAS' system was around 148 mT: 125 mT the EDS/LSAM launched with the CaLV and 23 mT the CEV/SM launched with the CLV

if the 5mt. CEV will weigh only 1 mT less than the 5.5 version, the SM may save about 2 mT of tank and TEI fuel, the LSAM may save 2 mT of tank and fuel for LOI and the EDS may save 5+ mT of fuel for TLI

then, the weight of the new 4-astronauts-5mt.-CEV moon mission's hardware will be less than 140 mT

2. the second weight saving may come from sending the lunar-exploration-hardware for 5+ missions SEPARATELY from (and before) the first manned mission

there are many advantages with this solution: less payload of all manned missions, five times more exploration&science hardware sent on the moon (that means "rich" explorations and results because ALL the missions can use the full 5x hardware), giant quantities of money saved (thanks to "lighter" manned mission, more exploration results, very expensive moon-hardware reused many times ...instead of sent many times... etc.), extra life support (that may save the astronauts' life if someting goes wrong!) for longer and safer moon missions, etc.

the exploration-hardware of a standard-LSAM is planned around 2 mT + 0.5 mT, then, if that weight will be sent separately, the total saving (including the saved LSAM-LOI-fuel and the EDS-TLI-fuel) will be around 10-15 mT

with the hardware sent separately, the total weight/payload of a 4-astronauts-newCEV moon mission will be less than 130 mT

3. but, the missions I suggest for the FAST-SLV must be with 3 astronauts and resized CEV/SM/LSAM/EDS (and the lunar-hardware sent separately)

the evaluation of the weight reduction (of a 3x mission) made with a "rough" 3/4-calculation may be not real, because some parts of the "system" (navigation system, SM and LSAM engines, electronics, avionics, etc.) must weigh the same in (both) the 3x and 4x version

but, since great part of the weight saving with a resized mission will be the EDS/LSAM/SM fuel for TLI/LOI/TEI, a 20% weight reduction (instead of the "rough" 25%) appears reasonable

then, a 3-astronauts-resized-moon-mission (with the lunar-hardware sent separately) may weigh around 104 mT

the final weight matches the FAST-SLV max payload (110 mT) but now I wish to add two further (possible) weight reductions:

4. build the CEV/SM and the LSAM only for equatorial moon landings

the new ESAS' vehicles are planned for accomplish the moon missions with a range larger than Apollo

the new CEV/SM will be remote-controlled and will have sufficient fuel to modify its moon orbit (e.g. to polar orbit) and the LSAM can land in a larger area from CEV orbit

this way to explore the moon may appear "smart" but I think it's a bad, expensive and very risky way

it need to send more (very expensive) extra-weight with every mission, the astronaut must land on every moon place from the sky (that is very risky), the (very expensive) exploration-hardware must be sent again with every missions and the surface the astronauts may explore will be only a few miles around each landing site

the rational way is to land all missions on one-two sites, sent more hardware separately, re-use the lunar-hardware and explore more moon surface with pressurized vehicles; the risk of a land-exploration will be much less than a sky-exploration and the astronauts will explore more surface in less time and with less costs

if we scratch the extra-fuel/tank weight for multi-orbit/multi-landing and resize the CEV/SM/LSAM to an equatorial-only version, the wight reduction of the full CEV/SM/LSAM/EDS system may exceeds 10 mT in total, and the final weight of the 3x mission paylaod will be around 95 mT

5. the last (possible) weight reduction may come ONLY from a single-launch architecture

in the 1.5 launch architecture, the EDS/LSAM must run in orbit up to 95 days without burn in the atmosphere, then, its parking/rendez-vous orbit must be high

but an higher orbit means LESS PAYLOAD for (both) the CaLV and the CLV

with a single launch architecture the orbital insertion of the (full) CEV/SM/LSAM/EDS system don't need to be too high but only "sufficient" to stay in orbit a few hours (since the TLI will starts the same day, not after weeks or months!)

and, with a lower orbital insertion, the same FAST-SLV rocket may lift a bigger payload

.

.

I think that the ESAS' moon missions/vehicles can be easy "resized" for a 3-astronauts moon missions to be launched with a single 110/125 mT payload SLV or FAST-SLV...

However, I've designed a NEW version of my FAST-SLV (made with the SAME ready available, man-rated, 110+ times successful launched and cheap Space Shuttles' engines!) that can lift up to 135 mT payload!

This is the BEST solution for a FAST and CHEAP rocket to launch a FULL "4-astronauts" moon mission with a SINGLE-ROCKET-SINGLE-LAUNCH (cheap, safe and reliable) architecture WITHOUT the need to "resize" NOTHING!!!
.

Now there's a self-contradictory phase. The Shuttle uses some of the most expensive engines ever made. For a non-reusable vehicle, it would probably make better economic sense to design something from scratch, cheaper and non-reusable, or look at upgrading the J2S instead.

not true (and no contradiction)

since the SSME is reusable, the $60M per unit cost of the SSME is due to the very little number of engines built with its R&D costs "shared" on a few units

the expendable-SSME cost per unit may be around $40M and, if many SSMEs will be built, it's unit cost will falls more

but the "main saving" of the SSME is that it is READY AVAILABLE and don't needs years of work and many Billion$$$ of (shared) R&D costs like a new, not man-rated, engine!

if you add the time lost and the shared costs to design/man-rate a new engine... the final unit-cost per engine may reach $200 million each!

then (compared with that costs) the expendable-SSME engine IS "cheap"!!!

.

gaetanomarano,

It's fairly obvious at this point that you've already decided on the One True Way, and that no amount of arguing or numbers from anyone else will ever change your mind on anything, anymore than a devout believer can be argued out of their religion. So I won't bother disputing your numbers, since it won't matter.

Since the CaLV doesn't need to be man-rated NASA has switched to the RS-68 engine, which will cost roughly $20 million per unit and has a fraction of the parts of the SSME.

__________________
Webmaster, Rocket & Space Technology

it's not a "religion"

"numbers" (less time and R&D costs) are (clearly) in favour of the SLV

that's (simply!) because, the same travel with four persons in ONE car costs HALF than four persons in TWO cars... (twice gasoline, twice parking costs, twice highways fees, etc.)

.

the (little) saving is only on engines' costs but the rest of the CaLV (5-segments SRB hardware + R&D costs + a larger main tank) will costs MORE

tha max (optimistic) saving may be around 20%

just imagine you need to buy a new car and have only TWO choices:

1. a $80,000 car (the Super SLV) that can "lift" 300 kg. of "cargo" (baggage) and FOUR passengers (astronauts), or...

2. a $65,000 car (the CaLV) that can "lift" only 250 kg. of "cargo" (baggage) but *** NO *** passengers allowed !!!

which car do you buy?

.

I buy the 65000 dollar car that can carry the baggage and a 10000 dollar golf cart for the passengers to ride in as I remotely control the car.

Which is exactly what the current plan is.