.

months ago I've written an article about the "hight risk to fail" (due to a "sum of delays") of the one-and-half launch architecture

I've also suggested to build a Lunar Space Station and use reusable LSAMs

and in my article about a (possible) european ESAS plan, I've suggested to use a Multiple Launch Architecture

but, changing only some details of the ESAS plan, don't improve so much it

well, after lots of critics the ESAS plan received in last year, I think it's time to...

Reinvent the ESAS plan!

and, the first choice of the "NEW PLAN" is to SCRAP (both) the "Single Launch Architecture" and the "one-and-half" launch architecture to adopt the Multiple Launch Architecture suggested in my ArianeX article

in my alternative plan the cargo and crew LSAM will NEVER be launched with the Orion but sent ONLY alone to the lunar orbit with the AresV while the bigOrion launched with an Ares-II

all bigOrion/LSAM docking operation can be done in lunar orbit (with or without the LSS)

one of the main advantage of this choice is to have bigger LSAMs and MORE cargo

with the Orion sent to the moon with another rocket and the AresV used ONLY for the LSAM, the Orion 20 mT payload can be moved to the LSAM

the cargo LSAM can land on the moon more cargo and the cargo version (now for 20 mT of landed payload) will land on the moon 27-30 mT of cargo

.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

Why would I want to reinvent what already looks pretty good to begin with?

I'm surprised that you would promote all this lunar orbit rendezvous stuff.

Wouldn't it be much safer to do everything in Earth orbit, where the chances of rescue are much higher?

After all, you've been very vocal in other threads about increasing the safety and rescue opportunities in manned spaceflight.

You've argued strongly in favor of developing a standard hatch for easing rescue operations.

And you have argued VERY strongly AGAINST multiple-launch scenarios, that require precision timing and very low chances of failure.

Now you're advocating sending men and equipment into lunar orbit, and conducting major assembly and check-out operations there.

This is totally counter to your clearly-expressed philosophy of safety, reliability, and ease of rescue first.

As you have pointed out repeatedly, any little failure at all would make the entire thing a waste.

I can't believe that you're now advocating such a risky and unrecoverable scenario as lunar orbit rendezvous.

clearly you like it "as is" (and many peoples agree with you) but MANY other peoples think it needs deep changes or must be completely rewritten (and I'm one of them)
.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

no, I've suggested it months ago in my ArianeX article while the SLV article (about the one-and-half luanch risks) was already published because they are two different things
if the bigOrion has problems after its launch it must reenter as soon as possible or, if it can't reenter, must be sent a rescue Orion
a Multiple Launch Architecture don't increase the risks of the mission since the crew rescue needs a second Orion (both) in ertah and lunar orbit (if an Orion fails, I don't see other ways for the astronauts to reenter than another Orion)
true, since every rescue may be easier and safer with a standard docking/hatch and no EVAs (this is the reason I suggest to use the full androgynous LIDS and offer it free to all world's space agencies)
true, and I'm STILL against the ESAS one-and-half launch architecture (OAHLA) but the "Multiple Launch Architecture" is a completely different thing
with the OAHLA many missions can fail if the second launch will delay because the EDS has a 95-days only life and second launch has only a few possible/useful launch windows in that time (as explained in another thread)
with the MLA all vehicles will be sent SEPARATELY so they will NEVER have any rendezvous to lose in earth orbit!
the (remote-controlled) LSAM will be injected to the lunar travel the same day of the launch, brakes to LOI with its own engines and waits the Orion docked to the LSS (where, if the Orion delays too much, a small LSAM refuel may be possible to replace the propellants lost waiting)
then, NO risks of missions' failure!
also, the automated crew-LSAM will be better than to-day's version, since, without the Orion mass to brake, it can be 20-25 mT bigger with a larger cabin, two-five time the life support (for two-five weeks missions) and 5+ mT more cargo (up to 3 times to-day's LSAM)
of course (about) 2/3 of this extra weight must be extra-propellants to land the extra-cargo
there are no "major assembly" but only the "standard" Orion/LSAM dock/undock, also, since I think that THIS is the future, it's better to start training the astronauts on it from then early missions instead of wait 10-15 years!
absolutely NOT TRUE
with an LSS, very long time orbital (and lunar surface) life support, lunar orbit refuel, bigger crew-LSAM with four+ weeks life support, bigger cargo-LSAM to land giant habitats, etc. the SAFETY, reliability, efficiency and QUALITY of the moons misisons will be increased SEVERAL times!!!
no, that risk exist if the LSAM/EDS must wait in earth orbit over its 95-days max life
read again my ArianeX article and the next posts of this thread and you will soon believe in this new ESAS plan!
.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

Gaetanomarano, the plan you suggest was studied in detail in the ESAS report. In fact, the 2-launch LOR architecture was ESAS’s Initial Reference Architecture (EIRA). It was eventually rejected in favor of the current 1.5-launch EOR-LOR architecture. In a performance comparison, EOR-LOR was a bit more efficient. EIRA was also riskier in that it traded an EOR for a LOR and lacked an “Apollo 13” lifeboat capability. EIRA had the highest probability of Loss of Crew (LOC) of all the architectures studied.

__________________
Webmaster, Rocket & Space Technology

save some amounts of propellants don't worth the advantages of the MLA
with LSS, lunar habitats, etc. it's safer
NASA can't design the new plan under the Apollo 13 legacy!
both Orion and LSAM must be reliable by itself since only 8about) four days they will fly docked, while, for ten days the astronauts must survive having ONLY the Orion or ONLY the LSAM
the doubled redundancy of the CSM/LEM duo can/must be built (and enhanced) INSIDE each new vehicle so they can safely fly alone!
NOT with LSS, lunar habitats, more LSAM life support, rescue Orion, etc.

also, the MLA has the GIANT advantage (thanks to a bigger LSAM with more fuel) to RESTORE and ENHANCE the LOST access to EVERY landing site on the moon!

I don't suggest a (simple) shift from a single launch to two parallel launches, but a FULL change of architectures and vehicles

.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

.

two milestones of a redesigned ESAS plan are a small Lunar Space Station and a reusable LSAM (one of the hottest arguments on space forums from ESAS early days!)

I don't repeat here the list of (safety and operational) advantages of the LSS and RLSAMs as explained in my articles and threads but I only suggest to build, launch and use them from EARLY moon missions

the first moon missions may use an "expendable" RLSAM to test (first) the landing technologies of the new vehicle, but, from the 3rd/4th mission, all LSAMs must be reusable

it's simply CRAZY to destroy a (very expensive!) new LSAM at EVERY mission!

it's like scrap a new Porsche after each weekend!

another good choice may be to build a multipurpose LSAM able to land and send back to/from the lunar surface a "mix" of cargo and/or crew payloads to have multiple missions' profiles and different (standard and emergency) options

of course, the RLSAM must be a single-stage vehicle to need only a refuel after each mission

a two stage RLSAM is more efficient but not so convenient like a RLSAM that needs only a refuel and no new hardware sent from earth

since the RLSAMs may need some servicing after "n" missions, that can be done on lunar surface (maybe) inside an inflatable pressurized hangar...

in future we can imagine (as perfect RLSAM companion) an enhanched AresV able to send 5+ refuels with a single launch, however, send only the fuel instead of (everytime) a new (very expensive) condom-like LSAM will result in a GIANT saving of time and money with a great increase of the moon missions' number and quality

I think that only the crew LSAM must be reusable while the cargo-LSAM must be expendable since 95% of its mass (send-only payload and landing propellants) must come (everytime) from earth and must remain on the lunar surface
.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

Haven't u all realised by now! he will argue in favour of anything that is different to what NASA seem to be doing. It's a variation of the 'Cheese Shop'

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Of course, which is why I tend to keep my tongue firmly lodged in my cheek when replying.

But that requires it to go past the teeth. Be careful...

Funny, the general impression I get at times is that people would prefer I bite my tongue.

I just have problems understanding why NASA hasn't saved themselves the backtalk and actually just hire this guy. Obviously he has it all figured out where everyone else seems rather clueless, including me. Time to write my congressmen again. Until I understand the whole bowl of wax I'm all for laying off any spending on any more space projects. We got anyone up there right now? I'm pulling the cord.

Something I’ve enjoyed about these discussions is that it has pushed me to take a much closer look at the ESAS plan. The more I have studied it, the more I see wisdom in its decisions. I can’t tell you how many “so that’s why they did it that way” moments I’ve had. There are some negative aspects of ESAS, but that is unavoidable when forced to make trades. The alternative is often much worse. Gaetanomarano’s effort has turned me into a supporter of ESAS rather than a detractor.

__________________
Webmaster, Rocket & Space Technology

absolutely NOT TRUE
to-day's ESAS plan is only a remake of the Apollo missions
with best "special effects", new technologies, better images, bigger vehicles, etc. ...but only a "remake"
it's not interesting for me to talk (and write articles) about an Apollo-remake, while, think, write and talk about DIFFERENT (and alternative) vehicles and architectures may be very interesting
and, since I don't like to talk about a (boring) remake, I write and talk only about (hypothetical but amazing) new (or, simply, better) ideas

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

absolutely NOT TRUE

In an abbreviation for a banned word, BS. Perhaps if you didn't present your ideas in such an arrogant manner, you'd get more people listening. You come across as saying (without actually saying it) "NASA and American engineers are a bunch of idiots. Here's how it should be done..."

If instead you were to ask, "Why are they proposing to do it this way? How about this idea" and then made your suggestion, you'd get a better response. When someone who does this for a living or who can actually do the math points out flaws in your ideas, try listening, learning and incorporating their suggestions into your ideas. (Bob B. has far more patience with the like of you than I'll ever have). As it is, you've been proven consistenly wrong on just about every one of your multi-font, multi-colored posts. The rocket equation is really straight forward math, but rocket science is still a challenging undertaking.

no, some titles/texts of my articles/threads may be a little close to the journalistic style used to catch the attention (and, maybe, it is not adequate, when talking of these arguments...) but they are not (nor want to be) "arrogant"
forums are FULL of critics and proposals about ESAS, space agencies, etc. ...why do MY opinions are different than all other critics?
consider that many peoples (especially on "free space" threads) use really strong words, insults and lots of cospiracy theories, while I only talk of different or alternative vehicles and architectures (maybe, with some "effect titles" and too much "colors and bolds"... but without insults!)
as I've already explained in another thread, my ideas and proposals don't need any math since 90% of them are only CONCEPTS, not "ready to fly" vehicles
e.g. when I suggest to build a bigOrion I don't design any real vehicle but only publish/post the reasons why (in my opinion) a bigger SM is better than planned version
of course, if some calculations about mass, rockets, etc. are posted I give my opinions and my evaluations, but EACH proposal IS (and must be judged for) a CONCEPT
.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com