Discussion Construct a Moon lander within one term

[richfororbit]

Hi everyone,

Yeah...

So, as the subject line states.

I had some thought while just watching Deep Space 9 in the evening, and having messed about in Orbiter with the historic and the proposed module for landing on the moon past month gone by. It got me thinking.

With the Space Launch system currently in development and if successful and maintained, could a future whitehouse not committ funds, a literal backing here to construct a lander for one mission to the Moon within that term, now obviously, if that is the case, then who ever wins the next term will have to see a landing take place, sort of like Nixon with mission 11.

Why? For all the reasons mentioned in the past, if that isn't short enough and doable, then I don't know how government can and industry could do it any quicker.

Otherwise as Aldrin's book on Mars, I just began reading through again today, very briefly, private enterprise, private enterprise.. So that is how the next mission may occur.

 

[Urwumpe]

Could be tough to impossible. The problems:

Testing
Procurement
Assembly

That are all steps that require their time.

Also, you should remember that you can't always make everything faster by adding more engineers. You can only make the parallel components of a task faster that way, not the serial components. Some things just have to be done in the right order and can't be done before something else is finished first.

 

[Dantassii]

Hi everyone,

Yeah...

So, as the subject line states.

I had some thought while just watching Deep Space 9 in the evening, and having messed about in Orbiter with the historic and the proposed module for landing on the moon past month gone by. It got me thinking.

With the Space Launch system currently in development and if successful and maintained, could a future whitehouse not committ funds, a literal backing here to construct a lander for one mission to the Moon within that term, now obviously, if that is the case, then who ever wins the next term will have to see a landing take place, sort of like Nixon with mission 11.

Why? For all the reasons mentioned in the past, if that isn't short enough and doable, then I don't know how government can and industry could do it any quicker.

Otherwise as Aldrin's book on Mars, I just began reading through again today, very briefly, private enterprise, private enterprise.. So that is how the next mission may occur.

The biggest difference between now and the 1960's when Apollo was in its prime is "Risk Adverseness". The attitude that every flight, every mission, every test MUST pass 100% or your entire program will be canceled pervades NASA these days. There is also the problem of funding, as in long term funding. When you have to spend 50% of your time (and a significant amount of your budget) filling out paperwork and lobbying congress to continue to fund your efforts, there's a humongous amount of waste there. Then there's also the requirement that you have to spread your project over as many states in the union as possible so that as many congressional districts as possible will be impacted by your project's cancellation. Combine these things and you end up with programs that take 30 years or more (instead of 9) and end up getting canceled when one of your tests only passes 99.9%, or when a different political party takes over a house of congress.

I believe that the next person to walk on the surface of a moon or planet is not going to be an employee of the US government. It may be Chinese, it may be Russian, it may even be a corporation's employee. But it won't be a US government employee. That being said, it won't stop NASA from spending money on the infrastructure to send a US government employee to Mars. But I doubt they will actually get around to finally sending someone in my lifetime.

Dantassii
HUMONGOUS IMS shipbuilder

 

[Urwumpe]

The biggest difference between now and the 1960's when Apollo was in its prime is "Risk Adverseness". The attitude that every flight, every mission, every test MUST pass 100% or your entire program will be canceled pervades NASA these days. There is also the problem of funding, as in long term funding. When you have to spend 50% of your time (and a significant amount of your budget) filling out paperwork and lobbying congress to continue to fund your efforts, there's a humongous amount of waste there.

Sorry to disappoint you, but that was exactly the same for Apollo. Including the fact that any dead astronaut could be the one too much.

And if you search NTRS, you can find out, that 95% of the documents generated during Apollo had been administrative. Like demanding and granting money, controlling project progress, all that.

Sorry, but I hate this mythology. While there was really a difference in the spirit at NASA at that time, the differences between then and today are mostly technical. In the past, you could only test if you fly. Today, you can simulate the hell out of it before you are forced to risk a human.

Yes, that looks like people are less interested in taking unreasonable risks. But that is plain hindsight. People had to take such risks because there was no alternative. Today there is and this alternative is preferred for a good reason. Still NASA gambles with the lives of astronauts, if you want to describe it that evil. Every launch can mean that something goes wrong and people die.

if you want a 100% suicide spaceflight program, just ignore everything NASA learned.

 

[Col_Klonk]

I hope I'm still alive when they eventually go back to the moon.
I'll watch with interest.

 

[Urwumpe]

I hope I'm still alive when they eventually go back to the moon.
I'll watch with interest.

I am pretty sure you will. If I will be alive then, you will be as well. :lol:

I just hope I don't need to do this all myself.....

 

[richfororbit]

That I think is the only way, one or two crews would be selected from the corps, and simulations will be done for a four or five day one mission with some science.

I'm sure it could be done in one term, at least the preliminary tasks including a test orbital launch, a final go for launch and landing, in the next term. That rocket makes it doable as it can take the MPCV.

And yes may be a foreign agency will do so instead of an American.

I hope one candidate might be brave to try...:idea:

 

[Lmoy]

What would be the point of the next president effectively "sneaking in" another Apollo-style mission, exactly? Apollo 17 was the last lunar landing because there were no long-term plans that the administration at the time desired with the moon. A military moonbase was deemed pointless and expensive, and continuing to land on the moon didn't have any perceived benefit. If there is a return to the moon, it will be as a stepping-stone to further progress, not a repeat of what's already been done.

Or at least, it should be. If NASA's plans with SLS are to essentially relive Apollo without doing anything new, it's likely the program will be killed young again and we'll be back where we started, with another few decades before anyone goes anywhere again. They aren't extremely clear what they're going to do with SLS once they have it.

 

[kamaz]

Apollo LEM:
contract awarded = 1962-Nov
prototype flow = 1968-Jan
development time = 5 years 1 month.

 

[Urwumpe]

Apollo LEM:
contract awarded = 1962-Nov
prototype flow = 1968-Jan
development time = 5 years 1 month.

Testing continued at KSC until after Apollo 10. Apollo 11 was the first mission to fly the first "fully tested" LM, including the flight tests.

Apollo 9 (first orbital test flight): 1969-Mar
Apollo 10 (first lunar test flight): 1969-May
Apollo 11 (first landing): 1969-Jul

So, about 6 years 6 months.

The VAB must have been humming in early 1969, if you remember how long it took to integrate a Saturn for launch. Too bad that nobody ever made an timelapse animation of the massive work done there in that year to meet Kennedys deadline.

 

[kamaz]

Testing continued at KSC until after Apollo 10. Apollo 11 was the first mission to fly the first "fully tested" LM, including the flight tests.

The OP asked if it is possible to construct a lander within the specified time frame, and it's pretty natural to assume that the construction phase ends with the first flight.

Today, you can simulate the hell out of it before you are forced to risk a human.

No, you can't.

I've seen too many circuits which work in simulator but fail in real life (or vice versa) to treat simulator validation as anything more than "the design does not contain obvious errors".

 

[Urwumpe]

The OP asked if it is possible to construct a lander within the specified time frame, and it's pretty natural to assume that the construction phase ends with the first flight.

Still a difference, if you just have a piece of hardware, or something that you could already use for landing.

No, you can't.

I've seen too many circuits which work in simulator but fail in real life (or vice versa) to treat simulator validation as anything more than "the design does not contain obvious errors".

Still you will always have simulations being performed first to reduce the number of real-life tests needed. And you will not have less simulations in the future. If a computer model is found that gets a good match between reality and simulation, it will be used first instead of testing with real life hardware.

That no simulation will ever replace a first prototype should be a no-brainer. But it makes a big difference today, if you can do 25,000 simulation runs instead of one flight-test (including engineer workhours to prepare the simulation and analyse the results).

Or to speak in your field of business: How many breadboard circuits and board layout prototypes would you create to get a working one, if you could not simulate them?

 

[richfororbit]

Yes, that is correct, one government will initiate a lander program to go with the launch system if it is useable.

And quite correct, one mission to the moon, to land at a particular sight to be chosen by who ever, may be a public poll. I'd say the geologists will get that responsibility.

So yes, there will need to be more than one lander due to testing, but yes, space flight will always be risky, Young expressed that again while mentioning the CEV would have several thousand lines of code nearly ten years ago.

It will always be risky. I agree with Tyson, NASA needs a direction, albeit temporarily.

If the mission proves successful, then perhaps the same government or a new one can continue for another mission to another location.

Otherwise, none of this will happen over decades, or Mars, as much as we all like to see this while we're still around.

I'd urge any Americans to consider typing away to a congress member. But hey, in the end, it must be the head of state. But yes, the congress will need to fund this.

W Bush made a mistake, by his own ignorance, by not thinking realistically. But he was just strategically projecting, into a avenue that goes nowhere due to the cost over time.

I'm giving a Chinese space film on youtube a watch about their ambitions.

 

[kamaz]

Or to speak in your field of business: How many breadboard circuits and board layout prototypes would you create to get a working one, if you could not simulate them?

I have built working prototypes without simulating anything. In fact, some macromodels are so hilariously bad that using them is a loss of time. You will get a working circuit quicker if you are breadboarding.

Here is an example which often pops up in class: in circuit simulators, you can get an incorrectly polarized transistor to work by increasing collector current. So your circuit will work beautifully in the simulator, but fail epically (as in melting transistors) in real life. Why? Because the simulator does not model thermal failure while it does model second-order thermal effects. If you drive up the collector current, you will drive up the transistor temperature (to say 1000C) and a transistor at 1000C would have a huge gain -- if it would still exist. So the simulator output taken at face value would indicate that you have a correct circuit. In reality, your transistors will melt, or your fuses will trip, whichever comes first.

Simulators are tools and half of the success is understanding their limitations. Unfortunately, this level of understanding cannot be achieved without building and testing actual hardware. Something which is currently shunned because management with non-engineering background does not understand the need for failure.

Let me point out that it was a simulator result, not an experimental result which was behind the decision to deorbit Columbia.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, it must not be about NASA. The big question is: What is your vision behind spaceflight?

I see spaceflight as an inevitable business. Maybe viking business, but business. Even if you explore for science and the advancement of mankind. You always will need to get multiple specialists and investors into the boat, agree on the goal of your next voyage and fix everything in a contract. The politics behind spaceflight and what I see what NASA and partially ESA should do (ESA has a different mission as NASA), is to make these contracts and voyages as easy as possible.

If I want to explore Mars, it should not be about starting a political program of unknown fate. It should be about me and those who will come with me or those who will fly for me. My government should make sure that I can do that.

Right now, a mission to Mars would costs trillions, because we are not buying the boat. We are buying the wharf, the boat, the port and the ocean. And discard everything afterwards (Even with reusable rockets). That makes no sense. We are no spacefaring species yet and this all shows it. But we could be one. We could make spaceflight our habit.

And that is also not about taking any risks. Would Vikings have taken any risks without care, they would never have become good enough in sea travel to reach North America. Columbus might never have come further than a few hundred kilometers away from the shore.

Sure Bushs program was stupid. But it created also a chance to do it right by ending the STS program. Never forget this: He might have had visions, which Northern Germans consider to be a mental illness. But he had also the strength to cancel the only way for the USA to put astronauts into space. Or he simply did not care about the consequences... you will never know with Bush.

As much as I love the STS - it should have ended in 1988, and get replaced by a STS 2.0 with the lessons learned from the OFT. If this temperamental, sensitive, flying prototype of a spacecraft was already able to do so much great in its missions - what could a more down-to-earth STS have done?

---------- Post added at 01:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:26 AM ----------

Let me point out that it was a simulator result, not an experimental result which was behind the decision to deorbit Columbia.

:facepalm:

Please tell me, that somewhere behind these many layers of kamazness is a tiny silent thought of "They would always have deorbited the spacecraft anyway and without telling the crew." crying to be let out.

 

[richfororbit]

The point about W Bush, is that isn't wasn't about the change of vehicle, just the whole program can't last beyond a government if the goal is to go to the moon.

Space flight as it currently is, one vehicle to go somewhere and to reenter, then another to go to orbit and reenter.

It can't be both ways.

Like I started out with the watching science fiction, none of that will happen in our lifetimes, and may be never, because it doesn't do reality, just like with human nature, we are short term creatures, and only care about our existence.

So nothing in history has lasted beyond except like the old religious symbolism, pyramids, and the Cathedrals.

Space flight, like using the constellation lander to land at Tranquillity is just that, a short term, around the block flight to gain some benefit from it. There is no outpost there or would ever be, for as long as radiation is a problem.

 

[DaveS]

Let me point out that it was a simulator result, not an experimental result which was behind the decision to deorbit Columbia.

Actually not. What you're referring to was a set of analytical spreadsheets called "Crater". Everything in those spreadsheets were based on actual impact testing done on tiles back in the 1980's. The problem was that Crater tended to overestimate the actual the damage caused by the impact as well as the thermal damage caused by entry temperatures. The problem was that the bipod foam blocks that was shed was well outside anything they had tested and inputted into Crater.

Another problem was that the RCC was never impact tested. Everyone thought that it was a very hardy material and the panels themselves were thick. In reality, it's far more brittle than fiberglass. Also the panels are really thin, maybe just a cm or two of actual thickness.

 

[Urwumpe]

Like I started out with the watching science fiction, none of that will happen in our lifetimes, and may be never, because it doesn't do reality, just like with human nature, we are short term creatures, and only care about our existence.

That is the problem with fiction. Its unlimited. Reality is limited.

---------- Post added at 02:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:59 AM ----------

Another problem was that the RCC was never impact tested. Everyone thought that it was a very hardy material and the panels themselves were thick. In reality, it's far more brittle than fiberglass. Also the panels are really thin, maybe just a cm or two of actual thickness.

I remember it was also considered nearly impossible for a "projectile" to hit the rather small target area, that the RCC offered. And without proper testing, it was even impossible to know, how far away from a frontal collision you could get before the RCC fails. It was assumed wrong that the wing incident angle and the trajectory away from the ET would prevent damage.

When actually testing the impacts on real RCC panels, it came out that it was much more fragile than ever expected, even with impact angles far away from 90°. And because of the very good thermal and aerodynamic properties of RCC, nobody ever bothered looking for an alternative.

Also, the thickness of the RCC varies... it is pretty thick at the front, but thin towards the back of the panel.

 

[richfororbit]

Correct, that is why the world is the way it is, and that includes space flight.

If a Lunar lander at a Enterprise theme look, including flat screen computers, if possible, you know as the weight issue, it would never be Enterprise, just an illusion.

The only outpost on the moon is a lander for four days.

We only need to give a watch of the "U.S. Human Exploration Goals and Commercial Space, Senate Space Subcommittee", from nearly a year back, repetition, delusions etc

Mr Aldrin's vision is ambitious, more so than two rockets, and two spacecraft, the difference is, only one mission not an outpost, not five or six missions or a mission to Mars or to "other worlds" as W Bush stated back in January 2004

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, we need outposts. Not as ultimate goal, but on the way. The ISS is currently our outpost in space. And its just 450 km away, about the distance between Berlin and Frankfurt.

Now the price question - where will be the next outpost?