Luna Direct: How to land on or fly by the Moon by 2022, without the SLS!

[_Augustus_]

I chose 2022 because it would be the 50th anniversary of the last lunar landing. Hopefully someone will follow a similar plan to this and get us back to the Moon before then. This also includes 5 ways to fly by the Moon because many space agencies might do that.

Landing Missions

Option One

CNSA: Long March 5 Earth Orbit Rendezvous (2 launches)

The lunar lander would be based on an enlarged Chang'e 3, but with a Shenzhou orbital module as the command cabin. The command and service module would be simply a Shenzhou.

Earliest Possible Launch Date: 2016

Option Two

CNSA: Long March 5 Heavy Direct Lunar Mission (1 launch)

Basically the same as Option Two, but Apollo-Saturn V style instead of Apollo-Saturn C3 style.

Earliest Possible Launch Date: 2019

Option Three

Roscosmos: Proton Earth Orbit Rendezvous (2 or 3 launches)

Very similar to Option One, but with Soyuz instead of Shenzhou. Not sure about the lander, though, that would have to be designed and built. This would take a few years unless they somehow have one ready now.

Earliest Possible Launch Date: 2020 (Unless the Russians have a working LK somehow)

Option Four

SpaceX/Bigelow Aerospace: Falcon Heavy Long-Duration Lunar Mission (5 launches)

See my Artemis thread for more details on this.

This mission would be 5 launches yet be with rockets that have similar power to the Long March 5 and Saturn C-3 which would take 2 launches to do a lunar landing, however a stay of up to 6 months would be possible. NASA and the ESA (or both) would probably be in charge of the mission, though.

Earliest Possible Launch Date: 2017

Option Five

United Launch Alliance/NASA: Vulcan Heavy Earth Orbit Rendezvous (2 launches)

Earth Orbit Rendezvous with the CST-100 (Or Orion) as the capsule, Altair-like lander.

Could also probably be done as soon as 2017 with an Atlas V Heavy, though there are no plans to make one of these.

Earliest Possible Launch Date: 2021

Flyby Missions

Option One

CNSA: Long March 5 Lunar Flyby (1 launch)

Send a Shenzhou around the Moon.

Earliest Possible Launch Date: 2016Option Two

Roscosmos: Proton (1 launch)

Send a Soyuz around the Moon. It may need to be stripped down.

The Russians themselves wanted to do this back in the '60s.

Earliest Possible Launch Date: 2016

Option Three

SpaceX: Falcon Heavy (1 or 2 launches)

Send a Dragon V2 around the Moon. This might require a Falcon Heavy and Falcon 9, but it's more likely that the mission could be done with 1 launch.

Earliest Possible Launch Date: 2017

Option Four

ESA: Ariane 5/6 (2 launches)

Similar to Option 3, but this whole mission depends on whether or not any of the ATV-based manned spacecraft are built. It would require 2 Ariane 5s to launch. Later missions could use Ariane 6s for either 1 or both of the launches.

Earliest Possible Launch Date: 2017 (Assuming the ESA follows one of the ATV evolution plans for a manned spacecraft)

Option Five

ISRO: GSLV Mark III (2 launches)

Similar to Options 3 and 4. Yes, I know it's unlikely for them to be ready before 2021, so I'll use the pessimistic choice and say it'll take until 2021 for it to be ready.

Earliest Possible Launch Date: 2021 (Assuming the ISRO Orbital Vehicle gets funding in the next fiscal session or whatever)So, I hope you enjoyed my ideas! Feel free to comment and stuff!

[Kibble]

Earth Orbit Rendezvous style lunar landing architectures studied for Apollo required a minimum of ten launches of Saturn C1, the rough equivalent of extant GTO-optimized launch vehicles, like Ariane 5 and Proton. Falcon Heavy matches the capability of Saturn C3, but C3-based mission modes still required a minimum of four launches!

[Bill Phil]

Earth Orbit Rendezvous style lunar landing architectures studied for Apollo required a minimum of ten launches of Saturn C1, the rough equivalent of extant GTO-optimized launch vehicles, like Ariane 5 and Proton. Falcon Heavy matches the capability of Saturn C3, but C3-based mission modes still required a minimum of four launches!

Yeah, but with smart construction the orbital stack could be reused for later trips to the Moon, ultimately paying off after a few decades of Earth-Moon travel.

OP, why are you only considering the Command Craft/Lander Craft stack? You don't really mention the departure stage. Or how to fuel it.

No Lunar travel by the early 2020s via EOR...

Periselene and Aposelene are the apses, just FYI.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Bill Phil

[Kibble]

Yeah, but with smart construction the orbital stack could be reused for later trips to the Moon, ultimately paying off

Are you sure it would pay off? If you had a reusable lander on Lunar orbit, assuming hypergolics, the fuel has to be about four fifths of the total mass, meaning the refuelling spacecraft would require nearly the same launch vehicle as a whole other lander. Of course the refuelling vehicle doesn't have to have the complex and expensive habitable component but the TLI rocket stage, on the other paw, would have to be refuelled by a copy of itself, maybe without the main rocket engine. The final component of the stack, by nessecity, has to return to Earth.

Personally, Lunar orbit rendezvous really seems like the only plausible means of lunar landing and return, without mature ISRU infrastructure.

[Nibb31]

Designing and builder would take at least 10 years. No way is 2022 possible.

Also, rockets aren't Lego. You can't just stick bits together and expect them to work. And you seem to be way off in terms of dV.

[Bill Phil]

Are you sure it would pay off? If you had a reusable lander on Lunar orbit, assuming hypergolics, the fuel has to be about four fifths of the total mass, meaning the refuelling spacecraft would require nearly the same launch vehicle as a whole other lander. Of course the refuelling vehicle doesn't have to have the complex and expensive habitable component but the TLI rocket stage, on the other paw, would have to be refuelled by a copy of itself, maybe without the main rocket engine. The final component of the stack, by nessecity, has to return to Earth.

Personally, Lunar orbit rendezvous really seems like the only plausible means of lunar landing and return, without mature ISRU infrastructure.

Over decades it would pay off. Key word here is decades. Lots of time.

The lander itself would probably be left in Lunar Orbit, perhaps at a station of sorts.

This endeavor would cause the infrastructure of LEO to Moon travel to be more mature, eventually paying off in that it gives you enough payload to the Moon over decades...

But it would have to be a really smart design...

[xenomorph555]

Um option 1 and 2 will not work... I think you overestimated the LM-5's power (25 tonnes to LEO), you may have mixed it up with the LM-9.

[Hcube]

Designing and builder would take at least 10 years. No way is 2022 possible.

Also, rockets aren't Lego. You can't just stick bits together and expect them to work. And you seem to be way off in terms of dV.

^This. You can't expect space agencies to suddenly get working together, paperwork only for that would take years, and then planning the mission would also take quite a few years. And as Nibb31 said, this is not KSP : you can't put a random spacecraft on top of a random rocket...

Also, you are WAY off time-wise :

For example:

in your 3rd landing option you propose ROSCOSMOS sticks a regular soyuz on top of a proton, *build* a lander, and expect to land on the moon in 2022 !!!

-i doubt that anyone wishes to do a round trip to the moon inside of a soyuz (have you ever seen the inside ? you can barely move around), and i suspect it's only able to stay in LEO, there is probably not much radiation/cosmic rays shielding

-building a lander that would be ready in 2022 ?? seriously ? Starting with no engineering experience, from scrap ?

-atop a proton rocket ? A soyuz ? and a lander ? (even in 2 launches) you will never get the deltaV required

Sorry but i find your post to be mostly sci-fi

[sojourner]

-i doubt that anyone wishes to do a round trip to the moon inside of a soyuz (have you ever seen the inside ? you can barely move around), and i suspect it's only able to stay in LEO, there is probably not much radiation/cosmic rays shielding

The Soyuz was part of the USSR's original moonlanding plans. It would work if needed. But yeah, you're correct on the other points.

[_Augustus_]

Um option 1 and 2 will not work... I think you overestimated the LM-5's power (25 tonnes to LEO), you may have mixed it up with the LM-9.

The LM-5 actually has 25 tons to GSO....

[xenomorph555]

The LM-5 actually has 25 tons to GSO....

No, it has 25 tonnes to LEO and 14 tonnes to GSO. As well as that it only has a 8 tonne to moon direct capability. Please get your facts correct.

[Bill Phil]

The Soyuz was part of the USSR's original moonlanding plans. It would work if needed. But yeah, you're correct on the other points.

A modern Soyuz has more volume than Apollo did, thanks to the Orbital Module.

[Hcube]

The Soyuz was part of the USSR's original moonlanding plans. It would work if needed. But yeah, you're correct on the other points.

Oh yeah good call, i didn"t think of that. But i doubt that the latest models have the same specs as the one designed to go to the Moon, have they. And, even if they had, and could protect the astronauts from radiation, hold enough life support etc... it's still very small, and living space standards are probably way higher nowadays than what they used to be during the space race in the USSR !

[Kibble]

living space standards are probably way higher nowadays than what they used to be

Soyuz sets the modern standard, as it has been the primary way of getting human onto orbit for a long time, and, along with Shenzhou, is one of the only two piloted spacecraft currently flying.

[Nibb31]

The Soyuz was part of the USSR's original moonlanding plans. It would work if needed. But yeah, you're correct on the other points.

The LOK spacecraft was a hugely modified Soyuz that really only had the descent module in common with the original Soyuz. The current Soyuz TMA is a specialized space station ferry. Many of its redundant capabilities have been removed over the years. You would have to completely redesign it if you wanted to use it as an exploration vehicle.

[Hcube]

Soyuz sets the modern standard, as it has been the primary way of getting human onto orbit for a long time, and, along with Shenzhou, is one of the only two piloted spacecraft currently flying.

The modern TMA soyuz does set the standard, as you say, but this soyuz has very little in common with the Moon-mission soyuz you are talking about. ->see nibb31's post above

[Exoscientist]

Elon Musk has said the Falcon Heavy could do a Moon landing with two launches.

Jeff Greason, head of XCOR, has proposed low cost lunar missions discussed here:

Exploration and the private sector

by Jeff Foust

Monday, July 28, 2014

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2567/1

Bob Clark