Next Nation that will walk on the moon?

[NASAFanboy]

Why would some people, planting a flag, and leaving aid the 'progress of the human race'?

So you'd rather see no mission for ten years? I don't see the point of anyone here. You are actually telling me that unless there is a solid scientific reason to go back to the Moon and Mars, even if we could, we shouldn't go?

[Kryten]

It's already happened. Why would it produce any more 'progress' now than it did then?

[mythic_fci]

The Apollo lander had a mass of about 15,000kg. The CSM had a mass of about 30,000kg. (I actually forgot to add them together in the last calculation).

You're going to use up pretty much all of your CZ5's delta-V just getting either of those two into LEO. I really doubt you'll have enough left over for a lunar burn, even if you were able to put together a lander and CSM significantly lighter than those used for Apollo, you'd need a separate booster. Maybe if you were able to really cut down on the mass of your LEM/CSM, you could get the size of that booster down to 25,000kg and put it up in a single launch, but I'd say it's still an extremely long shot.

Edit: Maybe with a tiny lander. You could probably reduce the volume of the CSM and the LEM, drop the crew from 3 to 1, and have a robotic command module that doesn't need a pilot, use composite materials instead of aluminium in the construction, cut down on safety margins, and be able to get there and back with a 25 tonne booster. I think that with all the advances that would have to be made, you're probably better off in terms of both time and funds just to build the Long March 9 or the Falcon Heavy, and do it properly in two launches.

Actually, there would be a significant difference, as the Shenzhou spacecraft (the Chinese version of the Soyuz/Apollo) is actually about 8000kg, 7000kg below your estimate. Also, the Chinese would probably use newer, lighter materials, so I'm willing to put a lander estimate of 12000-13000kg. That's probably enough for a LOR (Both spacecraft will launch via CZ5 and do a seperate TLI, then rendevouz in LLO).

It's already happened. Why would it produce any more 'progress' now than it did then?

The Moon hasn't really been explored - it's been estimated less than 1% (in fact, closer to 0.25%) has been explored. We could find a LOT of new knowledge by exploring the Moon more.

Edited July 19, 2014 by FCISuperGuy

[NASAFanboy]

It's already happened. Why would it produce any more 'progress' now than it did then?

Because we've been stuck orbiting this cruddy mudball for fourty five long years, and if we make it back to the Moon and establish a outpost, that sends out a message that humanity is progressing toward the future. And that's what inspires. I asked one of my friends the other day about his views on space exploration, and he replied that "NASA's pretty much shut down, so it's over". That's not the mindset we can have to become a spacefaring civilization. Going back to the Moon sends out a message among the younger generations, and it inspires.

Why? Because the younger generations didn't live through Apollo. They didn't turn on their TV's to see a astronaut of any nation walking on the Moon. They didn't see any of that. They didn't live through the excitment, the idea that they were living in tomorrow, living in the future. Not a single one did.

So noone, not even you, not even if it doesn't have a scientific reason, noone has a right to prevent them from seeing that.

[Kryten]

You didn't say anything about 'establishing an outpost'. You said you'd support a moon landing regardless of purpose.

[NASAFanboy]

You didn't say anything about 'establishing an outpost'. You said you'd support a moon landing regardless of purpose.

Because it still serves to inspire a generation which did not live through Apollo and has been faced with nothing but bad news. A 1 in 12 suicide rate among the young doesn't help either. Nor does the rates of depression. Nor does the student loan crisis and the increasing social issues of the world. But a single moon landing could inspire them to pursue a career, it would give them hope, dreams, and all that.

[Kryten]

You didn't live through Apollo, and you seem to have more than enough blind fanaticism for space travel without it. The exact same people that 'lived through apollo' are the ones that kept us 'stuck orbiting this cruddy mudball for fourty five long years', have you considered that? Most people that lived through Apollo weren't given epiphanies; they saw it as a waste of money.

[astropapi1]

So you'd rather see no mission for ten years? I don't see the point of anyone here. You are actually telling me that unless there is a solid scientific reason to go back to the Moon and Mars, even if we could, we shouldn't go?

Bah, just ignore them. You have made a solid point in three consecutive posts, and they just question the purpose of the mission itself.

People, the "moon shot" was nothing but a stunt to show the soviets the power of the free world. That's right, no science, just a flag and some footprints. Some of the landing-capable missions were designed as backups if the previous one didn't work. In the end, the russians gave up and it became a race against time. Kennedy had been killed and the entire country wanted to honour him by landing on the moon before the end of the decade.

The Apollo program was nothing but flags and footprints for the government, but look at what it did!

It has inspired and continues to inspire future engineers and scientists, The technology we use today would be different if it wasn't because of it. We have people in space 24/7 doing science on a 450 ton spaceship, etc. I would call that far from useless.

[NASAFanboy]

So what? It's a mission to the Moon. It's better than no mission. It will create progress in some form.

There is absolutely NO REASON to not take the opportunity, even if it doesn't have a reason. Screw reason. Toss logic and all this philosophy out the window. It's a mission to the Moon, and you'll be insane not to take it (Unless you were Greenpeace or some other exception).

Edited July 19, 2014 by NASAFanboy

[mythic_fci]

So what? It's a mission to the Moon. It's better than no mission. It will create progress in some form.

Agreed. Whatever the country, it's progress and that's what matters.

[Klingon Admiral]

Country A goes to the Moon.

Country B goes to an asteroid.

Who do you think will win in the long term?

[Kryten]

I think you both might want to look up the definition of 'progress'. Doing a moon landing wouldn't require any improvements in engineering, technology, or industrial techniques; after all, it was done 40 years ago. What it would require would be a ton of money that could be better used for real R&D projects.

[NASAFanboy]

Country A goes to the Moon.

Country B goes to an asteroid.

Who do you think will win in the long term?

Country B will have a long-term advantage if it chooses to advance more on this field and begin mining.

Country A will have a short-term advantage if it chooses to establish a outpost.

I think you both might want to look up the definition of 'progress'. Doing a moon landing wouldn't require any improvements in engineering, technology, or industrial techniques; after all, it was done 40 years ago. What it would require would be a ton of money that could be better used for real R&D projects.

What "better R&D" projects? The purpose of NASA is to create a multi-planetary spiecies. If Congress mandates it, they will do it. If Congress provided the funds and kept the others intact, would you still not support it? Half of those "better R&D" projects don't go anywhere, and NASA needs a good and solid result soon. Most of us today know NASA as the agency who "got shut down two times". Not a agency who drives innovation. Landing on the Moon sends out a message to these people, that NASA is worth supporting, that we can do it.

Edited July 19, 2014 by NASAFanboy

[Kryten]

The purpose of NASA is to create a multi-planetary spiecies.

I'm sorry, we're talking past each other. I'm trying to talk about the real NASA; you're talking about the NASA in your head. They don't seem to bear much resemblance to each other.

[mythic_fci]

Country B will have a long-term advantage if it chooses to advance more on this field and begin mining.

Country A will have a short-term advantage if it chooses to establish a outpost.

Country A could also begin mining the lunar surface for silicon and use the lunar soil as a source of water (yes, water, look it up) and power. Just a kind FYI

What "better R&D" projects? The purpose of NASA is to create a multi-planetary spiecies. If Congress mandates it, they will do it. If Congress provided the funds and kept the others intact, would you still not support it? Half of those "better R&D" projects don't go anywhere, and NASA needs a good and solid result soon. Most of us today know NASA as the agency who "got shut down two times". Not a agency who drives innovation. Landing on the Moon sends out a message to these people, that NASA is worth supporting, that we can do it.

100% agreed. Most projects (like the VentureStar, for example) get cancelled before they even get off the ground. Sometimes it even takes military interaction to keep a project going (X-37). Hopefully they do something that 1. Actually flies past the test flights and 2. Gets some actual data back.

[NASAFanboy]

I'm sorry, we're talking past each other. I'm trying to talk about the real NASA; you're talking about the NASA in your head. They don't seem to bear much resemblance to each other.

I'm sorry, I thought you would provide a logical response to my question. What "better R&D projects"? Each and every one has been cancelled, very few make it onto the pad. Ask anyone in the United States, and they'll give a very short answer.

"NASA? Isn't that, like, um, shutdown?".

Edited July 19, 2014 by NASAFanboy

[mythic_fci]

I'm sorry, I thought you would provide a reason for not supporting a manned mission to the Moon. I'm talking in support of space exploration, yet you don't even look like you support it.

Hey, woah, woah, WOAH! No arguments please, we don't need a mod in here...

[Kryten]

I'm sorry, I thought you would provide a reason for not supporting a manned mission to the Moon.

That there is no good reason is a good enough. It would hardly be free.

What "better R&D projects"? Each and every one has been cancelled, very few make it onto the pad.

Cancelled due to monetary concerns. That hardly would apply in your fantasy scenario of NASA having enough money for a Moon base.

EDITT:

Ask anyone in the United States, and they'll give a very short answer[...]

I couldn't care less. You do realise there are nations other than the US, don't you? I live in one, as hard as you may find that to believe.

[NASAFanboy]

I couldn't care less. You do realise there are nations other than the US, don't you? I live in one, as hard as you may find that to believe.

Do you realize that NASA is an American agency? If that mindset doesn't trouble at the least, you've got a probelm. It's betrayal of a sort, don't you understand? I think if every European had that mindset with ESA, you'd be concerned.

Oh well, I'm done discussing with you here. Trying to get the point across is hopeless.

Edited July 19, 2014 by NASAFanboy

[mythic_fci]

Do you realize that NASA is an American agency? If that mindset doesn't trouble at the least, you've got a probelm. It's betrayal of a sort, don't you understand?

Just a kind FYI, but maybe he isn't from the US...

But seriously, guys, STOP.

[Kryten]

Do you realize that NASA is an American agency? If that mindset doesn't trouble at the least, you've got a probelm. It's betrayal of a sort, don't you understand?

You haven't given any indication that you're aware there are any other agencies. Attitude of the american guy on the street and perceived status of the US agency=no hope for humanity, regardless of anybody else. It's nationalistic tosh.

[mythic_fci]

Guys. Stop.

[peadar1987]

Actually, there would be a significant difference, as the Shenzhou spacecraft (the Chinese version of the Soyuz/Apollo) is actually about 8000kg, 7000kg below your estimate. Also, the Chinese would probably use newer, lighter materials, so I'm willing to put a lander estimate of 12000-13000kg. That's probably enough for a LOR (Both spacecraft will launch via CZ5 and do a seperate TLI, then rendevouz in LLO).

The Shenzhou as-is does not have the delta-V for use as a lunar CSM. Its main engine has an ISP of 290s. It carries 1000kg of fuel. (Data from wikipedia). This gives it a delta-V of 380m/s, according to this site: http://www.strout.net/info/science/delta-v/.

You need at least 820m/s of delta-v for lunar capture, and as much again for lunar escape (http://i.imgur.com/SqdzxzF.png). This means enlarging the fuel tanks to hold about 7000kg of fuel (which will probably require a large-scale redesign of the entire spacecraft). This means that the Shenzhou will end up having a wet mass of about 14000-15000kg, depending on how much mass has to be added to construct the larger fuel tanks, it's a good bit lighter than Apollo, but still too heavy for a CZ5 to put into a lunar orbit. You could just about get a GTO, but that still leaves you some 700m/s short of a Lunar Transfer Orbit.

The thrust of the Shenzhou engine also mightn't be enough to do the job. The Apollo CSM engine had 90kN of thrust. Shenzhou only has 10kN. The wiki article on the Apollo CSM says that the engine was overdesigned, and had twice the amount of thrust it needed to. But even if you take that into account, and the fact that Apollo would be twice the mass of Shenzhou, you're left with a requirement of 23kN. Using an underpowered engine is going to push up delta-V requirements, fuel and mass even more.

If you have a 12000-13000k lander, you have the same problems. It's too heavy for the CZ5 to put into lunar orbit, although probably with fewer problems than the CSM. Interestingly, the Soviet LK lander had a mass of just 6,500kg, which would probably be light enough for a CZ5 to bring to the moon. However, you still have to find 820m/s of delta-v to put the spacecraft in orbit around the moon, and to rendezvous with the CSM.

[mythic_fci]

The Shenzhou as-is does not have the delta-V for use as a lunar CSM. Its main engine has an ISP of 290s. It carries 1000kg of fuel. (Data from wikipedia). This gives it a delta-V of 380m/s, according to this site: http://www.strout.net/info/science/delta-v/.

You need at least 820m/s of delta-v for lunar capture, and as much again for lunar escape (http://i.imgur.com/SqdzxzF.png). This means enlarging the fuel tanks to hold about 7000kg of fuel (which will probably require a large-scale redesign of the entire spacecraft). This means that the Shenzhou will end up having a wet mass of about 14000-15000kg, depending on how much mass has to be added to construct the larger fuel tanks, it's a good bit lighter than Apollo, but still too heavy for a CZ5 to put into a lunar orbit. You could just about get a GTO, but that still leaves you some 700m/s short of a Lunar Transfer Orbit.

The thrust of the Shenzhou engine also mightn't be enough to do the job. The Apollo CSM engine had 90kN of thrust. Shenzhou only has 10kN. The wiki article on the Apollo CSM says that the engine was overdesigned, and had twice the amount of thrust it needed to. But even if you take that into account, and the fact that Apollo would be twice the mass of Shenzhou, you're left with a requirement of 23kN. Using an underpowered engine is going to push up delta-V requirements, fuel and mass even more.

If you have a 12000-13000k lander, you have the same problems. It's too heavy for the CZ5 to put into lunar orbit, although probably with fewer problems than the CSM. Interestingly, the Soviet LK lander had a mass of just 6,500kg, which would probably be light enough for a CZ5 to bring to the moon. However, you still have to find 820m/s of delta-v to put the spacecraft in orbit around the moon, and to rendezvous with the CSM.

Hmmm... You're right, actually. Maybe the Chinese could modify the Shenzhou to be a 2-man Zond-like spacecraft (Remove the front crew module, add docking adaptor to CM). That way, extra fuel could be added and a new engine put in. Also, I didn't mean that the SHENZHOU pushed both itself and the LM to the moon with it's own engine - I meant to use the upper stage engine of one of the CZ5s, like the LK. So here's the flight plan I meant:

Zond-like orbiter launched by CZ5

Orbiter TLI performed by CZ5 upper stage

Orbiter LOI performed by CZ5 upper stage

CZ5 upper stage dumped

---------------------------

Lander launched by CZ5

Lander TLI performed by CZ5 upper stage

Lander LOI performed by CZ5 upper stage

---------------------------

Orbiter and Lander rendevouz and dock (Orbiter Active, Lander Passive)

Crew Transfer

---------------------------

Lander deorbit burn performed by CZ5 upper stage

CZ5 upper stage dumped

Lander lands on descent engine

EVA and experiments

Lander takes off on ascent engine

Lander and Orbiter rendevouz and dock (Lander active, Orbiter passive)

Crew transfer

Dump lander

-------------------------

EOI performed by Orbiter SM engine

Deorbit burn performed by Orbiter SM engine

Landing

Remember, this is SPECULATION.

[peadar1987]

Yep, and it's fun!

(But crunching the numbers is also fun, I'll do a little more now and see if the updated flight profile will work)