WI: Lunar Water discovered during Apollo?
- Thread starter DominusNovus
- Start date
Going to rearrange this somewhat because different parts require different tones of reply.
Trurle wrote:
Depends on the variety of “sub-society” I suppose, microwave and laser I’m sure not so much as those who are seriously working on “External Pulsed-Plasma” variants of “beamed” power. (Aka ‘beaming’ or shooting “Orion-boom-boom” pulse units at the pusher plate from an ‘external’ source)
No personal offence taken but I've a lot of professional and personal annoyance over this and the following statements because frankly you're wrong and making assumptions that don't fit the citations or facts.
I suspect most of it is from the incomplete nature of some of the citations and an assumption on your part of the meaning of some of those incomplete citations but to infer someone is "on drugs" based on partial information at best is rather disingenuous at best. The papers I cited came up on a web-search for "PoWoW" or "Power Without Wires" specifically because I was hoping to access that specific mission plan. I'm sorry that some of the more important references are only abstracts as the last time I linked to them the reports were actually available on NTRS. (Should not actually be surprised as the interest and therefore seclusion of data is typical as DoD and DARPA interest in a subject increase availabilty of the previous data tends to reduce)
However;
No in fact the work is based on previous work done in support of the referenced paper "PoWoW: A High Powered Modular Spacecraft Concept" which is unfortunately also not available from NTRS but published the same year as my other NTRS cite. At the time they were in fact working on the technology for demonstration. Further:
I'm not sure what your quoting for 'average power density' as Solar Electric power in space currently averages over 150W/kg (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/.../715_Solar_Power_Tech_Report_FINAL.PDF) and the specific type suggested was a "Stretched Lens Array" (SLA) which in 2001 and 2005 tests hit 180W/kg. The "350W/kg" figure was in fact based on coupling the SLA with the Air Force "Squarerigger" deployment system which is vastly more light-weight than the legacy system used which was flight tested on DS-1.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050206363.pdf
I suspect that the "2W/kg-5W/kg" is beamed delivered power density but as the references tend to hop back-and-forth between "W/kg" and "W/cm2" getting a solid look at the data is tough. (It is also highly depedent on the type of transmission since microwave and laser power density go in opposite directions)
I’m not calling into question your expertise and experience but multiple papers of which these are ONLY a few are based not on ‘fantasy’ figures but tested components and hardware with (in these papers) some extrapolation of more powerful solar arrays and power transmission and reception systems say the concept is very much not ‘far-out’ but near-term. The main issue, as usual, is the necessary will and need for such systems and frankly since everyone from NASA, (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900015269.pdf) to the ESA, JAXA, the DoD, DARPA and more recently India, (as a possible utility operation for non-connected areas, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254463513_Retail_Beamed_Power_Using_Millimeter_Waves_Survey) are still aggressively pursuing the technology for multiple purposes I don’t see how it can be dismissed out of hand as delusional or insane.
Had, (but lost due to page crash) a link I didn’t get to look at for a system of “Solar array-to-direct-microwave conversion” that had popped up one search. Similar to this I guess:https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=7763870
I’ve seen figures up to the noted 10% but most put it lower so the 7% sounds about right. What is really confusing is the various definitions of ‘efficiency’ since different researchers seem to use different metrics to arrive at the general ‘efficiency’, specifically when getting to the material ‘lasing’ point.
The half-joking idea I originally heard was using solar-pumped lasers on the “peaks-of-eternal-light” to redirect “sunlight” (in laser form) to be used in various schemes to get at the water-ice in the permanent shadowed craters. The non-joking reasoning is that since ‘sunlight’ photons to pump the laser are ‘free’ such might make more sense than the various conversion loses such as going from solar cell to laser. As noted the actual conversion is pretty low.
Depends on the area really. Hydroxyl and water absorption have been seen in many “sunlit” locations enough to indicate water content of around 10 to 1000 ppm (note polar water is estimated to be around 1700 +/-900 ppm) which could allow fairly straight forward heat-extraction methods. (Unfortunately this one focuses on “icy-regolith” but points out the observed water contenthttps://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120009955.pdf, http://sci2.esa.int/Conferences/ILC2005/Manuscripts/SandersG-01-DOC.pdf)
Actually thermal extraction was found to be feasible between 900 to 1000 C back in the late 80s and early 90s when the regolith was seen as the only source of Lunar water. So a solar furnace can be used to heat the regolith for extraction purposes, (http://adsbit.harvard.edu//full/1989LPI....20..424H/0000424.000.html) I’ve seen multiple methods suggested over time, (file:///C:/Users/1170922146C/Downloads/7_4_5_final-Piccolo.pdf) I suspect the one you’re talking about is the Molten Electrolysis system. (Oddly despite being done in 2007 this still lists Lunar water as “nil” and very low percentages outside the poles despite this not having been accepted as the case since the late-90s) The RF heating is microwave heating to release water? If so that’s been suggested as a method to avoid having to actually mine or excavate the icy-regolith. In context you get a higher output but need more processing of the extracted water vapor. Regolith crucibles? Don’t see how that makes sense since that would limit the heating to preserve the crucible which defeats the purpose if it’s made out of the same material you are trying to melt? Every concept I've seen/read simply has 'slugs' of regolith inserted manufactured (and you brought them with you, at least till you can produce Lunar Titanium at any rate) crucibles and processing equipment. Most of them assumed some sort of use of solar thermal since it was so easy to use and saved a large amount of electricity. Hence the 'savings' isn't as clear as one might assume.
Randy
Trurle wrote:
Depends on the variety of “sub-society” I suppose, microwave and laser I’m sure not so much as those who are seriously working on “External Pulsed-Plasma” variants of “beamed” power. (Aka ‘beaming’ or shooting “Orion-boom-boom” pulse units at the pusher plate from an ‘external’ source)
No personal offence taken but I've a lot of professional and personal annoyance over this and the following statements because frankly you're wrong and making assumptions that don't fit the citations or facts.
I suspect most of it is from the incomplete nature of some of the citations and an assumption on your part of the meaning of some of those incomplete citations but to infer someone is "on drugs" based on partial information at best is rather disingenuous at best. The papers I cited came up on a web-search for "PoWoW" or "Power Without Wires" specifically because I was hoping to access that specific mission plan. I'm sorry that some of the more important references are only abstracts as the last time I linked to them the reports were actually available on NTRS. (Should not actually be surprised as the interest and therefore seclusion of data is typical as DoD and DARPA interest in a subject increase availabilty of the previous data tends to reduce)
However;
No in fact the work is based on previous work done in support of the referenced paper "PoWoW: A High Powered Modular Spacecraft Concept" which is unfortunately also not available from NTRS but published the same year as my other NTRS cite. At the time they were in fact working on the technology for demonstration. Further:
I'm not sure what your quoting for 'average power density' as Solar Electric power in space currently averages over 150W/kg (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/.../715_Solar_Power_Tech_Report_FINAL.PDF) and the specific type suggested was a "Stretched Lens Array" (SLA) which in 2001 and 2005 tests hit 180W/kg. The "350W/kg" figure was in fact based on coupling the SLA with the Air Force "Squarerigger" deployment system which is vastly more light-weight than the legacy system used which was flight tested on DS-1.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050206363.pdf
I suspect that the "2W/kg-5W/kg" is beamed delivered power density but as the references tend to hop back-and-forth between "W/kg" and "W/cm2" getting a solid look at the data is tough. (It is also highly depedent on the type of transmission since microwave and laser power density go in opposite directions)
I’m not calling into question your expertise and experience but multiple papers of which these are ONLY a few are based not on ‘fantasy’ figures but tested components and hardware with (in these papers) some extrapolation of more powerful solar arrays and power transmission and reception systems say the concept is very much not ‘far-out’ but near-term. The main issue, as usual, is the necessary will and need for such systems and frankly since everyone from NASA, (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900015269.pdf) to the ESA, JAXA, the DoD, DARPA and more recently India, (as a possible utility operation for non-connected areas, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254463513_Retail_Beamed_Power_Using_Millimeter_Waves_Survey) are still aggressively pursuing the technology for multiple purposes I don’t see how it can be dismissed out of hand as delusional or insane.
Had, (but lost due to page crash) a link I didn’t get to look at for a system of “Solar array-to-direct-microwave conversion” that had popped up one search. Similar to this I guess:https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=7763870
I’ve seen figures up to the noted 10% but most put it lower so the 7% sounds about right. What is really confusing is the various definitions of ‘efficiency’ since different researchers seem to use different metrics to arrive at the general ‘efficiency’, specifically when getting to the material ‘lasing’ point.
The half-joking idea I originally heard was using solar-pumped lasers on the “peaks-of-eternal-light” to redirect “sunlight” (in laser form) to be used in various schemes to get at the water-ice in the permanent shadowed craters. The non-joking reasoning is that since ‘sunlight’ photons to pump the laser are ‘free’ such might make more sense than the various conversion loses such as going from solar cell to laser. As noted the actual conversion is pretty low.
Depends on the area really. Hydroxyl and water absorption have been seen in many “sunlit” locations enough to indicate water content of around 10 to 1000 ppm (note polar water is estimated to be around 1700 +/-900 ppm) which could allow fairly straight forward heat-extraction methods. (Unfortunately this one focuses on “icy-regolith” but points out the observed water contenthttps://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120009955.pdf, http://sci2.esa.int/Conferences/ILC2005/Manuscripts/SandersG-01-DOC.pdf)
Actually thermal extraction was found to be feasible between 900 to 1000 C back in the late 80s and early 90s when the regolith was seen as the only source of Lunar water. So a solar furnace can be used to heat the regolith for extraction purposes, (http://adsbit.harvard.edu//full/1989LPI....20..424H/0000424.000.html) I’ve seen multiple methods suggested over time, (file:///C:/Users/1170922146C/Downloads/7_4_5_final-Piccolo.pdf) I suspect the one you’re talking about is the Molten Electrolysis system. (Oddly despite being done in 2007 this still lists Lunar water as “nil” and very low percentages outside the poles despite this not having been accepted as the case since the late-90s) The RF heating is microwave heating to release water? If so that’s been suggested as a method to avoid having to actually mine or excavate the icy-regolith. In context you get a higher output but need more processing of the extracted water vapor. Regolith crucibles? Don’t see how that makes sense since that would limit the heating to preserve the crucible which defeats the purpose if it’s made out of the same material you are trying to melt? Every concept I've seen/read simply has 'slugs' of regolith inserted manufactured (and you brought them with you, at least till you can produce Lunar Titanium at any rate) crucibles and processing equipment. Most of them assumed some sort of use of solar thermal since it was so easy to use and saved a large amount of electricity. Hence the 'savings' isn't as clear as one might assume.
Randy
“Bong” not “Bond” perhaps (odd how just one letter messes things up on google) which links to this paper:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6827/4cf8a04e037c5bfb51b00a653138eb3ed7f9.pdf
and has no actual information on either the W/kg or transmitter/receiver information. However that can be found here:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20040045153.pdf
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140003205.pdf
Among others. The Abacus SPS concept is very interesting.
Randy
trurle
Banned
Yes, Bong Wie. Sorry!
The link above is incredibly castrated version. Full version of Bong Wie`s paper on space power solar satellites can be found at
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20010071579.pdf
You should read references you provide before sharing. These are mentioning only ground receiver power per area (while space transmitter power per mass is more important), and even the mentioned power per area is taken "out of thin air". I must repeat, you have currently obvious problems separating empty claims from reliable data.
This is common way for engineering "researchers" to make victory claims:
1 Develop a small specialized piece of technology (solar panel in this case)
2) Claim the developed piece is a dominant piece of spacecraft.
3) Ignore the stress the over-developed piece puts on other components.
4) Write a paper claiming a technological breakthrough.
Well, R. Feynman has compared such "research" with the wiggling of worms, who climb one over another worm..in the effort to escape from the jar, even if jar lid is closed.
Actually to my experience, SPSS technology currently have a multiple of "closed lids". The ones i know of:
1) Radiation damage of solar panels
2) Attitude control of SPSS (or lack thereof)
3) Disposal of obsolete/damaged SPSS
4) Waste heat management (well, some models with radiatevely cooled clystron transmitters, including "abacus" configuration, can actually approach plausibility)
5) Land lot for radio/laser receiver (approximately 5 times of large airport)
6) Scale problem (SPSS really useful for civilization who need many TW of power, while current capability for SPSS is below 1MW)
7) Economical competition - need to have at least 80 W/kg (power here is internal electrical power of SPSS divided by wet mass of entire SPSS) to have a hope (not certainty) for competitiveness.
Let for example analyze the paper you mentioned (it was actually written by <profanity> sitting in same building 4 floors up from me in my JAXA times)
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=7763870
1) The cover-glass of 0.05mm chosen, limiting lifetime of SPSS to 6 months. Actually author carefully avoids mentioning ionizing radiation problem at all.
2) Gravity gradient stabilized (one meteoroid disturbing the tether, you may even not need to break the tether, and you microwave-oven nearby city instead of rectenna site)
3) No deorbit/disposal ideas
4) Power amplifiers inevitably overheats (said in even abstract)
5) No ideas on system-level beam design and matched receiver
6) ~200 kW beam power per 40-ton capable launch wehicle.
7) Claimed power density is about 63 W/k (BOL) - without ADCS, and anything beyond panel itself. Likely would be about 9 W/kg on panel level if decent 2mm cover glass for 10 years lifetime and enough of radiator patches to avoid PA overheat issue added. May be about 6 W/kg on spacecraft level - actually slight improvement compared to modern 5 W/kg state-of-art.
P.S. I must repeat, filter "scientific garbage" claims by yourself. This a basic skill of successful engineer.
Last edited:
This link leads to somewhere I cannot reach...
This is very interesting... I wouldn't have thought a practical process could get usable amounts of water from rock and dust that held 1 part in 1,000 water.
fasquardon
Ends up being a downloaded pdf link that I thought I changed the link to... I've got to re-find it again (And it may take awhile because it appears I need an exact worded search to re-find my earlier links
)Proposal:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120009955.pdf
BTW: Water map of Lunar Soil
https://www.futurity.org/moon-water-1542832-2/
Randy
That's what I meant when I noted just one letter off in google makes it wonky
The papers were to point out proposed power density of the receivers because the referenced papers at the end show the proposed on-orbit generation types. Both microwave and laser power densities quoted have in fact been tested.
It's not that kind of research and Feynman was clear to make the distinction...
Addressed in most advanced studies. For example the Stretched Lens Array figures are in the main SLA papers based on similar arrays exposure and data from working satellites and spacecraft. It IS a problem but not an insoluble one. Note this also effects surface arrays.
The paper(s) you cite suggest this is a controllable issue with relative straight forward answers.
Actually this is about the least issue since we have experience with satellites being obsolete/damaged already. Being propelled, (and station keeping thrusters can be used for propulsion) they can remove themselves to 'graveyard' orbits if need be but one thing to keep in mind is they can be maintained/repaired and replaced by schedule.
Waste heat is usually addressed in more advanced proposals. There is no argument that larger systems will require larger heat management systems as well. We have both proposed and example systems that can be scaled up if we every actually move towards deployment of such systems. More work needs to be done of course but that's true of any advanced or large space system. And I'll point out the paper below and concept are a "flat-panel" system where there is no large clystron in the system.
For the some proposed microwave recetenna systems that's about right. Laser are smaller of course by a very large degree, (hence DARPA/DoD interest) but you can shrink the size if you have good enough control. Frankly you want the power surface power density to be safe so you want a larger area. For Earth use at least. (And there the land does not have to be 'dedicated' as it serve multiple purpose such as agricultural or industrial)
1GW actually is the current 'base-line' SPSS for Earth power, 1MW is considered a "prototype" or "demonstration" system in the current models and being used as a place-holder for mobile space based system such as the POWOW.
To compete with standard Earth based power yes but for off-planet power sources it's not so clear. Especially in places where other power system may have trouble or difficulty in being used. The need for power in multiple places without requiring establishing a power distribution infrastructure is what makes the beamed power concept attractive. So much so that as I noted it's being considered for remote power and even standard power distribution as a "cheaper" alternative than building such a power distribution infrastructure or replacing it if it fails. (And note this is NOT SPSS but generated power that is 'beamed' from a ground source either into space or to a high altitude aerostat and then beamed to the receiver on the ground)
I can find in the referenced paper only (1) and (4) are the only ones that is actually noted. None of the rest is in there because this paper only covers thermal design and modeling. Since the paper (nor work) address any of the other issues OTHER than thermal I think you're referencing the Hybrid Tethered Solar Power Satellite (HTSPS?) concept itself? I looked for some details but other than than generalities I'm not finding a specific design that shows the figures you're quoting. I will note the solar cells base-lined are based on actual space solar power types so the ionizing radiation characteristics should be known data. The gravity gradient stabilization tether is based as far as I can tell on the "Hoytether" (http://www.tethers.com/papers/HoytetherLifetimes.pdf) which is very much more robust than you seem to think. Also the microwave flux at ground level is also very low which is the whole purpose of the panel design. Both so 'pointing' is less of an issue and for safety. Not sure why you are hung up on the 'deorbit/disposal' issue as it would be similar to GEO satellite 'disposal' due to the similar mission plan.
Obviously the 'satellite' is going to have to fit into a launch vehicle and since the HTSPS is a demonstrator or prototype satellite they would of course have to fit into current launch vehicle payload capability. This probably address' the cover-glass issue to since as such it would have a limited operational life-time anyway. As is pointed out in the Bong paper you cite most SPSS working system would have to be in-space assembled because of the size and complexity of the systems. Most of the concept/prototype/demonstrator proposals therefore have to be lighter and less robust than possible utility systems, then again there has been testing of very light-weight structures in the past few years that can be scaled up so this may not be as true as one might believe.
I think we've de-railed this thread enough with this and I'll simply say that beamed power is not so 'out-there' as you state and especially not in context of power delivery to the Lunar surface. It is in fact considered a viable alternative by those agencies that would possibly be requiring that power.
Randy[/quote]
Last edited:
Not just you!
You guys are making a NOVA based Apollo sound not only plausible but possibly better than OTL...Depends I think on the "shuttle" and exceptions thereof... Not all "shuttle" concepts were equal and there was some places where one could argue 'sanity' might rear its head given the right butterflies
With the modular NOVA as a base-line it's possible a more 'modular' system (and thinking) would also come about. While 'working' the Space Station will help keep manned flights going, (which frankly is all the astronaut corps cares about and therefore a big part of NASA management) you missed a spot:
The OTV is 'based' on the Apollo SM, it would be rather straight forward to 'assume' that it has an Apollo-ish capsule and is also manned. Not very efficient but then again neither was a "Shuttle" that had to double as a mini-space station but there is was... It 'may' have a possible way to operate un-manned but really so did the Shuttle (technically) and for the same reason.
The hard part is turning anything of the NOVA into part of the "shuttle" system. I can see the twin F1 powered kerolox boosters and a J2 powered "orbiter" but the details are going to be a bit 'fuzzy' till I've parsed it down. What it boils down to is that even if you booster is recoverable, (several ways but keep in mind NASA is going to lean towards 'flyback') your 'upper-stage' is the main question.
I'll say this for now: Getting the engines back down pretty much requires you build a "vehicle" around that concept and THAT drives you towards a large vehicle that holds everything; Tanks, engines, cargo and people
Getting away from that to a smaller 'shuttle' and separate cargo 'pod' is not as straightforward as I'd like and I'd like to think about ways to avoid it
Nova 1-1 would be a single F1 and single J2 right? The Shuttle was proposed to take on all US launches because that's the only way the system would 'work'. It wasn't very good for medium or light lift and questionable for anything over into the "heavy" category. The Air Force finally came on-board when it became clear that the government was in fact serious about only using the Shuttle for space lift. By the early 80s that was what was driving satellite design itself. TTL that may not be so clear-cut but I'd still see NASA at least making the attempt to gather as much payloads for whatever system it uses. The Air Force may keep pushing Titan based systems or not.
Yes but it also depends on how you spread that labor in tasking. I probably shouldn't have directly used 'habitat' but since you're not that far from getting aluminum "slag" from making oxygen and water pumping the system up to actually produce it isn't that much more effort. Casting it as plates or such also isn't that much more and then it's just a question of setting them and sealing them to accept pressure. (Or not and using them to construct vacuum shelters) If you want to make a REAL comparison though its not 'engineers/PhD's' but fitters/framers/electricians-etc versus astronaut man-hours
The astronauts are vastly over-paid for what they need to do but they ARE there
I suspect that Lunar manufacturing would not happen in the 20th Century.
Hence the reason NASA among others did a bunch of work on aluminum-lox rocket motor design and testing
We can hope
Really the early disappointment over the "Dry Moon" did a lot of damage to the development potential of the Moon and finding it to be 'wetter' than we though should actually become a driver.Actually the guy who initially didn't want to consider nuclear power and was convinced that it wasn't as tough or implausible as he'd initially been lead to believe. In any case it is really the government who's going to have to build (allow a company to do so anyway) and regulate such a reactor but they in fact don't see it as an 'issue' beyond the political.
What kind of information are you looking for?
Randy
My pardon: I'm late in discovering this thread.
Alas, this seems to me to be about right. A major finding of water simply isn't enough to reignite political support for Apollo - not unless you find life in it, perhaps. Any effects such a discovery will have would be, as you say, historically "downstream." And those could be significant. They just won't be in time to save Apollo.
Having read enough Apollo histories - and Apollo ATL's - I reached a fairly steady conclusion some time ago that the only plausible non-ASB way to sustain NASA's lunar effort is a determined, public Soviet effort to not only reach the Moon but to establish a base there, preferably in combination with some faltering of detente. It was, after all, Soviet success in space which got Apollo going in the first place.
And all that said, it's hard to see how Apollo as we knew it could conceivably have found a major presence of water even with a different selection of landing sites, since most of what probable detectable surface deposits there are seem to be located in the lunar polar regions. And Apollo was, of course, necessarily restricted by its architecture to the equatorial regions.
Alas, this seems to me to be about right. A major finding of water simply isn't enough to reignite political support for Apollo - not unless you find life in it, perhaps. Any effects such a discovery will have would be, as you say, historically "downstream." And those could be significant. They just won't be in time to save Apollo.
Having read enough Apollo histories - and Apollo ATL's - I reached a fairly steady conclusion some time ago that the only plausible non-ASB way to sustain NASA's lunar effort is a determined, public Soviet effort to not only reach the Moon but to establish a base there, preferably in combination with some faltering of detente. It was, after all, Soviet success in space which got Apollo going in the first place.
And all that said, it's hard to see how Apollo as we knew it could conceivably have found a major presence of water even with a different selection of landing sites, since most of what probable detectable surface deposits there are seem to be located in the lunar polar regions. And Apollo was, of course, necessarily restricted by its architecture to the equatorial regions.
Not just you!
I do think in all engineering respects it is... Not optimal. But politically, it has properties that may allow it to thrive.
Producing so many modules for Apollo could mean that module costs are pushed down far enough that the "pragmatists" would consider using them for the Saturn IB replacement. Further, using the F1 could make it appealing to the big booster fans, since many in NASA wanted to retain the ability to build big rockets... And Lunar water could make the interim space station program more interesting to Nixon, since it would be a step on the way to developing the capability to build a Lunar base.
Oh dear me... An OTV perminantly welded to an Apollo capsule would be a disaster. Many of the uses you'd want to use the OTV for would involve disposing of the OTV as it went on a long and lonely orbit as a result of delivering its payload on an interplanetary trajectory.
Yes, a single F1 and a single J2.
EDIT: Though, I imagine that by the time the Nova 11 comes along, the F1A and the J2S would both be available...
And I am not imagining that the Nova 11 would survive on purpose. Rather it would be intended as a way to test the Shuttle's liquid boosters, succeed the Saturn IB and support the interim space station program (TTL's Skylab). But I could imagine it surviving and thriving even after the shuttle was ready.
fasquardon
Last edited:
Athelstane wrote:
Ok, well accept that THIS time but don’t let it happen again
Any “Apollo” program organized and run as per OTL is ‘doomed’ the minute they succeed in landing and returning the first time it just depends how much it can be stretched out within different parameters.
In general the Soviet program was almost entirely based around grabbing as many ‘firsts’ possible without expending resources and funding. When it came time to “commit” they balked, and then significantly shifted gears and tried to catch-up only to fail to do so and declare they were never in the ‘race’ in the first place. Their “last chance” OTL was to beat Apollo-8 around the Moon but that would have been a “free-return” trajectory compared to an insertion burn and orbit then departure burn and like people keep pointing out for “suborbital” versus “orbital” flight there’s a difference.
Arguably had the Soviet program at least been better coordinated I think they may have had a shot at challenging American achievements on the Moon but this was after all a battle of the ‘firsts’ and there would have to be some willingness to ‘settle’ for second (or later) for the Soviets. And probably without developing a very heavy booster either.
Though continuing the Nova-Apollo thought that might give the “UR” series a boost…
Combining marathag’s map and the Lunar Water map from above:
https://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/figs/Fig 22.png
https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2017/56-researchersc.jpg
Shows both 15 and 17 where in good areas but as noted the actual water content was dismissed as contamination because it looked too much like terrestrial water. That was a huge issue with the small core sizing which were not enough diameter to help absolve the samples of contamination. Using the same drill to push a 4-inch diameter, 16-inch long segment core drill to the same depth would have made contamination of the ‘core’ region highly unlikely in a sealed sample case.
If we can squeeze a few more landings out of the alt-Apollo, especially some that push the north/south limits of the hybrid missions…
Randy
Ok, well accept that THIS time but don’t let it happen again
Any “Apollo” program organized and run as per OTL is ‘doomed’ the minute they succeed in landing and returning the first time it just depends how much it can be stretched out within different parameters.
In general the Soviet program was almost entirely based around grabbing as many ‘firsts’ possible without expending resources and funding. When it came time to “commit” they balked, and then significantly shifted gears and tried to catch-up only to fail to do so and declare they were never in the ‘race’ in the first place. Their “last chance” OTL was to beat Apollo-8 around the Moon but that would have been a “free-return” trajectory compared to an insertion burn and orbit then departure burn and like people keep pointing out for “suborbital” versus “orbital” flight there’s a difference.
Arguably had the Soviet program at least been better coordinated I think they may have had a shot at challenging American achievements on the Moon but this was after all a battle of the ‘firsts’ and there would have to be some willingness to ‘settle’ for second (or later) for the Soviets. And probably without developing a very heavy booster either.
Though continuing the Nova-Apollo thought that might give the “UR” series a boost…
Combining marathag’s map and the Lunar Water map from above:
https://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/figs/Fig 22.png
https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2017/56-researchersc.jpg
Shows both 15 and 17 where in good areas but as noted the actual water content was dismissed as contamination because it looked too much like terrestrial water. That was a huge issue with the small core sizing which were not enough diameter to help absolve the samples of contamination. Using the same drill to push a 4-inch diameter, 16-inch long segment core drill to the same depth would have made contamination of the ‘core’ region highly unlikely in a sealed sample case.
If we can squeeze a few more landings out of the alt-Apollo, especially some that push the north/south limits of the hybrid missions…
Randy
Fasquadron wrote:
Going to carry over the ‘nuts-n-bolts’ discussion to the NOVA thread and stick to commentary on this one if that’s ok with everyone. I suspect that this would actually work to NASA’s long term advantage.
Not sure that actually ‘follows’ considering even if Nixon was interested, (he really wasn’t, neither was Congress and mostly for the same reason; NASA would not shut up on the “fact” that the “Space Station” was the first step to going to Mars, with all the budget that implies, and that a Moon Base while not a ‘direct’ step was ALSO a step towards Mars, in other words choose anything BUT going around in Low Earth Orbit and NASA will be assuming Mars is next…) Congress was looking to cut back so something has to give but Nova will allow a bigger ‘interim’ station to be launched which in turn will need a bit better support than OTL Skylab did.
(If the Nova 166 is a six F1 first stage and six J2 second stage then the diameter somewhere between 35 and 40 feet for the main station module?)
Still the ‘modular’ approach rather than OTL’s mono-tank Saturn-V as you note makes a steady production of modules more cost effective in the short-run and allows some flexibility in launch services by ‘saving’ modules to build occasional large rockets. In such a case there will be a driver towards making the modules as inexpensively as possible. This has knock-ons on the whole “shuttle decision” which I’ll expand on in the other thread.
Politically this might allow a space station program depending on how far and how much TTL’s “shuttle” program does if anything. While a commitment for a Lunar Base is probably deferred over and over again till the 90s, (just like OTL’s Space Station program) it is likely to be in better shape than any proposed Mars plan.
Not at all since IF they want to ‘toss’ a booster away then they stick a PAM or Centaur booster on the vehicle and the manned OTV ensures a higher chance of mission success. (Just like it did on the Shuttle OTL… aka till you fly you can get away with saying that) They may toss the SM section away when it gets long in the tooth but till then this IS good old NASA after all so they will ‘man’ as many flights as possible. Yes even though the astronauts will have ‘work’ on the Space Station NASA will still want to push the astronauts out as far as possible as often as possible.
The ‘interesting’ thing here is it opens up some possibilities that OTL NASA never had. A couple of active OTVs and NASA can go back to Lunar orbit just about anytime they want with no need for new equipment or an increased budget. Haul a payload of high resolution cameras and surface telescopes on one trip and probes to look at the “interesting” places on another.
The main point of conflict at this point is every time NASA announces something it will have the line “expands/prepares/opens our way to Mars” in it and Congress will look to slash what they can do it can’t be…
That’s what confused me some about things like the Nova 166
Or even more advanced versions
Well the modular nature means if you have enough ‘stored’ modules, occasionally launching a ‘full-up’ HLV is simply a matter of budgeting for it and not giving Congress or the President a valid reason to not let you launch. With a Space Station and pretty large OTV that implies a bit of on-orbit assembly and servicing skills so your main ‘sticking’ point is a lander. Once you are no longer limited to direct landing on Earth for return that can open up your design options quite a bit. And even if manned missions are few and far between initially the ability to deliver probes, rovers and retrieve sample return missions is going to be greatly expanded.
By the 90s we could have a very good idea where to put some initial outposts in planning for an International Moon Base to be established…
Randy
Going to carry over the ‘nuts-n-bolts’ discussion to the NOVA thread and stick to commentary on this one if that’s ok with everyone. I suspect that this would actually work to NASA’s long term advantage.
Not sure that actually ‘follows’ considering even if Nixon was interested, (he really wasn’t, neither was Congress and mostly for the same reason; NASA would not shut up on the “fact” that the “Space Station” was the first step to going to Mars, with all the budget that implies, and that a Moon Base while not a ‘direct’ step was ALSO a step towards Mars, in other words choose anything BUT going around in Low Earth Orbit and NASA will be assuming Mars is next…) Congress was looking to cut back so something has to give but Nova will allow a bigger ‘interim’ station to be launched which in turn will need a bit better support than OTL Skylab did.
(If the Nova 166 is a six F1 first stage and six J2 second stage then the diameter somewhere between 35 and 40 feet for the main station module?)
Still the ‘modular’ approach rather than OTL’s mono-tank Saturn-V as you note makes a steady production of modules more cost effective in the short-run and allows some flexibility in launch services by ‘saving’ modules to build occasional large rockets. In such a case there will be a driver towards making the modules as inexpensively as possible. This has knock-ons on the whole “shuttle decision” which I’ll expand on in the other thread.
Politically this might allow a space station program depending on how far and how much TTL’s “shuttle” program does if anything. While a commitment for a Lunar Base is probably deferred over and over again till the 90s, (just like OTL’s Space Station program) it is likely to be in better shape than any proposed Mars plan.
Not at all since IF they want to ‘toss’ a booster away then they stick a PAM or Centaur booster on the vehicle and the manned OTV ensures a higher chance of mission success. (Just like it did on the Shuttle OTL… aka till you fly you can get away with saying that) They may toss the SM section away when it gets long in the tooth but till then this IS good old NASA after all so they will ‘man’ as many flights as possible. Yes even though the astronauts will have ‘work’ on the Space Station NASA will still want to push the astronauts out as far as possible as often as possible.
The ‘interesting’ thing here is it opens up some possibilities that OTL NASA never had. A couple of active OTVs and NASA can go back to Lunar orbit just about anytime they want with no need for new equipment or an increased budget. Haul a payload of high resolution cameras and surface telescopes on one trip and probes to look at the “interesting” places on another.
The main point of conflict at this point is every time NASA announces something it will have the line “expands/prepares/opens our way to Mars” in it and Congress will look to slash what they can do it can’t be…
That’s what confused me some about things like the Nova 166
Or even more advanced versions
Well the modular nature means if you have enough ‘stored’ modules, occasionally launching a ‘full-up’ HLV is simply a matter of budgeting for it and not giving Congress or the President a valid reason to not let you launch. With a Space Station and pretty large OTV that implies a bit of on-orbit assembly and servicing skills so your main ‘sticking’ point is a lander. Once you are no longer limited to direct landing on Earth for return that can open up your design options quite a bit. And even if manned missions are few and far between initially the ability to deliver probes, rovers and retrieve sample return missions is going to be greatly expanded.
By the 90s we could have a very good idea where to put some initial outposts in planning for an International Moon Base to be established…
Randy
Ok given the margin you get with a 7-module, (7-7-1) Nova, (assuming my BOTE figures are anywhere near correct) not only does it expand the possible landing zones it also gives enough margin to allow some very interesting "what-if" missions. The 'down-side' is I have to assume that building Nova over Saturn-V is probably more expensive so it will mean less of 'something-else' for NASA which I'd assume was some of the deep-space and planetary missions. As it was despite the focus OTL on the Lunar landing the actual Lunar survey effort was a lot less comprehensive than they wanted it to be mostly because they needed funding and operational capacity to do the deep-space and planetary missions they DID do OTL. They really could have used at least one more "Lunar Orbiter" mission and really a more comprehensive Lunar orbital survey would have been very nice. (Reading up on the Maris Hills it's quite frustrating to see how 'close' we came to finding the lava-tube hole with all that implies)
Of course getting the NRO to 'lend' NASA a "good" spy-sat system would be... "Interesting" I suppose
Randy
Of course getting the NRO to 'lend' NASA a "good" spy-sat system would be... "Interesting" I suppose
Randy
This is sort of multi-track-drifting the two threads we have going, but I'm not sure that it'd necessarily be much more expensive. High-volume production of tanks means the main cost is two more F-1s and two more J-2s, but that's something of a negligible cost on the mission scale. The bigger change is likely to be any higher cost for building the LM, but I'm not sure how much the production cost there will scale with size--larger tanks are cheap while the avionics and such will be similar to the OTL vehicle. Overall, perhaps 5-10% more cost per mission, maximum, for about 2-4x the science return. Definitely a good trade.
Depending on how fiddly the spider beam is, the Nova designs could even be cheaper. The Saturn IV and Saturn II stages were both pretty expensive. Here the second and third stage have much more in common.
Also, would the tank modules be cheaper to transport? Would have thought that would be so.
I have my doubts that it really would be cheaper - there are likely things that would be more expensive that I am not thinking of. But it is possible.
And wouldn't the Nova 771 return more than 4x the science? I would have thought the 661 would have been 2-4x the Apollo science return.
fasquardon
E of pi wrote:
Kind of hard to avoid considering how integral the LV is to the mission and therefore the outcome but…
Keep in mind it doesn’t have to cost ‘much’ more than OTL, just about anything ‘more’ ends up being a strike against the system when the gets towards the end. Design, development and getting manufacturing up and running is going to be more expensive I’d think and as noted both LM and probably Command/Service module costs will be a bit higher. A lot depends on the ‘assumptions’ on how the hydrolox stage(s) are built since that will be more expensive than the kerolox ones no matter what. The key is once you are over that initial ‘hump’ though continuing costs (other than launch operations which are going to be more simply due to the power of the LV) are going to be easier to control but by that time we’re into the mid-60s I’d think, (launch operations of the first 6-6-1’s and 7-7-1’s) assuming everything goes smoothly and the general beginning of significant push-back to the NASA budget. Granted we can assure Congress of lower and more stable costs for LV but I’m not sure that would be enough.
Of course a great deal depends on TTL’s “Apollo-1” as well. The time crunch aspect doesn’t change of course but the extra capacity of the Nova, even the 1-1 version, means that if NAA is still given the contract they in turn don’t have to cut so many corners to get a flight capable Apollo. OTL the fire and fatalities gave Congress the excuse they needed to exert more direct control of NASA and its budget and where they began to expand the former and reduce the latter.
Fasquadron wrote:
Hydrolox versus kerolox means the former are going to always tend to be more expensive to produce. The main hope is to get to a level of mass production suggested OTL but never achieved where costs can come down and you move away from such things as hand-installed insulation tiles and such. Not sure if they could get it as cheap as they suggested in some of the more optimistic scenerios but it should be cheaper per-module at least.
But in the end Nova is more complex and uses more materials than Saturn-V/mono-tank designs and I don’t see the cost coming down that significantly over the Apollo timeline. I’d like to be wrong mind you but even at the same or near the same cost as OTL Saturn production NASA still has to make choices on what it launches outside Apollo itself. Much as I’d like to see it I can’t quite convince myself they’d spend anything they ‘saved’ on the Moon. (And as I noted above Congress is looking for an excuse anyway and this is where the budget concept of “if you saved money then you obviously didn’t need that much in the first place” comes from )
It really depends since the ‘standard’ tanks seem to be about 73ft (22.25m) long and with the 20% stretch e of pi suggested that would come to around 88ft (26.8m) for the tankage alone you’re limited on how you can ship them. 69/70ft (21m) IIRC is the maximum length of a rail cargo as a single item so there may be some room for fitting a ‘standard’ tankage set but not the stretched. Similar issues with aircraft transport, (Super-Guppy can carry maximum diameter of 25ft (7.6m) and maximum length of 94ft (28,8m) so ‘maybe’ up to four tanks per flight? Ship/barge seems to still make the most sense AND given the “1” stage is likely not an S-IV type but as e of pi points out something based on the second hydrolox stage then maybe none of the vehicle is air shipped except the Apollo CM/LM/SM?
Shipping would probably be a ‘margin’ cost anyway. You probably spent more to raise the roof than you do over the program to ship and store the modular tankage and engines.
Maybe but don’t forget there are two choices for the extra capacity of the Nova and frankly the easier choice is using it to pad the margins of the payload rather than adding science. So a bit heavier CM/SM and/or LEM and there goes most of your extra science. Also the first half-dozen landings were rather science light because they weren’t flying scientist but cross-trained test pilots and I don't see them changing that.
(Also nomenclature question? How are we addressing the LV's? 11 makes sense, (sort of though I'm not sure we'd actually use that or "1-1: or some such) but getting into higher number do you go from bottom to top or top to bottom? Bottom to top (as per the Delta LV) I'm assuming?)
Given that the primary mission is to get men there and back I’d say every chance they get they go with structure and back-up systems over science if they get a choice. Having said that though I can also see that some extra science will of course be added where they can and it will also depend on if they go with a 6-6-1 or a 7-7-1 architecture, (I’m going to guess 6-6-1 but I’ve no doubt they’d push for 7-7-1 if they can get away with it, again its NASA after all ) as the actual Lunar mission LV.
I'm doing some more tweaks to the outline but I'll post that later
Randy
Kind of hard to avoid considering how integral the LV is to the mission and therefore the outcome but…
Keep in mind it doesn’t have to cost ‘much’ more than OTL, just about anything ‘more’ ends up being a strike against the system when the gets towards the end. Design, development and getting manufacturing up and running is going to be more expensive I’d think and as noted both LM and probably Command/Service module costs will be a bit higher. A lot depends on the ‘assumptions’ on how the hydrolox stage(s) are built since that will be more expensive than the kerolox ones no matter what. The key is once you are over that initial ‘hump’ though continuing costs (other than launch operations which are going to be more simply due to the power of the LV) are going to be easier to control but by that time we’re into the mid-60s I’d think, (launch operations of the first 6-6-1’s and 7-7-1’s) assuming everything goes smoothly and the general beginning of significant push-back to the NASA budget. Granted we can assure Congress of lower and more stable costs for LV but I’m not sure that would be enough.
Of course a great deal depends on TTL’s “Apollo-1” as well. The time crunch aspect doesn’t change of course but the extra capacity of the Nova, even the 1-1 version, means that if NAA is still given the contract they in turn don’t have to cut so many corners to get a flight capable Apollo. OTL the fire and fatalities gave Congress the excuse they needed to exert more direct control of NASA and its budget and where they began to expand the former and reduce the latter.
Fasquadron wrote:
Hydrolox versus kerolox means the former are going to always tend to be more expensive to produce. The main hope is to get to a level of mass production suggested OTL but never achieved where costs can come down and you move away from such things as hand-installed insulation tiles and such. Not sure if they could get it as cheap as they suggested in some of the more optimistic scenerios but it should be cheaper per-module at least.
But in the end Nova is more complex and uses more materials than Saturn-V/mono-tank designs and I don’t see the cost coming down that significantly over the Apollo timeline. I’d like to be wrong mind you but even at the same or near the same cost as OTL Saturn production NASA still has to make choices on what it launches outside Apollo itself. Much as I’d like to see it I can’t quite convince myself they’d spend anything they ‘saved’ on the Moon. (And as I noted above Congress is looking for an excuse anyway and this is where the budget concept of “if you saved money then you obviously didn’t need that much in the first place” comes from )
It really depends since the ‘standard’ tanks seem to be about 73ft (22.25m) long and with the 20% stretch e of pi suggested that would come to around 88ft (26.8m) for the tankage alone you’re limited on how you can ship them. 69/70ft (21m) IIRC is the maximum length of a rail cargo as a single item so there may be some room for fitting a ‘standard’ tankage set but not the stretched. Similar issues with aircraft transport, (Super-Guppy can carry maximum diameter of 25ft (7.6m) and maximum length of 94ft (28,8m) so ‘maybe’ up to four tanks per flight? Ship/barge seems to still make the most sense AND given the “1” stage is likely not an S-IV type but as e of pi points out something based on the second hydrolox stage then maybe none of the vehicle is air shipped except the Apollo CM/LM/SM?
Shipping would probably be a ‘margin’ cost anyway. You probably spent more to raise the roof than you do over the program to ship and store the modular tankage and engines.
Maybe but don’t forget there are two choices for the extra capacity of the Nova and frankly the easier choice is using it to pad the margins of the payload rather than adding science. So a bit heavier CM/SM and/or LEM and there goes most of your extra science. Also the first half-dozen landings were rather science light because they weren’t flying scientist but cross-trained test pilots and I don't see them changing that.
(Also nomenclature question? How are we addressing the LV's? 11 makes sense, (sort of though I'm not sure we'd actually use that or "1-1: or some such) but getting into higher number do you go from bottom to top or top to bottom? Bottom to top (as per the Delta LV) I'm assuming?)
Given that the primary mission is to get men there and back I’d say every chance they get they go with structure and back-up systems over science if they get a choice. Having said that though I can also see that some extra science will of course be added where they can and it will also depend on if they go with a 6-6-1 or a 7-7-1 architecture, (I’m going to guess 6-6-1 but I’ve no doubt they’d push for 7-7-1 if they can get away with it, again its NASA after all ) as the actual Lunar mission LV.
I'm doing some more tweaks to the outline but I'll post that later
Randy