From: hack@arabia.uucp (Edmund Hack)
Subject: Re: NASA working on Apollo rerun
Organization: Lockheed ESC, Houston
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:43:17 GMT

You know Nick, to borrow a phrase from Ren Hoek - "Your wealth of
ignorance astounds me." Fortunately, ignorance is (usually) curable.

In article <1992Sep12.192438.29628@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>Those expecting a lunar base out of NASA's proposed "return to the
>moon" are in for a big disappointment, according to a recent Aviation
>Week article.  It describes FLO, which stands for "First Lunar
>Operations", apparently because it repeats in form and function
 ^^^^^^^^^ That's Outpost, not Operations.

>our first lunar operations, Apollo.
>
>The missions would have a crew of four instead of a crew of three, in
>an enlarged Apollo-style capsule.  The craft would land directly on
>the surface instead of doing Apollo's lunar-orbit rendesvous, increasing
>costs but allowing the craft to land at lattitudes higher than the
>equator.

How can you be sure that it increases costs? What is the cost for an
orbiting return vehicle that can stationkeep for 45 days, vs. a lander
that contains all the things needed for a return, as well as the cargo
to be delivered?  In addition, direct descent and ascent can save fuel
in some cases, further increasing payload.

>  The system requires -- get this -- a launcher 1.5 times the
>size of Saturn 5!
>
>The function of these missions is an extension of Apollo.  Geology
>treks using an Apollo-style rover (again made larger to hold four
>astronauts) would be the main justification.

Without major increases in space activities, science and exploration are
the only justification for human return to the Moon and going to Mars.

>  They would try out
>tiny experiments in making LOX and lunar soil bricks, as a sop to
>those who want a real lunar base.  No production plants, no
>mass driver, and no biosphere.  

Note the name above - FIRST Lunar OUTPOST. Unfortunately, the article
did not make it clear that this is seen as the first step towards really
understanding what is needed for a major base. Do you know how to design
a LOX plant for the lunar surface that is efficient, reasonable in mass
and maintainable? Nobody I know of does, at least not enough to bet a
gigabuck on. Plans for all that stuff are further down the line.

>Most time at the "base"
>would be spent by the astronauts huddled in their capsules, 
>studying each other.  There would be no revenue or commercial
>interest in the project.

Most of the time, the scientists at the South Pole huddle in their
trailers studying each other - not! The astronauts probably will have
some telerobotics capability and will use that while not on EVA. They
also will be running experiments, making meals, sorting and classifying
samples for return to earth, doing maintenance, etc. Hardly
unproductive. As for revenue or commercial interest - well, you
Libertarians are like the old saw about cynics - you know the cost of
everything and the value of nothing.

>
>Like Apollo, these missions would be utterly dependent on Earth for
>food, water, and shelter.  The lander would consist both of LOX/LH
>propellants and storable propellants for the return trip, a rather
>expensive, kluged combination.  

Storing H2 and O2 for long periods on the lunar surface (two days and a
night) is expensive and kludgy. Best estimates  by JSC and MSFC are that
storable propellants are required for safety and cost reasons. H2/O2 was
looked at for the return vehicle and rejected for now. By the way, the
lander will use RL-10 engines (the new throttled version - thanks
SSRT!).

>The space suits would be designed 
>from scratch instead of using those from Apollo or STS.

Neither of which can be used for EVAs every other day for 45 days.
Neither of which are suitable for long term surface ops (8-10 hrs) on a
long mission. Both of which require extensive maintenance. Both of which
would have problems with lunar dust - the Apollo suits had problems with
the seals due to dust on the multi-EVA flights. Lunar dust is a major
design problem for any lunar base - imagine very hard and fine sandpaper
grit getting all over and into everything with great adhesive
properties. NASA wants to do something sensible - learn from past
experience and improve on what has been done.

>
>No estimate of cost was given, and perhaps none is needed, given
>the political unviability of the project. 
 
Cost is expected to be several billion a year. NASA intends to ask for
the money when the DOD/Domestic budget wall comes down. However, another
more fundamental reason exists as to why costs are not given - this was
a systems engineering study not a project plan. Given the severe
constraints that the project had, it was intended to come up with what
could be done and to derive a comprehensive set of requirements. At the
reviews I have been to, it has been clearly stated that all the pretty
pictures and diagrams are not final, are just strawmen and are only to
give the staff a point of departure to debate from. Griffin intends to
do as much commercial procurement as possible, releasing a set of
requirements and asking companies to bid on it. Innovative solutions are
welcome.

Studies were done of bases that supported 25-100 crew, had LOX
production, food production, etc. All are simply impractical now - we
don't know enough to make informed decisions. All had significant
engineering challenges - i.e. moving tons of regolith. Do you know how
deep the regolith is? What the rock size distribution is? We don't, and
until things like that are known, it is hard to design tools and
equipment that can do the job, even with extensive use of automation.

>The project requires 
>a new upper stage, a new habitation capsule, a new 4-propellant lander, 
>a new rover, new spacesuits, along with the various experiments.  

This is called designing to meet requirements, based on good systems
engineering. There may be extensive use of SSF subsystems (such as the
Hab module, thermal control, and parts of the life support system).
Also, the descent stage of the lander will be commmon for the base and
the crew lander, and will be used on the followup trips, so the cost
will be amortized over "n" missions (1-2 a year, initially).

>They propose a monster rocket 1.5 times the capability of Saturn 5, which 
>would not be used by anybody outside NASA.  

The stretch Energia would work and is considered a good candidate.
Griffin is not interested in the boosters except that they be reliable
and affordable. He has stated in public that XSSR boosters are fine if
the political problems can be worked out. (MSFC may have different
thoughts, however.) 

>Thus, I would give a 
>conservative guestimate of the cost of Apollo plus the cost of SSF, 
>or $270 billion.  In an attempt to mollify Congress, NASA proposes
>to take the money out of other NASA projects, but this cost is 19
>times the entire annual NASA budget, and NASA already admits to having
>more projects than it can fund. NASA has already cut the planetary exploration
>budget down to $300 million per year, one-one-thousandth (1/1,000) the
>cost of this project to study the geology of one body.  No doubt clever 
>accountants will give us a lower number in an attempt to make the project 
>politically viable, but that number will deserve a critical look.  As will 
>the rationale for repeating the exciting-once but dead-end missions of 
>Apollo.

The lunar science community is excited, because they are getting to set
some priorities on the experiments to be taken. There will be some nice
astronomy and physics packages taken, so the science return will be
substantial.  A few notes and disclaimers - I have worked part time on a
few aspects of FLO. This is my opinion only, based on reading documents
and attending some meetings. The flavor of the group dynamics of this
project is interesting - the right kinds of questions are being asked up
front, there are lively debates, and real requirements are being
written. The requirements are not designs, but real requirements.

-- 
    Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
  hack@aio.jsc.nasa.gov - I speak only for myself, unless blah, blah..
   Papoon for President - You Know He's Not Insane! - Endorsed by the
  American Friends of the Martian Space Party, League of Winged Voters
Newsgroups: sci.space