Skip to main content

In 2009, President Obama inherited an annual  manned spaceflight related budget from the previous administration of approximately $8.4 billion. Approximately $3 billion was for operating the Space Shuttle. Another $2 billion was for the ISS program. And an additional $3.4 billion was for the future Constellation program with primary funding going towards the development of the Orion manned spacecraft and  the Ares I  launch vehicle. Further increases in  Orion and Ares I funding were set to occur after the end of the Shuttle program.  But significant funding for the core vehicle of the Ares V heavy lift vehicle,  its upper stage, and for the Altair lunar lander weren't set to occur until after Orion and Ares I development was completed  and the  ISS program had come to an end.    

A year later, of course, the Obama administration canceled the Constellation program and, surprisingly,  NASA's efforts to return to the Moon.

Instead, the Obama administration  decided to extend the life of the ISS program at least until  2020 while also deciding to fund the private development of private commercial manned space vehicles  for accessing LEO and the ISS.  Long term beyond LEO goals were set by the administration for a manned spaceflight to a NEO asteroid in the mid 2020s and an orbital mission to Mars  in the 2030s. But no vehicles were to be immediately financed and developed for such ventures.  President Obama's decision still left NASA with a few billion dollars of unused manned spaceflight related funds which the President decided to utilize in research on future heavy lift vehicles and  for solving the problems of manned beyond LEO space travel.

Democrat and Republican advocates of NASA's manned space program, however,  were stunned by the President's decision to  terminate the Constellation program and to cancel NASA's efforts to return to the Moon.  And they defiantly passed legislation for the immediate funding of a heavy lift vehicle (SLS) and for the continued development of the Orion spacecraft (MPCV).

The Orion (MPCV) program is now scheduled for an unmanned test of its Command Module  in 2014 aboard a Delta IV heavy. And the unmanned test of the  SLS heavy lift vehicle  plus the MPCV with its European developed  Service Module  is scheduled to occur  before the end of 2017.

But  how and when the SLS and MPCV will be used for manned beyond LEO missions is far more ambiguous. While some in Congress still argue for manned lunar missions and even a lunar base, the White House continues to argue for an-- anything but the Moon policy.

While the current administration is trying to keep Americans from returning to the Moon, other nations are focusing on the lunar surface's vast resources and even its strategic position around the Earth.  China, of course, has recently launched its first robotic attempt to explore the surface of the Moon and has repeatedly stated its long term intentions of sending people to the Moon and to establish a permanent Chinese presence on the lunar surface for the exploitation of lunar resources. Russia and a few other nations also appear to be focusing on sending humans to the surface of the Moon.

The Obama administration has countered criticism of  its anti-lunar stance by arguing that manned lunar missions would inhibit NASA's ability to eventually send humans to Mars. However, many NASA scientist have argued that a fuel producing lunar outpost could be an essential  key to eventually getting humans to the surface of Mars. China appears to have a similar perspective.

But  can NASA realistically  establish a permanent human presence on the surface of the Moon and, eventually, on Mars under the political constraints of its current manned spaceflight budget?  Was the $8.4 billion a year manned spaceflight related budget that President Obama originally inherited from the previous administration enough to get the job done over then next 25 years?

The SLS/MPCV program is currently being funded at about $3 billion a year. However, the Service Module of the MPCV is now being funded and  developed by the European space agency. An additional $300 million dollars is being used for SLS ground systems development. So what is currently being spent by NASA on the SLS/MPCV program is close to what was being spent on the Constellation program when President Obama came into office. But now, of course,  there's no longer the financial burden of a $3 billion a year Space Shuttle program.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has estimated that the cost of developing the two stage Altair lunar lander at approximately $12 billion. But NASA director Charlie Bolden estimates the cost of developing a lunar landing vehicle at approximately $8 to $10 billion. It took six years for NASA and its private vendors to develop the lunar module that took Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to the lunar surface in 1969.  If we assume a 7 year development time for the next manned landing vehicle then the annual cost of funding such a vehicle  should range between $1.1 billion to 1.7 billion a year. That would raise the manned spaceflight related budget from a range of $4.4 billion to up to $5 billion annually.

However, the CSIS had estimated the development cost of a lunar outpost at approximately  $17 billion. Over a ten year period of development and deployment, that would mean an additional $1.7 billion in annual funding. That would raise the NASA manned spaceflight related budget to perhaps $6.1 yo $6.7 billion a year. However, once the lunar outpost is established, the CSIS estimated that the annual recurring cost would be $7.35 billion annual-- if lunar resources are not utilized. Of course, one of the principal reasons for returning to the Moon is to utilize and even export lunar resources for water, air, and rocket fuel in order to reduce the cost of space travel.

 So with an $8.4 billion a year manned spaceflight budget, it appears that NASA would have plenty of funds to return to the Moon even if they used the rather expensive Constellation architecture.

But NASA is still running a very expensive LEO program in the form of the ISS and Commercial Crew development. Combined, these two programs cost nearly $3.4 billion a year. At less than $400 million a year, the Commercial Crew program is probably being seriously underfunded. But some in Congress are still talking about extending the life of the $3 billion a year ISS program beyond 2020-- all the way to 2028.

So its not a question as to whether NASA can afford a beyond LEO program. $8.4 billion appears to be more than enough funding. But its pretty obvious that  NASA  can't afford a big beyond LEO program plus a big LEO program-- unless it receives a nearly $2 billion increase in its annual manned spaceflight related budget? And Congress, of course, is in no mood to increase the NASA budget during a time of huge budget deficits-- especially as long as the direction of NASA's beyond LEO program remains in ambiguity.

President Obama only has a few more years left in office, however. And by the time the first SLS heavy lift vehicle is being tested for its first flight in 2017, a new president will be in  office.  So the next president will  inherit a manned space program with a new heavy lift vehicle cable of placing more than 70 to 105 tonnes into low Earth orbit when it is fully operational and will also be capable of placing at least 30 tonnes practically anywhere within cis-lunar space. But future astronauts will still be restricted to orbital space unless an extraterrestrial landing vehicle is developed.

The United States currently has a President at the lowest point in his national popularity who also   appears to have very little interest in manned space travel.  So the time may be right for Congress to take the lead again with bipartisan Democratic and Republican support in order to start seriously fund an extraterrestrial landing vehicle (ETLV) for the SLS  by 2015.

Funding could come from either an increase in the NASA budget in 2015 or a decrease in funding for other NASA projects. For instance, since a test launch of the MPCV Command Module will be launched into orbit in 2014 and NASA is no  longer required to fund the development of the MPCV Service Module which is being developed by the Europeans, perhaps substantial cuts in the Command Module development could occur after 2014. The ISS program is also an internationally funded program. If NASA cut ISS funding back to 2009 levels ($2 billion a year) in 2015,  a billion dollars could be placed into funding lunar lander development.

Lockheed-Martin recently concluded that lunar lander development  cost and recurring cost could be substantially reduced if a reusable single staged vehicle were developed instead of a two staged vehicle due to reduced vehicle mass, reductions in vehicle components, and reduced vehicle complexity. NASA reached a similar conclusion back in the late 1980s when JPL proposed its own single stage LOX/LH2 lunar landing vehicle.

Such an ETLV should be a reusable single staged vehicle capable of landing not only on the lunar surface but also on the surface of the Martian moons: Phobos and Deimos and maybe even on the surface of Mars if a ballute or hyper cone are added along with a heat shield. Such a vehicle should also be capable of utilizing extraterrestrial fuel resources on the Moon, the moons of Mars, and on the surface of Mars.

Here, I introduce a  lunar  vehicle concept  that I've toyed around with for the last couple of years that's  specifically designed to take advantage of the large  8.4 to 10 meter SLS cargo fairing. I call this notional crew vehicle, the ETLV-2. And I will elaborate upon the specifics of this vehicle concept, and its cargo, orbital transfer, and fuel depot vehicle variants, in future post.

But basically, the crew version of the ETLV-2 concept  utilizes just two common bulkhead cryotanks capable of storing 10 to 12 tonnes of LOX/LH2 fuel. The crew cabin and the twin airlocks are both derived from fuel tank technology, having the same diameter as the fuel tanks  in order to further reduce vehicle development cost and recurring cost. So a standard cryotank  diameter somewhere between 2.5 to 3 meters would have to be firmly established before the vehicle went into development and eventual production.  

Four RL-10 derived CECE (Common Extensible Cryogenic Engine) engines would enhance vehicle safety with engine out capability and would be capable of up to 50 restarts. This should enable the vehicle to be used for at least 10 round trips from the Earth-Moon Lagrange points to the lunar surface which should further reduce recurring cost. Recurring cost could be reduced even  further if the engines could eventually be replaced as suggest by Spudis and Lavoie in their lunar architecture concept. A throttle capability ranging from 104% of thrust down to just 5.6%, should allow the  CECE engines to enable the ETLV-2 to take off and land on celestial worlds as large as Mars or as small as the moons of Mars.

Utilizing Integrated Vehicle Fluid (IVF) technology currently being developed by the ULA, some ullage gases could be used for attitude control. And with NASA emerging cryocooler technology,  ullage gases could be re-liquified, eliminating any significant  boil-off of hydrogen and oxygen. The cryotank derived crew habitat would have three floor levels and would be capable of accommodating at least six to eight  crew members plus the life support systems. The twin cryotank derived airlocks allows more room within the cabin while allowing astronauts to leave the vehicle without having to decompress and then re-pressurize the crew cabin.  

When fully manned and fueled, the ETLV-2 should weigh less than 30 tonnes and be capable of  departing from EML1 to land on the Moon and then return  EML1 on a single fueling, and vice versa, once the ETLV-2 can be refueled with cryogenic hydrogen and oxygen manufactured on the lunar surface. The addition of an ETLV-2 derived reusable OTV (Orbital Transfer Vehicles) with an aerobraker that could travel between LEO and L1, could also give private Commercial Crew vehicle passengers flown to LEO easy access-- all the way to the surface of the Moon. I will discuss this architectural possibility in a future post.

 Marcel F. Williams

Pictures & References


Does NASA need a new lunar landing vehicle?

66%16 votes
8%2 votes
20%5 votes
4%1 votes

| 24 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It's been outsourced (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    River Rover, CentralMass, awhitestl

    to China. The demo model is landing tomorrow.

  •  Moon - nah, been there done that. MARS baby n/t (0+ / 0-)

    Rivers are horses and kayaks are their saddles

    by River Rover on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 07:23:00 PM PST

    •  Moon and Mars (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      A lunar outpost may be the key to quickly getting to Mars. The Chinese certainly think so.

      •  You are, of course, right that a trip to Catalina (0+ / 0-)

        is a good idea before heading out to Hawaii, but the public will see another Lunar mission as an old stunt.  Mars is doable without  a return to the Moon and has the promise ( remote though it is ) of finding life.    

        Rivers are horses and kayaks are their saddles

        by River Rover on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 08:08:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lunar outpost (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JeffW, JerryNA, River Rover

          Most polls that I've seen show strong public support for setting up a lunar outpost at one of the lunar poles. The Wall Street journal poll a couple of years ago was particularly positive on setting up a lunar outpost.

          Its pretty clear that there is water ice at the poles. But there also appears to be some hydrocarbons and maybe even nitrogenous chemicals-- everything you need for starting up an industrial colony on the lunar surface.

          Plus the Moon is the key to rapidly getting to Mars.  


    •  Dust. (0+ / 0-)

      Lunar dust is likely to be a real problem for any (wo)manned lunar outpost. Breathing microcrystalline glass shards for extended periods would, I'm guessing, be a really bad idea.

      Telepresence seems like a good option.

      •  Moon dust is a real menace. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JerryNA, Calamity Jean

        You're right. It is like volcanic dust - like microscopic shards of glass.

        It wears on equipment, it's murder on the lungs of astronauts, it nearly killed the Apollo astronauts.

        My personal opinion is that we should be going for asteroids. We get to avoid all the risk and expense of dealing with big gravity wells, we can do things like research and development on in-situ resource exploitation, we might find gold, or more likely, platinum group metals in them there rocks, and we can develop resources to build bigger space stations and kick space development into high gear.

        •  Sintering (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JeffW, Calamity Jean

          All you have to do is to sinter the lunar surface with microwaves in order to mitigate or eliminate lunar dust at a lunar out post.

          And astronauts walking on the regolith would simply have to wear protective coveralls over their pressure suits to reduce soiling their pressure suits with lunar dust.


          •  Sintering ==> power (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JeffW, Calamity Jean

            And lots of it. Sintering 6" or more of dust over multiple acres? It is a good insulator, so we're talking a lot of power for a long time. (Molten glass is its own less-than-happy set of hazards.) If lunar residents work in pressure suits, dust will be everywhere, unless the airlocks are showers, and likely even then.

            Further, IIUC, the finest dust picks up charge from the sun's UV radiation and migrates enthusiastically -- the Apollo astronauts noted dust halos in the sky.

            If lunar residents aren't working in pressure suits, do they even need to be present?

      •  No one is planning on walking (0+ / 0-)

        around the Moon breathing its atmosphere. We'd be in an enclosed environment, or in space suits.

        •  But you get the dust all over your suit... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          eyesoars, JeffW, Calamity Jean

          ....and track it back in with you, and it will be necessary to figure out how to control it and keep it out of pressurized areas.

          Fancy vacuum cleaners?  Something to do with static electricity?

          One way or another, it needs to be addressed.

          "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

          by leftykook on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 08:51:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Sinter (0+ / 0-)

        That's why you sinter the area around you lunar outpost using mobile microwave robots.


    •  We haven't been to the Moon (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      in decades. We need to go back to see if anything's changed.

  •  We need to give the ISS an orbital depot... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sfbob, xaxnar, elfling, JerryNA, Maverick80229

    ...capability. More modules, additional PV panels, an orbital tug, and a means to marshall parts boosted to the station for assembly. Assembly into Moon- and Mars-bound spacecraft. Providing for isolation of returning astronauts from Mars. The things they used to picture a space station doing.

    Ah, but what do I know? I'm just a retired civil engineer who grew up on Lost In Space and Star Trak.

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 07:31:58 PM PST

    •  Artificial gravity (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      We're probably going to need to provide some sort of artificial gravity for astronauts on interplanetary missions.

      But the best place to launch and fuel manned interplanetary spacecraft is at the Earth-Moon Lagrange points. And the cheapest source of fuel for manned interplanetary spacecraft is at the lunar poles.


    •  Lunar orbital station? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW, Calamity Jean

      Of course.
      A Gas station orbiting Earth and another one orbiting the Moon. A vehicle to transfer between space stations, a lunar lander, that transfers bewteen lunar orbit and the surface......


      .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 07:51:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  OTV (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xaxnar, JeffW

    A reusable lunar lander could also be used as a reusable OTV (orbital transfer vehicle). All you have to do is remove the landing legs and add an aerobraker for returns to Earth orbit.

    Orbital  fuel depots in Earth orbit and at the Lagrange points or lunar orbit could also be derived from a reusable lunar landers.


  •  Why Would It Take > 2 Years to Develop Lunar (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    human lander?

    Every single problem was already solved and proven to the Moon with clipper ship technology. Basically our situation is being NASA in 1968 or 67, when a flying saucer lands outside Von Braun's office bringing him spacecraft-ready telephones that can outcompute the mainframes of NASA mission control, construction materials that are basically of the era of Scotty's transparent aluminum, and navigation sensors that can hit a ball bearing on Titan from the Orion Nebula.

    This is what a high school and junior college project today. It's half a fucking century later. Half a century before Apollo there were only 2 people on earth flying and they hadn't made 500 yards.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 08:11:02 PM PST

  •  Constellation was a nightmare (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    No way in hell should humans ride a solid rocket; the Shuttle proved there are way too many unrecoverable failure modes.  The Ares-1 was a botch from the git-go: the first stage was supposed to be an unchanged SRB from the Shuttle inventory to save on cost, but weight growth higher in the stack meant NASA had to requalify the booster with an extra segment at another two billion dollars:

    At that point they had might as well develop a new rocket entirely.  Fortunately SpaceX relieved them of that obligation, with the Falcon 9 program's first version coming in at around $300 million for both stages, not only the booster.

    Obama did the right thing: the Ares family was compromised at the outset because they wanted to reuse Shuttle components.  They would have been better served by designing on a clean sheet of paper.  I see the same problem with the SLS still using SRB variants, which supposedly are recoverable, but the processing is almost as expensive as a new item.  SLS also uses liquid hydrogen, which in theory offers better performance but actually is almost a wash because its low density forces larger tanks with the subsequent weight penalty, not to forget the pain-in-the-ass factor when handling it.

    In any event, I'm willing to bet a Benjamin that SpaceX will have the Falcon Heavy in orbit before the SLS gets off the pad, and at a far better price even before the Heavy becomes reusable.

  •  It is tremendously important (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    what SpaceX is doing. They continue to have success, much more so than other non-government space companies.

    From what I have read elsewhere, President Obama gave the year 2015 for when he wanted to see a comprehensive doable plan for the Asteroid Recovery Mission. "Grab it and bag it" and bring it to a lunar Lagrangian point. Good luck there.

    When I go online and look at NASA's budget, they are allotted $17.7 billion for next year. Education will be slashed. NASA is still tasked with expensive research in aeronautics (aircraft) as part of its raison d'etre.

    The United States has demonstrated that it has no national will for progress: no universal health care, an economic system based on castes with a vanishing middle class, an educational system that seems feudal in the way it is funded, a war on women, etc. etc. Yay for China and India. Fortunately, English is widely spoken in both countries. The Italians are doing interesting work in structures. My advice to a young undergraduate in Engineering: consider emigrating.

    "The will must be stronger than the skill." M. Ali

    by awhitestl on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 08:31:05 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site