Apollo New Generation

A program building on the success and lessons of the past

Note on Apollo NG: It is to be remembered that the name "Apollo NG" is only temporary until a more appropriate name can be implemented. The choice of name is merely to keep the concept in peoples minds, which a more original name may not achieve.

Introduction

The purpose of Apollo was to place an American on the Moon before the Russians could, simple as that. This was achieved with admiral speed and efficiency considering that, at the time of the announcement by John F. Kennedy, people had only been going into space for a matter of a few months. In fact, people had only been sending objects into orbit around the Earth for less than 4 years.

A truly remarkable achievement!

Yet it is more than 30 years since people last visited the Moon. It's time to go back.

"AND THIS TIME TO STAY"[1].

Along with the 'New Generation' title comes a new purpose: find out if the Moon has anything that can be used to make a profit for industry. This may be simply knowledge (these days, it's sold just like any other commodity) or, hopefully, products which can enhance the lives of every human being, alive or yet to be born. While this latter has been said of space stations in general, the Moon is a different situation.

As an example, take a carpenters tape measure and extend the tape one metre. Now hold it level in front of you. Look at how much it bends from the tip of the tape measure to the 'box' containing the rest of the rolled-up tape. Now imagine that tape is extended to six metres and has the same amount of bend in it. Try extending the actual tape and find out how much bend there is! You will be unlikely to be able to stop the tape from hitting the floor after the first two metres. Yet, on the Moon, you could extend the tape by six metres and have the same amount of bend in it as would be the case with one metre of tape on Earth. That is a very simplistic indication of the potential for the Moon, but it is something you can do yourself!

By expanding the 'human presence' further into space, we, humanity, have the chance of not simply stopping there, but to continue the expansion forever. This is not merely a hope or a dream, but a necessity if humanity is to survive. Resources are becoming more and more scarce and pollution is becoming more and more severe, with no real solutions in site. By manufacturing products in space using raw materials that are already outside the Earth's atmosphere, it will reduce the amount of pollution the Earth has to deal with and at the same time opens up new business possibilities as well as fulfilling what I consider to be the creed of humanity: Try, Learn, Succeed.

We already know how to assemble stations in space. We know we can do useful work in space. In fact, because there is gravity on the Moon, most of the processes already in use either on Earth or in space can be used. Even though Lunar gravity is only one sixth that of Earth, it still enables water to remain in a glass because of surface tension. The only difference is that it will be necessary to have a larger distance from the top of the water to the top of the glass than is the case on Earth to account for that reduction in gravity, due to the possibility of spillage.

It will be possible to smelt metals on the Moon out of the Lunar soil and crushed rock using techniques very similar to those used on Earth except that the gases escaping from the melting rock will be collected for further use. This will require a cap over the smelter.

Only time, exploration, experiments and lessons learned can really find out what products are possible and more economical in space than on Earth.

However, we know some products can be made on the Moon that are in use today. Silicon chips for computers and solar cells are one of the main products which can be made in space more efficiently than on Earth. Remember, efficiency is different from profitability; the only thing really preventing silicon computer chips from being made in space now is the cost of launching the equipment and the raw materials into space. With the Moon, at least the raw materials are already there and are most plentiful. Getting the production facilities there is another story, and the transport back to Earth is still another story, but these two 'stories' are dealt with later.

Apollo NG will operate on a 'fixed budget' system. This will mean that the program will get a fixed amount of money each year and no more. But no less, either. By using this system, the project coordinators will know exactly how much money they have at their disposal. This will help to instil confidence that the financial rug is not going to be pulled out from under their plans, and careers, at the slightest hint of difficulties.

To save money, where possible, equipment that has already been developed or can be modified will be used. When the Apollo program was announced in 1961, nothing that was ultimately used had been designed, let alone used before with the exception of the Reaction Control System for the Command Module, which had come from the Gemini program. Times change and so do the economic and political situations.

When people mention the budget of the Apollo program and quote "24.5 billion dollars", they are forgetting the 'support' programs such as the already mentioned Gemini as well as Lunar Orbiter and Surveyor - Ranger was a separate program begun long before the Apollo program was announced. Total cost of the Apollo program including these programs was more like $27 billion. Today, that would be in the area of $200 billion.

Today, things are very different. There aren't the political incentives that existed 40 years ago at the beginning of the Apollo program. No one wants to spend $200 billion on what amounts to a political stunt. That may seem a harsh comment considering the amount of knowledge gained by Apollo, but stunt it was.

Today, everything has to be justified on economic grounds. Achieving more than the Apollo program could for a fraction the cost is not out of the question. As I said earlier, using or modifying existing equipment saves a great deal of money. It also saves time. Both will be in short supply.

Achieving more for less

How much more can be achieved with only one-eighth of the 'now-dollars' budget that Apollo needed? Lots more. As simple as that.

But an explanation is in order.

Take the launch vehicle as an example. At the moment, there is no launch vehicle capable of placing 118 tonnes into a low Earth orbit. That's what the Saturn V achieved. But doesn't that mean designing another Saturn V type launch vehicle? Not necessarily.

Remember, we are not just going to land on the Moon for a few days; we are going back to the Moon to stay. For that reason, we don’t have to take everything with us at once. For that reason, we can use less powerful launch vehicles and launch more often. With the new generation of launch vehicles available, we can do so for considerably less than was possible with Apollo.

Just such a launch vehicle is SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy which is currently under development and expected to fly for the first time sometime in 2013. This vehicle is capable of placing 53 tonnes into LEO. While only roughly half the payload of the Saturn V, it’s more than sufficient for Apollo NG.

For Apollo NG, I have assumed a payload requirement of 53,000kg into a 185 km Low Earth Orbit (LEO). That lets you put about 7,500kg of payload onto the Lunar surface. Doesn't sound like enough? Apollo only put about 5 tonnes onto the Lunar surface (LM Ascent stage plus experiments and other items not needed for the actual descent from Lunar orbit).

Even though the launcher has less than half the capacity of the Saturn V, the payload increase is due to the use of different techniques and also to the use of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen in all stages.

With 7.5 tonnes, you can put a whole Lunar base into operation with very few landings and at comparatively low cost. These landings would initially consist of Accommodation Modules (AM), Experiment Modules (EM), Gas Processing Modules (GPM), Power Modules (PM), Logistic Modules (LM), other equipment and of course, crews.

In the Apollo program, the Saturn V would place the Apollo spacecraft (Command Module, Service Module) and the third stage of the Saturn V in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and then the third stage would fire for a second time to place the CSM/LM into a high Earth orbit (remember, you don't actually escape the Earth's gravity to get to the Moon: after all, it's still in Earth orbit!). Then, the Service Propulsion System (SPS), which is in the tail end of the Service Module, would fire to place the CSM/LM into Lunar orbit. After that, the LM would separate and land on the Moon. Then the LM's ascent stage would take the landing crew back up to the CSM and the SPS would fire again to take the three crew members back to Earth.

Processes, techniques, equipment and systems can be simplified and simply changed to enable costs to be reduced without reducing safety. As an example of what can now be done, sensors have been built which are a very small percentage of what the Apollo systems weighed; the seismometer from Apollo weighed 11.4 kg but today it is possible to have a seismometer that weighs less than one kilogram but will be even more sensitive than that of Apollo. This example also applies to the electronics used in the spacecraft systems. A good 'rule of thumb' is that new electronic systems will weigh less than 10% of those used during the Apollo system for the same capability, while being, for the most part, systems that are already in production for other programs. As I said earlier (wrote, actually), because the systems are already in production, they will cost much less than would be the case if the systems were built specifically for Apollo NG.

In Apollo NG, the Falcon heavy launch vehicle would place a landing vehicle and a stage called the TLI Booster into LEO. This TLI Booster would be used to provide the thrust needed to increase the orbit of the landing vehicle to an orbit similar to that of the Moon. TLI stands for TransLunar Insertion.

The Lander engine is used to place the Lander and whatever payload it is carrying into Lunar orbit. Once in Lunar orbit, the Lander de-orbits and lands on the Moon. The Lander can be used in an automated mode or in a semi-automated mode controlled by the crew on-board or even by the crew of the Lunar base.

The same Lander design is used on all landing missions; whether the payload is an AM, a bulldozer or a crew.

To save costs and reduce complexity, there is no Service Module as in the Apollo program and the Command Module is the Dragon developed by SpaceX, only with Apollo NG, it would be called the CTV – Crew Transport Vehicle.

The CTV, carried by the Lander, gets the crew to the Moon, but how do they return to Earth? Not in the same complicated manner used in the Apollo program, that's for sure. In Apollo NG, the crew would have to land and then refuel the Lander to get them into Lunar orbit for a final systems check and then fire the Lander's engine again to get them out of Lunar orbit and back to Earth. This uses a technique called Lunar Surface Rendezvous which was a short lived proposal at the beginning of the Apollo program. The reason it was only short lived is that it required two launches from Earth, and the Saturn V enabled just one, albeit big, launch. With Apollo NG, the system works as the infrastructure is going to be on the Moon before the crew arrives.

Remember; it uses exactly the same amount of energy to get from the Lunar Surface back into Lunar orbit as it takes to get from Lunar orbit down to the Lunar Surface.

This alone simplifies the whole system, while also eliminating several of the areas that concerned Apollo Mission Control crews: the engine in the Service Module, and both the engines in the Lunar Module. By using just one engine for the entire mission, except getting into and leaving LEO, it also reduces costs and increases safety as the crew would not have to return to Earth immediately in the event of a systems failure as they can stay in the AM for as long as necessary. While this may seem dangerous to some, it is a major simplification and is quite safe. With Apollo, there was no Lunar surface support equipment, everything had to be brought from Earth with the crew. With Apollo NG, before the crew arrive, there will be several preparatory flights including accommodation and the means of generating oxygen from the Lunar material and electricity from the Sun and fuel cells.

By using the Lander to perform the same functions the Service Module performed in the Apollo program, you simply eliminate possible problems. Also, by using the one engine for Lunar Orbit Insertion (LOI), Lunar landing, Lunar Orbit re-insertion and Lunar orbit escape, the engine is a known quantity; if it starts the first time, there's no reason to assume that it won't start the second, third, fourth etc... As with any concept, there will be those who disagree, but the same arguments can be put forward for the techniques used by Apollo. There are many solutions to any given problem, finding the most effective and efficient one is the difficult part.

Purposes of the program

The program has several purposes and one of the primary ones is to discover, of course, if people can indeed survive on the Moon for extended periods and what effects that will have both physically and psychologically. Another purpose is to build the base as efficiently and as fast as possible. For instance, we already know people can survive and work on the Moon for up to three days, but we have to find out if people can survive and work for weeks, months and even years. This will mean that the first few crews will need to stay for that amount of time and that means providing them with enough work to keep them not only occupied, but also occupied productively. Some of the Apollo astronauts commented that Lunar gravity was preferential to both zero gravity and Earth gravity. This is a sign that working on the Moon will be quite easy and pleasant compared to working in zero gravity as is the case for the International Space Station.

To keep the crews (lunarnauts?) productive, they must be provided with sufficient challenging and fulfilling work. There will be a great deal of challenging work for the first crews to do, but to make it fulfilling is another matter. That is a difficult task but by no means impossible. By having the first crew stay for an entire year will enable the six crew members to do a great deal of work. Most of the first missions will be delivery of modules to support the crew in its tasks. These modules are best placed under the Lunar surface for the reasons already stated. To do this, trenches will need to be prepared, modules will need to be interconnected and the trenches filled in. This will require at least two astronauts on the surface at all times. This means each person performs one 'EVA' per day, at least five days per week. This will require either space suits that are extremely rugged and reliable, or more than one suit per person. Personally, I feel the latter is the best option.

In Earth orbit, if a suit fails, it means that at most the mission will be cut short. On the Moon, however, the problem will be more acute as it will mean that one of the teams is unable to perform outside on the surface. This would extend the time needed to complete the mission and would probably have a ripple effect upon delivery of further vehicles as it would be necessary to make provision for the launch from Earth of a replacement suit. This can be best avoided by sending at least two new suits with every pressurised module including the Logistics Module, the Accommodation Module and the Experiment Module. While this will probably result in a surplus of suits, nothing will go to waste as people will be going to the Moon in increasing numbers as the years go by.

People can get to the Moon on a smaller launcher like the Delta IV Large, but it would be a marginal program, resembling something like the Lunar Gemini proposal with a one person lander. Like I said, marginal. Maximum surface payload would be about 3,500 kg. In my mind, it would be unrealistic, uneconomical, and extremely hazardous.

Despite using equipment that is already in production or under advanced development, all that equipment has to be tested, assembled, integrated and launched. As well as that, the ground crews and astronauts will all need training and support.

Budget and timeline

As I said earlier, Apollo cost something in the region of $200 billion in today's values. That works out to be about $25 billion per year average from the time of John F. Kennedy's speech on 25 May, 1961 to Neil Armstrong's speech 8 years and two months later.

The operating budget for seven Lunar missions, including payloads, launch vehicles and support would be roughly 5 billion dollars per year. If this budget were sustained, including inflation, the first landings would occur five years after go-ahead. That equals one-fifth of the cost of the Apollo program and about 60% of the time, but with substantially more achieved by Apollo NG that was possible with the system used by Apollo.

Why so much less money and so much faster compared to Apollo? Simple. As I said earlier, most of what is needed today already exists, so all you really have to do is design the structures and put the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together. Also, knowledge of how to do things where space is concerned has changed enormously in the past 30 years. That means the lessons of Apollo can be put into practice without going through the same traumas such as AS-204 where three people were killed, or the decision on exactly what is the best method of landing on the Moon. Another example is the Lunar Module. Due to the increases in knowledge about the structure of the Moon, the LM was redesigned on several occasions. These three, plus several other lessons cost Apollo three years and two months, so instead of being eight years and two months, it would have been just five years.

For Apollo NG, the timeline allows for 3-4 years of intensive development, one to two years of flight tests of components (launch vehicle, Lander, CTV etc) before the first components of the base are landed on the Moon. Another advantage of Apollo NG over Apollo is that when the Lander is tested in Earth orbit, it can be returned by the Shuttle so engineers can check the systems after spending time in space.

Each mission would cost about $300 million for the launcher and another $250 - $300 million for the payload for a total mission cost of between $550 and $600 million, or roughly the same as a shuttle mission, although the shuttle mission costs don't take into account the payload costs. As an example, the solar panels used on the International Space Station cost about $175 million for a mission cost of $725 - $775 million.

Having said that, a 'bare-bones' mission could be achieved with two launches, one for the return propellant which would be landed on the Moon, and the other with the Crew Transport Vehicle. This mission would provide a similar capability to Apollo, but with two launches and no possibility of extended missions. This is the type of mission contemplated in the early stages of the Apollo program under the Lunar Surface Rendezvous scheme. Such a mission would cost in the vicinity of $1 billion and in my opinion, that would be a waste of capabilities and should not be pursued, although the ability to land propellant may be of use in emergency situations.

Facilities

The Apollo program was the most prestigious space program ever undertaken and America had plans for more launches than the 10 Saturn V's that flew during the Apollo program. Much higher launch rates were expected after the initial landing.

For that reason, the Vehicle Assembly Building was absolutely huge, no other words can adequately describe it. In fact, building Launch Complex 39 was a truly massive undertaking involving over 7,000 workers and that doesn't include construction of the Johnson Space Center in Texas. Because of advancing technology and the use of a smaller launch vehicle, smaller, more economical facilities can be used. Smaller will usually also mean built faster as well.

Launch pads

As for the launch pads, they can be built where the old pads used to be on Cape Canaveral, from Complex 37 to just north of Complex 36 where the Atlas vehicles are still launched. That's a distance of over 10 km which is sufficient, with a separation of 2 km between pads, for five pads.

Initially though, only three pads are needed as we will only be able to afford 7 launches per year (two pads for launch at, potentially, 4 launches each per year with a spare pad used for engine tests and CDT's/launch simulations). This means each pad will be used an average of less than four times per year. It is still good to have room for expansion, should the need arise.

The reason for using Cape Canaveral is quite simply that most of the people we need for this program are already in the area (most of the people support the Delta IV and other programs, but that number will have to be expanded on). Also, the original pads required that the ground in the immediate area of the pad had to be stabilised. Not having to stabilise new ground will alone save a substantial amount of money for this new program. This same concept has recently been used by Boeing for the Delta IV pad which was previously used by the Saturn Ib family (pad 37), which would be modified to allow it's use with the Delta V as well.

With five pads, we get four launches per year per pad which gives us a total of 20 launches per year. While Apollo NG will need a minimum of seven launches per year, that number can grow if necessary. However, for the foreseeable future, the additional capacity can be used for other programs. These include launching the replacement for the International Space Station as well as the ferry flights to that station. These ferries would be similar to an enlarged version of the HL-42 concept. By the time additional Lunar launches are needed, the ISS replacement will itself need replacement, as will the ferry vehicle. This means the pads will again be available for use by Apollo NG and subsequent programs.

Two of the initial three pads will be built for vehicles much larger than the Delta V (the first pad will be Complex 37). The reason for this is again economics. Assuming that Apollo NG is successful in its mission goal of demonstrating that profit can be made from the Moon, much larger launchers will be needed for any subsequent expansion. This vehicle will take the form of the Vulkan, which was the progenitor of the Energia launch vehicle. Vulkan is capable of placing 230 tonnes into LEO from Baikonur or about 250 tonnes into the same orbit from Cape Canaveral. With this vehicle, there exists a capability to place payloads as large as 42 tonnes onto the Lunar surface. In addition, Vulkan can be used to launch crewed vehicles to Mars using the same concept as Apollo NG.

Imagine the possibilities with five pads. Not only the Moon, but Mars, a much larger space station and the reusable ferry for that station. All with one launch vehicle, one set of pads and one launch crew. Most of the equipment used for the Moon program will be available for Mars Direct, including the surface modules, with comparatively minor modifications. Additions for Mars Direct would include an aerobrake which is like an enlarged heat shield, Accommodation Module for use in weightlessness etc. In essence, adaptations rather than all new, again resulting in cost reductions for both programs.

As for the orbital facility, that can also use a great deal of equipment developed for the Moon, resulting in even further savings for all the programs.

Assembly and integration facilities

The assembly and integration facilities would be built in the Industrial Area on the east coast of the Banana River and then the complete stages would be placed on a barge for the trip across the river, travelling the rest of the way by truck, with actual assembly on the pad itself. Although the Apollo program had the Vehicle Assembly Building, that facility was never used to its full capacity.

It is to be remembered that one of the original concepts for Apollo launch operations was a barge basin. This was found to be impractical, but the concept of delivering the stages from the manufacturers was retained as is the case with this concept.

Also, unlike Apollo, this new concept has the vehicles assembled on the pad itself. This means that the assembly and integration buildings will be much smaller than the VAB needed for Apollo and will be more reminiscent of the facilities used for the Saturn I/Ib at pads 34 and 37, or those used for the Vostok and Proton launch vehicles at Baikonur.

Control Building

In the Apollo program, the Launch Control Center (I beg you, no more acronyms!) takes care of the entire vehicle until 10 seconds after launch when control was handed over to the Mission Control Center in Houston, Texas. Over 2,000 km away. This required some incredibly sophisticated and extremely reliable communications links. Why were the facilities separated, when it adds to the cost and Complexity and also increases the hazards?

For Apollo NG, there will be one combined building containing several Booster Control Rooms which are just responsible for the launch vehicle. This responsibility starts when the individual components are welded, bolted, screwed or glued together at the manufacturer and ends only after the TLI booster has been depleted. These rooms will resemble scaled down versions of the LCC (sorry, I can't help myself) used for Complex 39, but will use equipment similar to that for the new Mission Control Center in Houston. With Apollo, there were some 470 consoles in each of the 'Firing Rooms' in the LCC. By using the latest equipment and techniques, Delta V will only need about 50.

In addition to the Booster Control Rooms, there will also be several Payload Control Rooms and Lander Control Rooms. These facilities are separated to enable the crews to concentrate on the relevant vehicles, with essentially similar responsibilities to the Booster Control Room crews.

The reason for having several PCR's is that there will be several distinctly different types of equipment on the Moon.

Support buildings

In addition to the Launch, assembly and integration and control buildings, the crews, both ground and flight will need training and continuous support. This support will be conducted in several buildings, or one very large building with smaller annexes attached to it.

For flight crew training, both simulators and physical replicas of equipment will be used. During the Apollo program, the state of the art in simulators was used. For docking training, a replica of the Command Module was actually docked with a replica of the Ascent stage of the Lunar Module. For landing simulation, the state of the art combined CRT's with a video camera that followed a replica model of the lunar surface.

Today, things have advanced quite a bit. By combining CRT's with a computer program, any situation can be simulated, from an emergency on the pad, to a failed landing or any other situation the crew or trainers can come up with. With modern, commercially manufactured simulators as used by airlines around the world, the technology allows the crew to 'land' at different locations in the same training session.

As for simulation of the Lunar surface and integration of various modules, that requires replicas of the equipment as was the case during the Apollo program.

Other forms of support include isolation accommodation before the mission commences to ensure that the situation of Apollo 7 does not happen again. Even if the crew comes down with something, that person will only be dropped from a mission if the safety of the mission and the other crew members is at risk because the 'sick' member has reduced reflexes or other cognitive difficulties.

Launch Vehicle
This would be the Falcon Heavy with little of no modification.

By using this LV, it is possible to save about $3 billion. This would bring program cost down to 22-27 billion by the time humans return to the Moon.

In addition, the alternative LV would have to be designed. I came up with an idea for a modified version of the Delta IV I called the Delta V. Flight costs would have been about $300 million each, but Falcon Heavy will cost about $125 million per flight. The saving of $175 million per flight, more than half the cost of Delta V could be used for additional launches. At a launch cost, including payload of $450 million each, an additional two missions could be flown each year. Alternatively, annual operating costs could be reduced by $1.225 billion per year.

TransLunar Insertion Booster in detail

Falcon Heavy can place about 53 tonnes into Low Earth Orbit (otherwise known as LEO), but it's ability to loft payloads to the Moon is limited by the almost empty mass of the second stage. Two stages are fine for LEO use, but getting to the Moon is more efficient using a Trans Lunar Insertion stage.

The idea of the 'TLI' booster is to boost the payload to Trans-Lunar Insertion velocity, hence the name. This is necessary due to the inability of the basic Delta V to perform that task.

Again, the maximum use of existing components will be made. This means the engine, the electronics and even the structure; although the propellant tanks need to be extended, it uses existing equipment, techniques and people to build it, on an existing production line. Again, reducing costs and increasing commonality.

The TLI Booster performs only that task: Trans Lunar Insertion; placing the payload into an extremely high Earth orbit designed to intercept the Moon. Remember, the Moon is still in Earth orbit and the vehicles will never leave Earth orbit completely.

Stage would be made of aluminium lithium alloy to reduce structure mass.

Engine choice

This comes down to two engine types: either the RL-10-BX, which was only a design concept; or the MB-60 which is being developed by Mitsubishi and Pratt and Whitney. The RL-60, also developed by Pratt and Whitney, is also possible, but mass would be 191kg greater.

There are two possible engines; the MB-60 (developed by Boeing-Rocketdyne and Mitsubishi, but now by Pratt and Whitney and Mitsubishi) and the RL-60 (developed by Pratt and Whitney). Even though the MB-60 is heavier than the RL-60, its improved ISP reduces overall stage mass by 191.271kg leading to increased payload.

If the RL-10 were used, it would require at least three engines resulting in a combined engine mass of 1,268 kg (4 x 317 = 1268 kg). With the MB-60, the combined engine mass is 1,182 kg. While this is a saving of only 86 kg, it would mean fewer engines and that will increase reliability.

The Reaction Control System

This is quite different from other 'Western' systems and is more akin to Soviet/Russian practice as it uses the gasses from the propellant tanks instead of having a separate system. The idea is that there is a small storage tank for each gas near the main propellant tanks. Gas is drawn off from the main tanks and any liquid propellant is gasified before the gas is pressurised and stored in the appropriate tank. The thrusters are one of the few items that need to be developed from scratch. This same system is used in the Lander.

While the thrusters have to be developed from scratch, there has been some work done in this field. The U.S.A developed thrusters using gaseous hydrogen and oxygen for the Freedom space station which was the precursor of the ISS. The thrusters used in the TLI Booster and the Lander would be about twice as powerful, but they would be based on the RS-52 thruster that were originally developed for Space Station Freedom.

TLI Booster specifications

Total Mass	29,518kg
Engine type:	2 x MB-60
Propellant type:	LO2/LH2
Propellant mass:	25,518.00kg
Thrust:	34,164.00kgf
TLI stage mass (empty):	4000.00kg
Burn time:	351.004 seconds (based on Apollo 17)

Ares V performance is 130,180 kg LEO and 64,860 kg Moon.

Ares V (original) payload fairing (probably to be redesigned due to RS-68 engine choice and core stage diameter increase.

Diameter: 8.4 m

Length: 22.0 m

Mass: 4,773 kg

Payload envelope: 7.47 m diameter x 12.0 m long

Lander stage in detail

The purpose of the Lander is, well, to land. But it does more than that, it also provides the guidance, navigation and control for whatever payload it may be carrying. Some people still think that Apollo was the only way to get to the Moon. What these people don't realise is that the Program Managers for Apollo had quite a difficult time deciding which method to use in order to get to the Moon and return safely. In fact, it took over a year just to decide which method to use and the final choice hadn't even been thought of where Apollo was concerned until the middle of 1962. The Lunar Module contractor, Grumman, was chosen in September of that year. That's how close it was. We have a major advantage over Apollo of having had over 30 years of experience and concepts of what is the best way to get back to the Moon. Apollo was not far from the best, but we can do better.

What I have done with this concept is to combine several functions into one vehicle. This has the effect of reducing the overall complexity of the vehicle as will be seen.

With Apollo, the launch vehicle had one guidance system, the Command Module had another and the Lunar Module had yet another. All essentially performing the same functions. The only advantage of that is it provided several companies with money instead of only one company as is the case with Apollo NG. The beauty of this concept is that it can make a real difference where costs are concerned.

While the Crew Transport Vehicle still needs a guidance system, it is only needed once the Lander is jettisoned just before re-entering the Earth's atmosphere. The TLI Booster does not have a guidance system, but it does have an independent fault finding system which works in conjunction with the guidance system built into the Lander. Remember, the Lander is used on all flights, at least for the first several years. The real benefits of this concept is to reduce the cost of the operation and reduce the amount of 'dead-weight' carried by the vehicles.

The systems the Lander uses are mostly available right now, excluding the structure and the tankage, as is the case with most of the other items of equipment.

The engine is based on a Boeing RL-10 with greatly reduced thrust or the European HM-7 but the latter would also require modification to enable variable thrust. This reduction in thrust will greatly enhance the life of the engine as well as increase its already impressive reliability. The RL-10 was originally designed as the very first rocket engine with variable thrust, but this function was not used until the McDonnel Douglas Delta Clipper experimental vehicle of the early 1990's. Speaking of the Delta Clipper, it used electronics from the F-16 fighter for part of it's control system. That's what can be achieved by using systems from other programs.

In addition, the Lander also performs the task of Lunar Orbit Insertion (LOI). Because of the greatly reduced mass compared to Apollo, this requires much less propellant.

Main Engine

Using LH²/LO² as propellants, this engine needs to start at least four times (once for LOI; once for descent; once for ascent and once for TEI [Trans-Earth Insertion]). During descent, this engine will need to be throttleable to control landing speed.

Reaction Control System

This is quite a different system to that fitted to other 'western' systems as it uses the gases from the main propellant tanks of the vehicle. This reduces complexity and also increases the Specific Impulse (ISP) of the thrusters. While this may seem quite obvious, it will help to reduce the overall mass of the system as well as reducing the complexity and cost. This system is similar to that used in Russian rockets and is discussed in more detail under the heading of The TLI Booster.

Electrical system

This is quite simple and based on batteries. As with all the components on the Lander these are reusable and are the same units used in the CTV. This not only reduces costs of manufacture and increases commonality, it also increases the overall redundancy of the concept. Remember, the first few Landers will not be used for some time, so if the batteries are needed for other purposes, they are there for the taking.

Communications system

This is an extension of the system used in the CTV rather than a doubling-up. The concept is similar to using an amplifier for a stereo system. It would simply be used to boost the signal from the CTV's communications systems to enable a useable signal to reach the Earth from extended distances and from the Lunar surface. This system would also be used during the automated landings of modules and other payloads which did not carry a human crew.

Lander Specifications

The following specifications are based on information acquired from Apollo By The Numbers, so are based on actual spacecraft weights, mostly related to Apollo 17.

Launch mass	17,529 kg
Lander mass (empty):	2,000.00 kg
Lander thrust (needed for ascent):	5,000.00 kgf
Propellants	LH²/LO²
Engine mass	160-170kg
Lander communications system:	20.00 kg
Lander RCS (Reaction Control System):	150.00 kg
Lander navigation, guidance and stability system:	130.00 kg
Descent propellant:	5,060.00 kg
LOI propellant mass:	3,805.00 kg
Total propellant mass	8,811 kg
Lunar orbit mass:	14,278.00 kg
Surface payload:	6,718.00 kg
Ascent propellant:	4,848.00 kg
Lunar 're-orbit' mass:	9,430.00 kg
Lunar 're-orbit' payload:	6,930.00 kg
Escape propellant:	1,668.00 kg
Escape payload (return to Earth):	5,262.00 kg
Total 'round-trip' propellant:	15,381.00 kg

Based on the figures for the First Lunar Outpost Extended Duration Lunar Lander (FLO EDLL), the figures would be:

Initial S/C Wet Mass (post TLI)	25,482
Descent Stage Dry Mass	2,000
Mid Course Correction	207
Lunar Orbit Insertion	5,376
Mass in Lunar orbit	17,900
Lunar Deorbit Burn	108
Powered Descent	7,897
Propellant boil-off	67
Total propellant consumed	13,448
Payload on Lunar surface	9,827

Payload is over 2.5 tonnes greater.

Crew Transport Vehicle in detail

I would appear possible to use the SpaceX Dragon module for Lunar activities (opens in a new window), but for landing, modifications will be needed. For a human landing, manual controls are required. For this to be effective during landing, a small control platform would have to be mounted outside the main entry hatch to allow a good view of the landing area during descent. This platform is only required during descent and can be removed before the spacecraft is launched back into Lunar orbit.

One problem with using Dragon is the limited internal volume, so crew size would be limited to just four for Lunar missions (Dragon is capable of carrying up to seven) as additional equipment and supplies would be needed for a Lunar mission.

This would be used for exactly the purpose the title states: transporting crews to and from the Moon. It is a modified version of the Big Gemini concept taking into account the additional radiation requirements and also the passing of nearly 40 years since the Big Gemini concept was formulated, especially where the electronics and other systems are considered.

Many of the systems used in the CTV are based on those of the Lander. These include the communications system which is more capable than that used in the Lander, but would simply consist of two or more communications systems instead of the one used in the Lander. This would allow telemetry to be transmitted by one communications system while audio and video is transmitted using the other system. The navigation system is also the same as used in the Lander without the landing radar. Instead, there is a small Doppler radar similar to what a helicopter would have. It only has to provide the crew and computer with input for the last few hundred metres of descent from space to ensure proper deployment of the parachutes etc.

The recovery system is based on a ram-air parachute, which enables the CTV to be manoeuvred after the parachute is deployed increasing the cross-range capability of the vehicle. The CTV will land on water in the same way as Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, but with the difference that it will land off the coast of Florida. In an emergency, the vehicle is capable of landing on land, but the vehicle would probably not be reusable due to landing stress.

Although the Big Gemini was designed for a crew of nine, that was for LEO where the crew didn't spend more than a day or two in the vehicle before docking with the orbital facility. By limiting the size of the crew, it will provide much more room for each crew member and gives an individual member about the same volume as each of the Apollo crew members had. The real difference between the Apollo CM and the Apollo NG. CTV is in total mass. The Apollo CM had a mass of about 5800 kg with three crew members or about 1933 kg per member, while the CTV has a total mass of 5262 kg with six crew members or 877 kg per crew member. That is about 2.2 times less per crew member compared to that of Apollo. This is possible because of the different design of the modules as well as using much more advanced, lighter-weight technology in all the systems.

Unlike in Gemini, there is no need for an adaptor module as the Lander will be providing all the non-attitude propulsion as well as all the power until the Lander is jettisoned just before re-entry.

There is also no reason why the CTV cannot be reusable. This would make the vehicle more expensive in the beginning, but by reducing the overall numbers needed would ultimately lead to a reduction in expenditure. This would also result in the displacement of many employees of the contractor responsible for the production of the CTV, but this can be offset by having these people work in other areas after the construction of the few, reusable vehicles is completed.

By having reusable systems in a non-reusable CTV, the same outcome can be had. While the actual structure of the CTV is placed under enormous stress during re-entry, the same cannot be said for the systems inside the CTV. There is no reason why the communications system or the Environment Control System cannot be reused many times while the structure of the CTV is scrapped. Remember, the Big Gemini was designed for easy maintenance and this will be the case for the CTV. Personally, I feel that full reusability is the only really acceptable method available.

Navigation, Guidance and Control system

This would be a combination of like-functions rather than the separate systems used on Apollo. The navigation and guidance functions would be comparatively simple as the main navigation and guidance system would be in the Lander. The CTV navigation and guidance system would only be needed for the short period of time between jettisoning the Lander and actual landing on Earth at the end of a mission. This can be performed by a combination of RLG (Ring Laser Gyroscopes) and accelerometers. This would be a very simple system using equipment already in production or design for 'unmanned' space vehicles like the mars probes.

Communications and telemetry system

This would be the main communications system for the entire vehicle except for the launch vehicle. It would be used for all forms of communications including voice, video, television, data and telemetry.

Crew Transport Vehicle specifications

	Big Gemini	Dragon by comparison
Crew:	6	7 for LEO; 4 for Lunar missions
Length:	5.2m	2.9m
Diameter:	3.9m	3.6m
Total Mass:	5262.00 kg	4200kg
Structure:	1300.00 kg
Heat shield:	850.00 kg
Crew mass:	540.00 kg
Recovery (waterborne/paraglider):	250.00 kg
RCS (including propellant):	500.00 kg
Navigation, Guidance and Control:	30.00 kg
Communications/telemetry:	150.00 kg
Crew seats and provisions:	550.00 kg
Environment Control System (ECS):	250.00 kg
Electrical equipment:	500.00 kg
Contingency:	342.00 kg
Pressurised volume	18.7m³	10m³

Lunar surface equipment

This will include the space suit the crew will wear on the surface. Unlike the Apollo suit, this will have a removable coverall similar to that which was proposed in the early part of the Apollo program.

Accommodation Module in more detail

The Accommodation Module (AM) is intended to provide the crew with most of the comforts of home, but in a, shall we say, 'compact' form. It is intended that the crew would place the AM under the surface of the Moon at the earliest opportunity as this provides additional thermal, micrometeoroid and radiation protection.

There will be two versions of the AM: the initial version which supports a crew of six, and the Enhanced Version which only supports two crew members each. The latter is used when people move to the Moon for either a very extended period or permanently. The EV AM has improved comfort while using essentially the same facilities.

The Initial Version is capable of supporting six crew members for as long as the crew stay on the Moon, but conditions are rather cramped. The first two AM's will only have facilities for three crew members as the first crews will be smaller than the usual post-IOC crews.

Later modules are somewhat more spacious as they only support two. This will provide the crew with much more comfort, but will only really be possible once the base has reached Initial Operational Capability (IOC).

Initial Version of the AM (created with CorelDraw 7)

In addition, the Logistics Modules can also be converted into what amounts to apartments. These will be used by people who wish to remain on the Moon for much longer than would be normal for a full crew. This may be the case for people who wish to live permanently on the Moon as well as long-term visitors. These people will be the first real citizens of the Moon. This subject is dealt with in more detail under the heading of Logistics Module.

It is to be remembered that the AM is similar in structural configuration to Spacelab. It consists of a cylinder, two end domes (one with a hatch in it and an airlock attached to the hatch) and a floor structure. Under this floor is provision for extensive storage of various equipment and even a long-term freezer much larger than that in the kitchen area.

Accommodation Module specifications (initial version)

Length (external):	7.00m
Length (internal):	6.80m
Width (external):	4.20m
Width (internal):	4.00m
Mass (empty):	4,151.00 kg
Mass (loaded):	6,500.00 kg
Power requirements:	12 kW/h
Crew size:	6

Accommodation Module specifications (Enhanced Version)

Length (external):	7.00m
Length (internal):	6.80m
Width (external):	4.20m
Width (internal):	4.00m
Mass (empty):	4,151.00 kg
Mass (loaded):	6,700.00 kg
Power requirements:	6 kW/h

Experiment Module in detail

The Experiment Module (EM) is essentially the same structure as the AM, but with a different fit-out to suit its different uses.

The EM will be used to perform experiments in materials science, metallurgical science, medical science and other areas of interest to the program.

The EM is used to:

melt samples of Lunar soil;

crush small rocks (to test their resiliency and brittleness);

process small amounts of the melted Lunar material;

test the reactions of the processed material to the Lunar environment;

test for radiation, thermal and other effects upon the equipment placed on the Moon;

perform medical tests on the crew members;

prepare samples for return to Earth;

as well as other uses, including, if necessary, minor surgery and dentistry.

Experiment Module specifications

Mass (total):	6700.00 kg
Mass (equipment):	2549.00 kg
Length:	7.00m
Diameter:	4.20m
Power requirements:	5.0 kW/h

Gas Processing Unit in detail

For near term use, it will be more economical to use oxygen regeneration equipment similar to what was used on the Mir space station and is used on the International Space Station. This equipment is small, comparatively light weight and, being in production, is already available and will therefor be much less expensive to purchase when compared to developing new equipment. In addition, this equipment can be integrated with the AM which means that there is a reduced need for launches, meaning the 'spare' launcher can be used for additional equipment including additional atmosphere component processing equipment which will be necessary if the GPU is not used for this purpose.

The current generation of oxygen generators, called Elektron, uses the moisture from the air, condenses, before electrolysing the liquid water. With Mir, the hydrogen was vented overboard. This will not occur with Apollo NG as the hydrogen is a useful product in the fuel cell electrical system.

The GPU is designed to remove the gases that are trapped in Lunar rock and soil by melting this material and collecting the gases.

Some of the gases that are contained in Lunar material include oxygen (up to 42% by weight), nitrogen (very small quantities, but they will be useful when large amounts of oxygen and other gases are recovered), hydrogen (again only in small quantities) and helium. Much has been said of one isotope of helium, H3 which has the potential of providing an enormous amount of energy if nuclear fusion reactors can be made efficient and powerful enough, but that may be decades away. I am not saying that it is not possible (in fact I hope it is very possible), just a long way off and too far in the future to be worth considering as a part of planning for Apollo NG.

Oxygen is, therefor, the main gas which can be recovered from Lunar material. For a Lunar base, oxygen is used in three ways: sustaining life; providing electricity when combined with hydrogen; and as the oxidant in rockets.

Recovering the gases is quite straight forward but requires the input of a sizeable amount of energy mostly in the form of electricity and heat. The heat can come from any number of sources. While it may seem obvious to use the heat from the sun, the problem lies in getting the heat into contact with the material to be melted while still collecting the gases given off. Another possible method is to use electrodes in the sealed 'melting pot', but this will require even more electricity and may be beyond the generation capability of even several PM's.

The waste product from the GPU is molten rock - slag. This slag can be formed very easily into slabs for use as landing pads for the Landers and also formed into curved sections (like sections of terracotta pipe) for use in making up additional pressure modules. However, this latter use will be some years after the initial crew lands, and would require engineering tests to ensure the integrity of the structure. Also, sealing the individual sections may require sealant, such as silicone, which would have to be delivered from Earth at considerable expense, but less than the cost of sending entire pressure modules from Earth.

The main problem that I see with the GPU is what process to use. Several processes are possible, and the only way to discover which one is the right one, is to perform Earth-bound tests.

The most likely, and I believe, the simplest, method is that of "Magma Reduction". Basically, this involves placing regolith in a sealed chamber called a "Reaction chamber" and an electric current is passed between electrodes, thus melting the regolith. Methane gas is then passed through the magma, which picks up the oxygen, turning the gas into a combination of carbon monoxide and 'loose' hydrogen. These gases are cooled before additional hydrogen is added in another chamber, producing methane and steam. This combination is then cooled further to condense the water vapour, which goes to an electrolysis unit. The methane produced in the second last step is recycled in the system.

The simplicity of this system is that 'ordinary' Lunar regolith can be used without separating out the iron oxide and titanium oxide (the normally accepted alternatives). This greatly simplifies the processing and reduces the amount of equipment needed. However, the size of the reaction chamber is somewhat larger.

The only two problems with this process are the amount of electricity needed and the replacement of the electrodes.

The amount of electricity required will be about 100 kW. This can only really be provided during the daylight hours as the number of fuel cells required for night time use would require approximately five Power Modules. That may be a step used at a later time, as oxygen is often quoted as the first export from the Moon.

One article I have read, from a book titled "Space Technology" (Principle editor and consultant: Kenneth Gatland, published by Salamander Books in 1981) states that a module with a mass of 8000 kg will be able to produce about 100 kg of oxygen a day.

As the Lander will have a maximum payload of 6.7 tonnes, that means no more than 83 kg per day of oxygen. However, for this document, I have used the figure of 75 kg per day of operation. This means that 12675 kg of oxygen is produced in one year (13 days of continuous operation per Lunar cycle and 13 Lunar cycles per year - 13 x 13 x 75 = 12675 kg). This is sufficient to provide the crew with breathing oxygen as well as a substantial amount of oxidant sufficient for the return of two CTV's as well as about 1,300 kg reserve.

Replacement of the electrodes will be a continuing process, and can be simplified by using simple connect/disconnect fittings between the electrodes and the structure of the reaction chamber. I do not, however, recommend automating the process as this introduces additional complexity into the system. After all, who maintains the automated system?

The GPU can be used for other purposes, including regeneration of the 'bad' air which contains amounts of CO² exhaled by the crew. This process is quite well known, but will not require a system the size I have proposed for Apollo.

Details of the GPU are by necessity scant.

Gas Processing Unit specifications

Mass: 6700.00 kg

Gas production capability: 12675.00 kg

Electricity requirement: 100.00 kW plus

Power Module in detail

The generation of electricity on the Moon is quite easy if the sun is available. You simply use solar cells and buffer batteries (the batteries are kept constantly charged from the solar cells and feed the electricity to what ever equipment is using it). The real problem starts when the sun sets, and it sets for 14.75 days at a time out of a 28 day cycle.

Some people favour using nuclear reactors as they are light and efficient generators of electricity. They also generate lethal radiation and a large amount of heat, both of which need to be dealt with. While the radiation can be kept at bay by using shielding or burying the reactor in a crater, the heat must be removed using a radiator which would be prohibitively large. In addition, there is only limited experience of the use of nuclear reactors in space operations (the RTG's used by American space craft are not true reactors, they are heat sources, generating electricity with thermocouples). This means a great deal of development work would be required. Apollo NG is about getting to the Moon for the least money.

I favour using fuel cells for night-time electricity in combination with solar cells for daytime needs. These cells are already in production (by UTC Fuel Cells [previously called International Fuel Cells] - http://www.utcpower.com/products/space-defense) and are used by the Space Shuttle.

It is to be remembered that the Space Shuttle is in orbit for up to 16 days at a time. This equates to 384 hours of constant use. Lunar usage will only be 354 hours at a time and only at night as daytime electricity is provided by solar cells. This also means the fuel cells will be able to be repaired during each daytime period if necessary.

Each shuttle fuel cell is overhauled after 5,000 hours which works out to be 14 Lunar days. That means each cell would need replacing every year, but the idea would be to transport replacement fuel cells to the Moon on a Logistics Module and simply change the cells over. Thus, instead of having to replace the entire Power Module (at 7,500kg plus the expense of a Lander and an entire launch - something of the order of $450-500 million), only 360kg would have to be transported with the crew performing the changeover. While there would be no need to perform an overhaul of the 'old' cells, there is no reason why such a maintenance program could not be performed on the Moon - all that is needed is somewhere to perform the task, people to perform the task and time in which to carry out the task; this would come at a later stage of the Moon program.

Operation in a gravity environment will enhance cell operation as water will not accumulate in the cell. This also may mean that the use of hydrogen to flush the water from the cells, as is the case in weightlessness, may not be necessary, reducing the complexity of the system. This would lead to a reduction in costs.

Lunar electricity needs

Electrolyser uses 6.4kW/m³ of hydrogen produced.

PEM fuel cells consume 900 litres (0.9m³) per hour, per kW produced.

318 hours of daylight available for electrolyser (300 hours planning factor).

354 hours of darkness for fuel cell use (360 hours planning factor).

16.2m³/h of hydrogen must be produced.

Hydrogen production will require 103.68kW of solar electricity capacity weighing 4872.96kg at 47.0kg/kW (rollable solar panels).

System weight would be?

At Initial Operation Capability (IOC), each person on the Moon will be require 2.5 kW. This amount is divided into: 2 kW for ECS and internal systems such as cooking and lighting as well as a small amount for personal use and 0.5 kW for external lighting and electricity use such as battery charging. The total amount of water produced from this would be 800 ltr total over 354 hours of operation (one Lunar night).

To process this water would take 12.8 kW per hour and 300 hours (3840 kWh total). This figure is based on information from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) which states that the amount of electricity needed to produce one cubic metre of hydrogen with electrolysis of water is 4.8 kWh, there being one cubic metre of hydrogen (at atmospheric pressure) in each litre of water. This does not take into account the electricity needed to compress the gas into liquid, which requires an additional 5 kW per m³. This latter amount is included in the Gas Processing Unit specifications.

To process this water will take a minimum of about 2 tonnes of equipment.

For a crew of six, electricity consumption will be 15 kW total per hour, which is about seven percent more than the Space Shuttle consumes for a crew of seven.

Combined with fuel cells (120 kg each, based on the units used in the U.S. Space Shuttle), storage for the necessary amounts of hydrogen (with hydrogen being part of the basic load - 106.26 kg with a tank weight of 250 kg), oxygen (690.5 kg, and a tank weight of 185 kg) and water (tank weight of 80 kg) and the solar array for the electrolysis plant (298.70 kg at 3.5 kg per m² – 150 watts per m²) for a total of 1671.76 kg, as well as the solar array needed to provide the ‘daylight’ 15 kW the crewmember will have (350 kg at 3.5 kg per m² – 150 watts per m²), plus the electrolysis unit, the total mass would be 970 kg per person excluding the weight of the water produced by the fuel cells, although this latter figure is directly offset by conversion of the oxygen and hydrogen.

With 2912.8 kg needed for each crew member or a total of 5825.6 kg for two crewmembers, there remains 874.4 kg in each Power Module. The system would be divided into three equal sections separated by 'firewalls' intended to prevent both power systems from being incapacitated. Thus, if any one unit is inoperable, the other unit can provide the minimum needs for the two crew members, but with little spare capacity.

An alternative to this concept would be to keep the electrolysis system separate and occupied on its own Lander. Although this requires an additional Lander, it would allow the PM to be used by 7 people while the electrolysis system would be capable of supporting at least 8 people.

There are two different, as yet developmental, types of fuel cells available for further consideration. These are PEM (Photon Exchange Membrane) and Solid fuel cells. Both designs are more efficient than the type of cells used in the shuttle, requiring less maintenance and are also less expensive to purchase and operate as well as producing much less heat which means the radiator size could be reduced. Problem is, they are still only developmental but are reaching the initial commercial stage.

Figures for three and six crew members (kg)

Crew size 6 3

Fuel cells 480.00

Oxygen 3228.2 1614.00

Oxygen tank 831.00

Hydrogen 406.9 203.5

Hydrogen tank 958.00

Water tank 900.00

Fixed system mass (tanks and fuel cells) 3169.00

Reactant totals 3635.10 1817.5

Sub total mass for six crew members 6804.10 4986.5

Solar cells (day time crew needs) 654.00

Electrolysis solar cells 298.70

Electrolysis system 2,000.00

Total energy requirements 4320.46

Radiator for fuel cells and electrolysis system 1,500.00

Total including radiator 7112.00

Mass capacity remaining on Lander ????

The same system could support 3 crew members at 5 kW each. This would be useful during construction as well as when a large amount of electricity was needed for experiments.

The 'spare' mass would be utilised by carrying an extra amount of oxygen for the crew, or hydrogen for conversion into additional water for life support as well as electricity generation.

Power Module specifications

Mass:	6700.00 kg
Power generation:	30.00 kW
Fuel cell mass (each, peak):	7.00 kW
Generation endurance:	360.00 hrs

The Power Module also includes an electrolyses unit to electrolyse the water back to its constituent oxygen and hydrogen as well as compress the gases into liquid for storage until they are needed.

Engineering Equipment

This equipment is essential for operations on the Lunar surface. Cranes, excavators, dozers, screens, rollers and other equipment.

None of the equipment, with the exception the crane, will look all that different from what is found on Earth. The crane, however, is very much different in appearance.

Due to the nature of the Moon, with one sixth the gravity of Earth and also no wind or rain, any structure, such as a building or tower, will look different than it would on Earth.

Crane

The crane is trailer mounted, fitted with an electric winch with manual boom and stabiliser extension.

Earth capacity (2721kg at 1.5m 703kg at 6m)

Lunar capacity = six times above

Mass 1,000kg

On the Moon, a load of 7 tonnes can be handled at 3.65m boom length

Loader

This will look very much like the kind of small loader seen on Earth. There will be no pressurisation system in any of the early vehicles used by the crew in order to reduce their complexity.

The initial loader will be a multipurpose vehicle capable being fitted with a variety of attachments to enable it to perform the following tasks, amongst others:

· Loading the GPM;

· General soil and rock movement;

· Light dozing work (filling in craters for tracks);

· Levelling of areas (see above);

· Removal of rocks using a 'Rubble Bucket' (similar to a loader bucket but with slots in it to allow soil to fall through);

· Compaction of tracks and construction sites using a vibratory roller;

· Post hole digging for placement of light poles and antenna masts;

· 'Burying' pressure modules

· Towing trailers

Specifications

This is based on a fuel cell powered version of the Avant 220 loader with various attachments

Loader specifications

Empty mass 620kg

Length 1.745m

Width 0.96m

Height 1.856m (reducible to 1.5m without roll cage)

Power 2.5kW PEM fuel cell

Attachments

General Bucket (0.96m wide, volume 0.13m³, mass 57kg)

Backhoe (Slewing 130° Digging depth 1500 mm Loading height 1350 mm Bucket width 250 mm 150kg)

Grapple (Tine length 600 mm Width 900 mm 65kg)

Dozer Blade (blade height 0.35m, working width 1.4m, rotation angle +/- 30º, 100kg)

Pallet Forks (length 0.85m, 90kg)

Roller (working width is 1.0m, delivery mass is 50kg, but when filled with Lunar soil, it would be up to 150kg)

Total system mass is 1,132kg

Dump Trailer

This is a twin-axle trailer designed for heavy-duty operations. It is used for moving rocks and other material over greater distances than would be economical using just the loader. While the trailer is made of heavy duty steel construction, this is necessary due to the work load and working conditions.

It can be towed by the Loader or another vehicle.

5 x 5 cm Square Tube Frame

Dimensions (overall L x W x H) 2.27m x 1.19m x 0.94m

Dimensions (bed L x W x H) 1.85m x 1.14m x 0.30m

Volume 0.63 Cubic m

GVM 727 kg.

Weight Empty 244 kg.

Tires 63 x 30 x 23 cm

Ground Clearance 0.63m

Electric Brakes

Brake/Tail light

Electric Dump Bed

Crusher

Used to reduce the size of rock to more useable dimensions.

Type Crusher Jaw

Drives Hydraulic

Material Manganese steel

Power 10kW (solar)

Fuel Usage 1.5 litres per hour (approx)

Approx Throughput 6 tons / hour (max)

Output Sizes 5 mm - 70 mm

Input Size 400 mm x 170 mm

Discharge Height 1.200m

Loading Height 1.500m

Weight 1,400 kg

Length 3.000m

Width 0.750m - 1.060m

Height 1.560m

Screener

There are two screeners; small and large. The small screener will be on the first load of engineering equipment and the large screener will be on a later flight.

The screeners designed to sift Lunar soil into different sizes. The initial unit will be used to provide fine material for the initial covering of the pressure modules as well as aggregate for construction of tracks and also to provide material for the Gas Processing Unit and Gas Processing Module.

Small screener specifications

Mass 45kg

Power 200-250 watts?? From Power Module

Length 0.966m

Width 0.966m

Height 0.915m

Large screener specifications

Mass 850kg

Power 4kW (fuel cell from Power Module or independent solar which adds 96kg to mass)

Logistics Module in detail

The LM would be used to supply the crew with all their food, clothing and other supplies, but excluding water and oxygen. The oxygen comes from the GPU and water is manufactured on the Moon by combining hydrogen brought from Earth with oxygen from the GPU.

NASA worked out many years ago that each person needs 5.5 kg of supplies per day just to survive. This consists of 1.1 kg of food, 0.8 kg of oxygen, and 3.6 kg of water. By not needing to bring either the oxygen for breathing or the oxygen in the water, mass per person per day goes down to just 1.5 kg. These figures are just for survival and do not take into account other consumables such as toilet paper, facial tissues, soap, toothpaste etc.

Space Shuttle astronauts are allocated 1.73kg of food per day. This includes the water in the food.

However, the NASA study did not take into account the nitrogen in the air as early American spacecraft only used oxygen for the atmosphere. Nitrogen makes up 78 percent by volume of air at sea level on Earth. Nitrogen is delivered in liquid form with the tanks stored under the floor of the LM's. It is estimated that 0.7 kg of nitrogen will be 'consumed' per day for metabolism and leakage per person, which equates to 4.2 kg of nitrogen per day for a crew of six.

I believe that 1.5 kg per person per day is insufficient today, as the food used by NASA astronauts in the early days of spaceflight, when the quoted figures were published, was mostly in tubes or treated until it becomes virtually unpalatable.

Another 1.5 kg would include nitrogen (every time a hatch is opened, some gas is lost and this has to be made up, as well as the fact that no seal is perfect) as well as such necessities as soap, toothpaste and of course, that staple of modern civilisation, toilet paper (don't think it's a staple in the same way as food? Try living without it for a month!). I have allowed for 4.5 kg per person per day, but the crew would need less than 3.0 kg including nitrogen for life support and other items.

The LM is based on the original version of the Italian built International Space Station MPLM, but is made of composite material as empty mass is more critical (greater distance from Earth = greater expense). The LM has an empty mass of 2500 kg and can carry up to 3300 kg of cargo. 3300 kg is sufficient, at 4.5 kg per person per day, to supply the non-air/non-water needs of six crew members for 122 days, or, at 3 kg per person, 365 days for a crew of three, or 183 days for three crew members at 6 kg per person, per day, or 244 days at 4.5 kg per day with three crew members. This would have to include the amount of nitrogen needed for each crew member.

This means that three flights per year are needed to support the six crew members (see later section titled "flight schedule").

In addition, the early flights will only have a crew of three. Therefor, three people, at 6 kg per day per person would have supplies from one LM for 183 days. This means that only two LM's are needed per year to support a crew of three.

This module uses the Environment Control System developed for the Mini Pressurised Logistics Module used by the International Space Station.

Unlike the MPLM, the LM has a floor. The volume under the floor will be used for bulk storage of liquids including nitrogen and chemicals while the 'main deck' area will be used for storage of food, clothing, machinery etc.

In addition to the LM, a large tank of LH2 would be carried by the Lander that carries the LM. Some of this hydrogen would go to the Power Module, but most would be for return propulsion. Each tank would provide 3.3 ltr of water per crew member per day for 122 continuous days without any recycling and would eventually add up to enable each crew member to have proper showers rather than a cloth rub-down at the end of a long days hard work.

Approximately 930 kg of the hydrogen would be needed for each crew's return to Earth. While this is more than can be delivered with the normal tanks, there is also a small reserve of propellant in each Lander which is used to provide 30 seconds of hover time. Remember also that the crews bring along supplies of food and water with them, but these are normally used for the flight to and from the Moon. The hydrogen delivered by four LM's would be more than sufficient for the return of the CTV to Earth.

Once the LM is empty, it would not simply be thrown away. The LM is about the size of a small lounge room and there is no reason it couldn't be used for spare accommodation, supporting either individuals or even couples in the same way as married quarters at military bases. Alternatively, the LM could be used for recreation facilities or even as a 'Green Module', being used to grow fresh food, such as vegetables and even some fruit for the crew to supplement the 'long-life' food the crew would otherwise have to put up with.

In addition, the LM's can be converted into workshops for various disciplines including electrical engineering, metal engineering (grinders, welders etc), or as repair workshops for vehicles and other equipment.

When the LM's are used as Green Modules, they would have the racking replaced by shelves on each wall about 1m from the floor. The racking below this point would be used for storing such equipment as gardening tools, fertiliser, water pumps etc. Insects and weeds are not likely to be much of a problem. Each of these shelves would be about 0.5m wide and would have a large lip. These shelves would hold soil and the plants would be placed in the soil. The soil would be a combination of the material coming from the digester (covered later) and Lunar soil. Lunar soil has been shown to contain most of the nutrients plants need with the major exception of nitrogen which is introduced in the digested material.

Some of the racks which have been removed would be placed along the centreline of the module and a shelf would be placed on top of this for the same purpose, but would be about 1.0m wide. This allows two aisles about 0.5m wide to be located between each of the side shelves and the centre shelf. This provides about 12m² of growing space in each Green Module.

The types of food grown will be for addition to the normal diet rather than as a replacement and would consist of fruit and fresh vegetables. Foods in the initial stages will be high volume foods and also foods that don't travel well or don't take to much preserving. Also, rather than delivering a loaf of bread to the Moon, the LM's will deliver packets of prepared ingredients that the crew can simply add water before placing the mix in the oven. The smell of fresh bread will also be an enormous morale booster (there's just something about the smell of fresh bread).

In addition to the normal supplies, the first LM would also have a complete laundry built into it.

The second and third LMs would have two hatches, The second LM would have one in the normal position and an additional hatch in the ceiling. The third would have the normal hatch being complemented by a hatch in the floor. While this sounds strange, the reason is quite simple. With all the crew support modules, such as the AM and the EM buried, a means must be provided for access to the surface. This is quite simple when the second LM is also buried and after its use as a Logistics Module is complete, it becomes an airlock chamber in the manner of the Connecting Nodes on the International Space Station. The third LM is then placed over, and connected to, the second LM to form the above-surface access. A ladder would be used to enable crews to get from one to the other of what are now termed Airlock Compartments. Space suits would be kept in the lower module, along with some support equipment. There would also be a block and tackle arrangement for lowering equipment too heavy (even on the Moon) for one person to carry down a ladder.

Upon re-entering the upper Airlock after being on the surface, the crew would clean and remove their suit and then go down the ladder to the lower Airlock where the suits would be maintained.

The first LM would also be connected to and buried with the other Crew modules so the laundry can be used all the time without needing to use space suits to get to it (also, the image of an astronaut in a space suit, walking on the surface of the Moon carrying a basket of dirty clothes....). Eventually, this first LM would be used specifically for cleaning and pressing of clothes. This step would be taken once the basic base had been completed and additional people were going to the Moon.

The upper Airlock Compartment would be covered in a thick layer of Lunar soil for radiation, thermal and meteoroid protection, with a kind of lip attached to the outside of the compartment above the hatch to prevent any soil getting onto the hatch or the crews using the hatch. The lip also serves to keep the sun off the hatch and the rest of the front of the compartment. Although simply placing the compartment so the front hatch faces away from the sun would help, there is the additional problem of light reflected off the Lunar surface and especially off mountains and crater walls.

As an alternative use for the empty LM's, they can be easily converted for other uses including additional accommodation, experiment facilities, storage, factory space, etc. Using the LM's as additional accommodation would be the most useful conversion in the long term. While they would not be capable of supporting an entire six person crew, they could be converted into what amounts to apartments. The fittings would be brought from Earth, but this would still save a great deal of mass compared to delivering additional Accommodation Modules.

While this would require all the LM's to be buried along with the other support modules, it would enable greater numbers of people to be permanently supported. This would enable visitors to stay for much longer periods, even permanently.

If the empty LM's were used as apartments, then they could be fitted out for one or two people, each with their own room, complete with bathroom, kitchen and small laundry. This would allow much more comfortable furnishings and other items to be incorporated providing incentives to remain for longer periods and even permanently, as the first humans to spend their entire lives away from Earth.

This use of the empty LM's would be similar to providing permanent accommodation in Antarctica or other isolated locations and would require special facilities to help the 'residents' deal with the isolation. The same communications equipment fitted to the AM and EM would be fitted to allow greater communications per individual as they will be away from home for longer periods of time. This will be used for both private and 'business' communications.

In addition, there will be a small kitchen for two rather than six people.

Some of the people who will use the apartments would be:

Business people representing possible investors looking at expanding production as well as producing additional products such as optical fibres, mirrors for telescopes, windows for spacecraft modules etc.

Contractor representatives to check, maintain and modify equipment.

Additional scientists.

Doctors, such as surgeons, dentists, psychiatrists, psychologists and other health professionals.

Factory workers.

Visitors, such as dignitaries.

Media.

The latter may not be necessary as they can hire the crew on a part-time basis for 'on-the-spot' reports, but the media may require a specialist for more detailed reports.

The only problem with increasing the size of the crew is supplying them with food and other items. For that reason, most of the early LM's will be used for growing supplementary food and the food brought from Earth can be stored for emergency use as well as providing food for the additional crew members.

Logistics Module specifications

Length (external): 4.25m

Length (internal): 4.05m

Width (external): 4.20m

Width (internal): 4.00m

Mass (empty): 2500.00 kg

Mass (payload): 3300.00 kg

Mass (total): 5800.00 kg

Cost (without cargo): ?

Possible flight schedule and costs

Apollo was planned to last at least to Apollo 20, but the last three missions were cancelled due to budget constraints. In other words, the financial rug was pulled out from under NASA. This will not happen with the fixed budget I have suggested.

As each flight of the Delta V will cost $300 million, it would seem that an annual budget of $5 billion would provide for 16 and two thirds missions per year, on average. That, however, does not take into account the cost of the payloads for the missions, or research and development. With a budget of 5 billion dollars per year, it is possible to provide 7 missions plus the payloads for these missions, plus additional money for further research and development.

This works out to an average of $290 million per mission for the payload as well as $300 million for the Delta V.

Research and development will take four years, and cost less than $20 billion. Remember, fixed budget plus inflation.

By making all the pressure modules from the same basic units (cylindrical sections, end-domes etc), including the LM's, it is possible to use the same basic assembly line for all these modules. This will mean a major reduction in the cost of each module, while providing constant employment for the production personnel

By using a standard cylinder length (2.75 metres), and simply changing the number of cylinders between the standard end domes, any size needed can be provided. There will be two standard end domes. One with a hatch to allow for the airlock, and one without a hatch. The latter is simply a dome similar to that used in any of the pressure modules since Spacelab, including the International Space Station.

It is not a standard procedure in the government sponsored space industry to have one team of people employed on the same project for more than about 5 years, resulting in a cost increase every time a new system is introduced due to re-training etc. With the system I am proposing, the project is virtually endless if it is expanded beyond the basic Lunar base I have proposed in this study and costs will only equal those of the Apollo program after 40 years of continuous operations. This will result in people teaching their children and grand children how to do their job. Three generations of people doing the same work. That happens in very few industries and certainly not in the space industry.

Assuming that the program lasts for 40 years, it will be seen that the money spent was not only well spent, but was a necessary precursor to the programs which will spin off from Apollo NG. In 40 years, people will definitely be living on Mars and possibly factory bases in the asteroid belt and on the moons of Jupiter, Saturn and the other outer planets.

But for now, the Moon is the target. Once the Moon program has started to pay for itself (I have estimated this stage to be reached 10 years after initial landings), the money otherwise allocated can be put into other programs such as Mars, large Earth orbit space stations or even other space-related purposes, ensuring that future generations are given similar opportunities for exploration and development. All this for $5 billion per year.

As for the flight schedule, I have already stated that only seven flights per year are possible. This is still 3.5 times that achieved with the Apollo program[2], but considerably less than some people have deemed necessary for the establishment of a Lunar base, including the US Army which conducted a study called Project Horizon in 1959/60. So, the question is: Are seven flights sufficient to establish a Lunar base? I think so. See for yourself on the following pages.

Flight schedule

Year 1

Flight Number	Payload
1	Accommodation Module 1
2	Experiment Module 1
3	Gas Processing Unit 1 or LH²/LOX (delivered as water)
4	Power Module 1 (3 kW per person)
5	Logistics Module 1
6	Excavation and engineering equipment
7	Crew 1 (AM 1)
8 (additional)
9 (additional)

Due to radiation hazards, the crew would arrive just before sunset. This will also ensure the landing is as easy as possible as the surface features would be more stark than during the height of the Lunar day.

The first task of the first crew would be to use the crane to remove the AM from its Lander and place it on the ground. Once this is done, the AM would be 'chocked' to ensure it does not move. The loaders would scoop Lunar soil and place it into the vibrating screen in order to separate the fines from the larger rocks and rock fragments. The finest material would then be literally poured over the top of the AM to a depth of at least two metres to provide thermal, micrometeoroid and radiation protection. As this would be done during the Lunar night, the crew could quite safely live inside the AM.

During the subsequent Lunar day, the crew would venture out of the AM as little as possible because of the risk of radiation. Readers are quite familiar with being able to read here on Earth during a full Moon. The Moon's albedo (reflectivity) is about 7% (meaning that of the light that hits it, only 7% is reflected - Lunar soil and rocks are almost black). The Earth is considerably larger and very much brighter, so working during the Lunar night would be quite easy; the crew would also have lights if necessary.

With the end of the first year, the basic elements of the base are in place. Now it is time to expand on the basics. For the first few months, the first crew will be busy installing the Accommodation and Experiment Modules and connecting them in addition to all the other tasks they will perform. This installation takes the form of digging a large hole with the excavation equipment and then placing the modules in that hole and infilling the hole; this process is called Cut and Fill.

The engineering equipment (dealt with in another section) on flight six would be quite basic and would consist of a small loader (and attachments such as dozer blade, bucket, a roller which would be a hollow drum filled with Lunar soil and a set of forks to create a sort of mini fork lift and backhoe]), vibratory screen, dump trailer and hauling vehicle (a small truck). There would also be a crane powerful enough to lift the pressure modules off the Landers and place them in the trenches dug by the loaders. The loader would also supply soil to the GPU.

The excavator would be used not only to dig holes for the pressure modules, but also to prepare tracks, entrench cables and pipes, prepare holes for light poles (this is much more satisfactory than using guy wires which tend to get in the way) and other duties.

Every time an LM (Logistics Module) arrives, 260 kg of hydrogen comes with it in a separate tank. It takes four tanks-full to supply all the hydrogen needed for the return of each crew, for a total of 931 kg. However, there is also a tank with each crew flight. This tank is even larger and has a capacity of 450 kg. This brings the total amount of hydrogen delivered to the Moon to 940 kg. Not much of a margin, but, combined with the hydrogen left in each Lander after landing, there will be ample reserves. Also, if all else fails, there is the hydrogen used for the fuel cells. This would form an emergency-only reserve as it would make the base uninhabitable, except during daylight hours. There is a possibility of a larger tank on each flight due to increase launch payload of the Delta V over the original figures used above - originally, the Delta V was going to have a payload into LEO of about 47 tonnes, but it now looks like a payload of 55 tonnes will be available (17% more). This will increase landing payload to between 7,000 and 7,500kg.

Due to electricity consumption, the first crew will only have three members, with minimum external electricity usage. This should not cause too many difficulties as the experimentation will only really get underway in earnest with a later crew, the first crew is mainly there to set up the main components of the base.

The crew on these early flights will consist of a Commander who is in charge of the overall mission; Pilot who is in charge of the operations of the CTV including all manoeuvres; and a Scientist. This latter crew member will be a specialist such as a geologist. The Commander and Pilot will also be concerned with base construction tasks. It will be, predominantly, their work that will bring the initial base to operational levels. By having the Commander and Pilot do this work while on the Moon, the Scientist can concentrate on finding solutions to such problems that may arise with the equipment as well as searching for important minerals and oxides.

For that reason, it will be important to have a certain amount of cross-training of the crew members. This does not mean that the Scientist would be able to perform the functions of the Commander, or even the Pilot, but they may be able to assist in an emergency situation.

Year 2

Flight Number	Payload
1	Engineer Equipment 2
2	Accommodation Module 2
3	Logistics Module 2
4	Power Module 2
5	Gas Processing Module 2
6	Logistics Module 3
7	Crew 2 (AM 2) arrive. Crew 1 leaves on the same Crew Transport Vehicle 2
8
9

By the end of the second year:

· The first crew has returned to Earth and has been replaced by the second.

· The third LM has been delivered, with the first two being needed to support the first crew.

· The second, probably modified, versions of both the GPM and PM have been delivered, increasing the base's support facilities to enable six crew members to be on the Moon at one time.

· The second, modified, AM has been delivered.

· Additional engineering equipment has arrived - including a small smelting unit and crushing plant.

And the outpost has started to look quite busy.

By the end of the second year of flights, the base is ready for expansion beyond the basics. This is possible as there is now 4.3 ltr of water per crew member per day and the empty LM's are being used for growing plants as well as other purposes. By this stage, it is estimated 25% of the food for the entire crew will be grown in just these four modules, with the rest coming from Earth for several subsequent years. It would take at least eight years from the first LM arrival before the basic crew of six would be growing all their own food.

As for the replacement crews, they would arrive and take up 'digs' in the second AM before the departure of the previous crew. The first CTV would be, essentially, a once-only vehicle as it would have been on the Moon for almost a year by the time the second crew arrives. While this means that the crew that remains on the Moon has no way of returning to Earth, it should not be that much of a problem. Remember, people live in Antarctica for more than six months without any chance of returning to 'civilisation'.

Other than the 'permanent' crews which change places every 12 months, there would also, by this stage, be room and support for visitors. These visitors would only stay for a few weeks before leaving in the CTV which brought the long-stay crew. This provides a vital mission also, by replacing the CTV on a regular basis. As the visitor crews would only be temporary, they would not be given a 'crew number' like the long-stay crews, but would be given a suffix similar to that illustrated for flight year 3. This would not only provide additional personnel for the base, but would provide something intangible, but even more important: boost to the morale of the long-stay crews. Initially, visitors would only visit once per year due to the flight schedule.

There is no need for the visitor crews to consist of six people. The visitor crews would be say, 3 people plus additional supplies for their use and support, equating to about 545 kg. This 545 kg of supplies is sufficient, at 2.5 kg per day per person, for a stay of 70 days. While this amount is barely adequate for normal survival living standards, there will have been considerable amounts of food grown at the base.

The visitor crews would use AM 1 as it is equipped to support up to three people on an extended basis.

Year 3

Flight Number	Payload
1	Smelting, forming, extruding and moulding equipment
2	Logistics Module 4
3	Crew 3 arrives (AM 1) Crew 2 leave
4	Logistics Module 5
5	Visitor Crew 3b arrives (AM2). Leaves 70 days later in CTV3
6	Logistics Module 6
7	LH2
8
9

By the end of the third year:

· 40% of the crews food is grown on the Moon. This constitutes at least most of the vegetables the crew would consume.

· Limited commercial operations begin.

· CTV 1 can be abandoned if necessary as Crew 3b brings Crew 3's CTV replacement.

This year marks a turning point of sorts. The addition of smelting, forming, extruding and moulding equipment would mark the commencement of money-making operations. No, they would not go into the printing business but rather they would go into the business of making silicon computer chips for sale on Earth. Up to now, the chips that have been made have been purely to test the validity of the concept. The visitor crews would also take back additional chips as they have about 545 kg spare capacity which equates to $43.6 million.

In addition to the normal payloads, there would also be a delivery of bulk liquid hydrogen. This would be used for launching additional Landers with maximum payloads. The payloads would not be people on these flights, but would instead be the first chips to be made on the Moon for commercial sale. The chips would only fetch about $100 million at commercial rates compared to the cost of the original flight of $424 million, but it is only the start. If one flight per year is a return flight of computer chips, then once every fifth year a flight would be paid for. I think we can do better, but it's a start.

If the TLI booster could be placed into Lunar orbit and then used to return payloads to Earth, then much greater masses are possible. Coincidently, and it is pure coincidence, each payload of LH2 is sufficient for 7 LM returns. Alternatively, the LH2 can be used to get the Lander back into Lunar orbit and then return to the surface. This reduces the total payload on each 'round-trip' flight, but there is an overall increase in payload returned to Earth, as there would be one much larger Return Vehicle (Payload Return Vehicle - PRV) with a simplified ECS and simplified lighting, little or no instrumentation etc. This provides for much improved payload performance.

About 3 tonnes could be placed into Lunar orbit from the surface with each round-trip. The remaining mass is made up of oxygen needed for the return to the surface. The LH2 would be brought into Lunar orbit by a TLI booster as its sole payload. This LH2 would be used not only for the Lander, but also for the TLI booster for the return trip to Earth. However, the problem of payload transfer from the Lander to the PRV has not been dealt with in this study and may require people in Lunar orbit which would further complicate logistics.

At this stage, it would become prudent to have control of Lunar operations pass to the Moon base itself. This is due to the communications lag time which is 1.3 seconds one-way from Earth to Moon and vice versa which causes difficulty during landing of the automated Landers.

This control can be provided by a Control Module based on the LM but fitted with communications and control equipment. Up to four people would be needed at a time for control of the Lander and Lunar orbit operations. This capability would arrive in Year 5. This capability would also enable Lunar surface operations to be fully controlled from the Moon. This frees up resources on Earth for other missions which will be in the initial planning stages at this point.

Flight One payload is also of interest. It carries the beginnings of the industrialisation of the Moon. This equipment enables the crew to manufacture such items as cylindrical sections from Lunar rock by using the moulding equipment, poles and frames from purified metal such as aluminium and iron (purified in the smelter) using the extrusion and forming equipment and anything else that they need, including machine parts.

This equipment enables the crew to make spare parts for machinery already on the Moon in addition to making new equipment to increase the capability of the base. Up until now, the slag from the GPUs has been made into simple slabs for use as landing pads. This use reduces the amount of dust kicked up during descent and also the subsequent ascent.

Year 4

Flight Number	Payload
1	Accommodation Module 3
2	Crew 4 arrive (AM-3). Crew 3 leave on the same CTV.
3	Logistics Module 7
4	Logistics Module 8
5	Visitor Crew 4b arrive (AM-1), leaving 70 days later in CTV 4.
6	LH2
7	Logistics Module 9
8
9

By the end of this year:

· Each crew member now has almost 10 ltr of water per day.

However, a not on water availability. Although there is only 10 ltr available per day per crew member, this would not take into account the water that had already been taken to the Moon or the amount of water available from the fuel cells. As the landers would all have a small amount of reserve propellant, there would be that source of hydrogen and oxygen which could be turned into water during the daylight hours by putting it through the fuel cells.

At this stage, the base is ready for the next jump in capability. This would be in the form of an additional long-stay crew making 12 crew members in addition to the visitor crews. This is possible due to the amount of food grown on the Moon as well as the water supply and the additional Accommodation Module.

The main job of the second long-stay crew would be operation of the Command and Control Module (CCM) as well as support of the other crew by performing any maintenance needed at the base while the other crew perform the main task of computer chip manufacturing. The visitor crews would also perform maintenance tasks when necessary, but their main task is continuation of the experiments.

AM-1, the original and oldest of the Accommodation Modules, is now used exclusively by the visitor crews.

Year 5

Flight Number	Payload
1	Command and Control Module
2	Logistics Module 10
3	Crew 5 arrive (AM-2). Crew 4 leave in CTV 5.
4	Logistics Module 11
5	LH2
6	Logistics Module 12
7	Factory Module 1
8
9

At the end of flight year 5, the base would be capable of permanently supporting 12 people as well as temporarily supporting 3 more.

By this stage, the first full-size Factory Module arrives. This is used to produce computer chips on an industrial scale and takes over from the Experiment Module which has been performing this task up to now.

All pressurised modules excluding the first three LMs would be attached to each other and buried.

The base now consists of:

3 Accommodation Modules,

1 Experiment Module,

1 Factory Module,

2 Power Modules,

2 Gas Processing Units,

12 Logistics Modules,

Excavation equipment,

Equipment for manufacturing computer chips,

30 or so Landers

and 12 human beings.

All this after just 5 years of flights and only 10 years after the program go-ahead.

Just 10 years after program go-ahead, the expansion of humanity into the rest of the universe has begun.

There is no reason why the tanks in the Landers could not be used for propellant/reactant storage or for the storage of water. In addition, the systems on the Landers could be used for other purposes.

Year 6

Flight Number	Payload
1	Logistics Module 13
2	Crew 6 (AM 3). Crew 5 leaves on CTV 6.
3	Logistics Module 14
4	LH²
5	Logistics Module 15
6	Visitor Crew 6b
7	Logistics Module 16
8
9

By the end of flight year six:

· Crew stay-time would increase to two years.

· 75% of long-stay crew food would be grown on the Moon (non-meat component). Additional food would be brought from Earth to provide variety and reserves, as well as to support short-stay crews.

· Additional long-stay/intermediate-stay crews could be supported.

· Sufficient food is grown to permanently support 13 people.

· Initial Outpost would become the first Facility as the permanent population has passed 10 people.

Year 7

Flight Number	Payload
1	Logistics Module 17
2	Crew 7 (AM 2). Crew 5 leaves on CTV 7.
3	Logistics Module 18
4	LH²
5	Logistics Module 19
6	Visitor Crew 7b
7	Logistics Module 20
8
9

By the end of flight year seven:

· Supplies from Earth can be reduced to 1.5kg per person, per day including food. This means four LM's can support up to 24 people.

· The first permanent inhabitants of the Moon could arrive.

At the end of Flight Year 6, things begin to change. First 'Circle Outpost' is set up in FY7, enabling scientists to isolate their equipment from the activities at the main facility (important for seismic research and astronomy)

Advantages and disadvantages of construction on the Moon

Advantages

Several advantages of the Lunar environment include:

· Reduced gravity

· Zero wind

· Negligible seismic activity

These three things, combined with existing construction technology, will lead to much simpler buildings and other structures.

Image, for example, the steel pylons that carry the high-tension power cables from the distant power stations to the city. Then imagine the structure being one-sixth lighter and structurally simpler. This will have to be taught to students of architecture, structural engineering and also to the people who will do the actual building. There is nothing like it on Earth and there is absolutely no experience in such techniques.

Disadvantages

There are several:

· Vacuum - this will necessitate equipment which can be operated by a person wearing a cumbersome pressure suit;

· Radiation - this will necessitate such things as complete burial of all habitable modules, as well as all cables connecting modules. Burial must be at least 1.0m below ground level for cables. At least 1 metre of Lunar soil should be placed over and around all habitable modules. Automated modules, such as the PM and GPU can be 'hardened' so the radiation does not adversely affect their operation during solar flares. Radiation exposure for people working outside the pressure modules can be reduced by having almost all the work performed during the Lunar night. This will enable over 3,800 km (3 x 10⁶m) of Lunar material to be placed between the crew and even the worst solar flare.

· Day/night cycle. This will require a shift-on/shift-off work cycle so that most work can be done during the Lunar night to reduce exposure to radiation (see above). However, this also has advantages in that the suit will not require as much energy for cooling as well as making operation of equipment more comfortable for the crew as the handles and such will be cold.

Increased capabilities with the passing of time

As time goes by, technology and technical proficiency will improve. This will enable larger vehicles to be designed and built which will greatly lower operating costs. This will either increase the profitability of the program, or, alternatively, allow funds to be transferred to other, more sophisticated programs.

Such programs can only be guessed at at this time, but will include missions not just to Mars, but to all planets in this solar system.

There is also great, as yet unrealised, promise for fusion energy. This requires one of two forms of energy -either deuterium/tritium or deuterium/helium 3. While the former is easier to utilise with current technology and is just around the corner, D/He³ is a more energetic reaction and requires greater energy input to begin the reaction, it also produces fewer neutrons resulting in extended operating life for the reactor and fewer problems in the disposal of the reactor and the containment vessel.

However, it may be the case that D/He³ fusion has greater potential outside the Earth's atmosphere. This reaction will enable people to live anywhere in the universe where solar radiation is not a practical source of energy. In other words, anywhere beyond the orbit of Mars. Once this source of energy is developed, it will enable mining on a massive scale which even the Earth has never seen. Imagine mining the moons of Jupiter, or the belts of Saturn, or all of Charon and Pluto. The amount of energy which can be derived from these bodies is enormous and will enable humanity to stake a place in the rest of the solar system and even begin human exploration of the nearest stars (Daedelus or Orion, anyone?). Not just for habitable planets, but also for resources. With the amount of energy which will be available with fusion, the only limit will be structural materials.

When helium is mined, large amounts of He⁴ is also produced. He⁴ is the standard form of helium used in party balloons. This can also be used for cryogenic applications such as magnetic levitation devices (trains [on Earth and the Moon] and catapults) as well for increasing the efficiency of electricity transmission.

Naming the program

As has been previously stated, Apollo NG is only an interim name until a more suitable name can be agreed to.

I suggest the following:

Zeuss -

Working on the Moon

One problem with working on the Moon is dust. Lunar dust is more damaging and more dangerous than Earth dust as it is made of very sharp fragments of rock. This causes damage to space suits and equipment as well as being a considerable danger if inhaled.

One way of avoiding contamination is to use a 'suit overall'; basically, this is a cover over the space suit and would look like this:

From Encyclopedia Astronautica

[1]George Bush, President of the United States of America, July 20, 1989 at the 20th anniversary celebrations for the landing of Apollo 11 on the Moon.

[2]Apollo achieved an average of two Saturn V flights per year from 1968 until 1972 with a total of 10 manned flights. There was one manned flight using the Saturn Ib in addition to the Saturn V flights, making a total of 11 crewed flights for the Apollo program.

Saturday, 7 April 2012

Apollo NG (SpaceX)