Future Chinese Lunar Outpost

120,000 Chinese Millionaires Flee to Other Countries

Chinese Lunar Base by 2027?

 

Wang Yaping becomes China's first woman to walk in space

China's Space Elevator Concept

Russia & China's Joint Plans for the Moon

 

Growing Tensions Amongst Russia, China, and Japan over Vladivostok and the Kuril Islands

 

Vladivostok & Kuril Islands

China Launches its Lunar Mission to the Ocean of Storms

 

 

 

 China's Change-5 probe blasts off from the Moon

 Chinese probe completes sample collection work on the lunar surface

 Change 5 lands on the Moon

China lands sample return probe on the Moon

Change 5 Lands on Moon to Collect Fresh Samples

Watch China Land their Robotic Lander on the Far Side of the Moon!

Floating Nuclear Power Plants, Floating Power Barges, and Marine Methanol

Links and References

Siting Ocean Nuclear Power Plants in Remote US Territorial Waters for the Carbon Neutral Production of Synfuels and Industrial Chemicals

Using Small Nuclear Reactors for Navy Synfuel Production

Will Russia and China Dominate Ocean Nuclear Technology?

The Production and Utilization of Renewable Methanol in a Nuclear Economy

Stena Line to Convert Passenger Ferry to a Methanol Fueled Sea Vessel

MIT Floating Nuclear Power Plant Design

Naval Research Laboratory Explains their Nuclear Synfuel from Seawater Technology 

The Future of Ocean Nuclear Synfuel Production

Nuclear Navy's Synfuel from Seawater Program: An interview with Kathy Lewis of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory

America's Future in the New Frontier (April Congressional Hearing)

The Case for a US Military Presence at LEO and Beyond

Artist rendition of military operated MOL space lab (Credit: NASA)

by Marcel F. Williams

On January 31, 1958, the US Army launched America's first satellite into orbit. That was nearly four months after the Soviet Union became the first nation to place a satellite (Sputnik) into Earth orbit and nearly two months after the failed US Navy  attempt to launch a satellite into orbit aboard the Vanguard rocket.

The Soviet's launch of Sputnik had suddenly turned science fiction into reality. And with the perceived threat of possible Soviet dominion over the rest of the solar system, the  US Army, Navy, and Air Force  appeared to be on their way towards the rapid development of their own  individual  unmanned and manned space programs in order to counter the growing threat of communism during the Cold War.

In 1958, the US Air Force conceived plans for its own lunar missions, the Lunex Project, with crewed missions to the lunar surface scheduled for 1967 and an underground military base by 1968.

Diagram of the US Air Force Lunex lunar lander (Credit: US Air Force)

In 1959, the head of the US Army's ABMA, Wernher von Braun, appointed Heinz-Hermann Koelle to head Project Horizon, a program to study the feasibility of deploying a scientific and military base on the Moon by 1966. During the same period, the US Navy also conceived a plan to place naval personal on the lunar surface by 1967.

The US Air Force also funded a space plane program, Dyna-Soar, from 1957 until it was cancelled in 1963 at total cost of over $5 billion in today's dollars. The single manned space plane was to be used for space rescue, bombing, aerial reconnaissance, and even as an anti-satellite weapon.

Most of the military efforts for an aggressive manned space program, however,  was thwarted on July 29, 1958, when President  Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act which established NASA and transferring 8000 employees from the NACA(National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics) which included Langley Aeronautical Laboratory, Ames Aeronautical Laboratory, and Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory.   Elements of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA) including  Wernher von Braun and his team were also incorporated into NASA. NASA also incorporated the  United States Naval Research Laboratory and gained control of the Army's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. 

Still the US Air Force Dyna-Soar program was succeeded by another program in 1963 called MOL (Manned Orbiting Laboratory), a 3 meter in diameter 22 meter long crewed military space station that was to be placed in a polar orbit for reconnaissance. The Nixon administration cancelled the Air Force program in June of 1969, just a few years before it was to be deployed, favoring NASA's Skylab program as temporary successor to the end of Apollo.

But a new space age is now approaching: an age where private American commercial companies will begin to launch private citizens and astronauts from government agencies into Earth orbit and possibly beyond. So it will be extremely important for private US companies to know that their investments in space and their hired  personal  in space  will be  protected by the US government from intimidation and coercion from foreign powers in space.  So a permanent US military presence will still be required for  the protection of  US assets within cis-lunar space, and for search and rescue efforts, and for general law enforcement in space.

The US military role within cis-lunar space should, therefore, be similar to the role that the US Coast Guard has in American territorial waters on Earth. Otherwise, private companies will be forced to develop their own private military forces in order to protect their personal and their property from potential hostile foreign interest and possibly even  commercial competitors who might be willing to use force in order to gain economic advantages in the New Frontier. So its clearly time for the US Department of Defense to establish a permanent military presence within cis-lunar space and eventually on the surfaces of the Moon an Mars in order to secure the peaceful flow of commerce in the New Frontier while also protecting the security of American citizens that will be living and working there. 

Artist rendition of an orbiting DOD space station composed of a Bigelow BA-330 module plus two Orbital ATK Cygnus module. A Boeing CST-100 Starliner is docked with the station while being inspected for departure by two FlexCraft vehicles. A DreamChaser space plane approaches the space station from the distance carrying a replacement crew of six military astronauts.

Since the DOD already uses private commercial space companies to develop and deploy its military satellites, utilizing private companies to also develop and to deploy crewed space stations within cis-lunar space should also be taken advantage of.

The International Space Station (ISS) has so far  required over 30 launches to assemble the orbiting platform. However, a DOD habitat used to house six military personal should only require one to three launches. The BA-330 manufactured by Bigelow Aerospace can house as many as six astronauts, providing 330 cubic meters of pressurized volume. The 20 tonne habitat plus a Cygnus derived two tonne node could be deployed by the ULA's Delta IV heavy or by Space X's Falcon Heavy which is scheduled for its first test flights in 2016 and its first commercial launches in 2017.

FlexCraft vehicle (Credit: NASA)

Additional habitat space plus FlexCraft vehicles for EVA's could be provided by adding Orbital ATK's Cygnus modules to the DOD habitat. These modules are over 3 meters in diameter and up to 7.5 meters long. Two such modules plus a Cygnus derived node, weighing less than ten tonnes in total , could be deployed to orbit with the single launch of a ULA Atlas V, Delta IV, or its future Vulcan rocket  or a single launch from a Falcon 9 (Space X). And additional launch could provide the DOD space station with a total of four Cygnus habitat modules to be berthed with the BA-330 module. However, with a 7.2 meter fairing diameter, a future Vulcan Heavy rocket might be able to deploy the entire BA-330/Cygnus facility with a single launch.

Once the Space Launch System is fully operational by the mid 2020's,  much larger and cheaper habitats and possibly even rotating artificial gravity habitats could be deployed for the DOD at LEO.

Artist rendition of an SLS propellant tank derived habitat, a 23 tonne module (dry weight) with more than 500 m3 of habitable volume (Credit: NASA)

A permanently crewed military habitat at LEO could be used for:

1. The training of Air Force, Navy, Marine, and Army personal, giving these DOD astronauts   launching and landing experience, microgravity experience aboard the pressurized habitat for up to 60 days, pressure suit experience during EVAs, and FlexCraft training during EVAs.

2. The training of NASA personal, giving new NASA astronauts launching and landing experience, microgravity experience aboard the space habitat for up to 60 days, pressure suit experience during EVAs, and FlexCraft training during EVAs. This will be especially important after the ISS program ends in 2024. Since NASA beyond LEO missions are not likely to require more than one crewed launch per year, this would allow other NASA astronauts to get some experience and training in space before they're time  to participate in a beyond LEO mission comes around.

3. Refuge for American and foreign astronauts in other spacecraft in  case there is a major solar storm. The 46 cm thick walls of the BA-330 should be thick enough to protect astronauts from major solar events. Adding 30 cm of internal insulation within the Cygnus modules should also be enough to protect astronauts from major solar storms.

4. Refuge for American and foreign astronauts in other spacecraft in case their spacecraft has a serious malfunction that doesn't allow them to return safely to the Earth

5. For medical treatment for injured American and foreign astronauts, at least two military physicians will be on board the DOD habitat. Medical treatment at LEO will, of course, be greatly enhanced once rotating artificial gravity habitats are deployed.

6. Servicing malfunctioning military satellites. This may require the deployment of reusable vehicles and propellant depots.

7. Search and rescue missions practically anywhere within cis-lunar space , perhaps using an Orion capsule and a reusable ACES 41 booster after the deployment of LEO orbiting propellant depots. The US Air Force has recently decided to provide funding to the ULA for the development of the ACES 41.

8. NASA astronaut stop overs on beyond LEO missions using propellant depots and back from beyond LEO missions for eventual return to the Earth's surface.

9. The temporary jailing or isolation of individual or individuals who may have serious psychological problems or who may have committed serious crimes or an individual or individuals who may have some sort of contagious disease.

Orion space capsule joined with an ACES 41 vehicle (Credit: ULA)

With US Department of Defense  budget currently over $800 billion a year, spending  $4 to $8 billion a year  for a military human space program would represent less than 1% of annual US military expenditures. And the DOD should commit itself before Congress not to spend more than 1% of the military budget on its human space program.

With such funding, however, the DOD could easily employ private launch companies to deploy six military astronauts to the DOD orbital facility every month for a 30 to 60 day stay. For national security purposes, the DOD might simply purchase reusable spacecraft such as the Dragon (Space X), Starliner (Boeing Aerospace), and the DreamChaser (Sierra Nevada) with military personal piloting and landing the vehicles themselves.  Twelve military crew launches per year should also greatly enhance the economic stability of the emerging American Commercial Crew launch companies.

However, thirty to sixty day stays in a microgravity environment may preclude military astronauts older than 40 years of age from participating  in the program because of the serious visual problems associated with astronauts 45 to 55 years of age during long periods in microgravity environments.  Astronauts older than 40 might eventually be included in long  DOD orbital missions once simple rotating artificial gravity habitats start to be deployed by heavy lift vehicles. 

Marcel F. Williams

Links and References

Declassified: U.S. Military's Secret Cold War Space Project Revealed

NASA

 SP-4206 Stages to Saturn 

Lunex Project

Lunar Expedition Plan (LUNEX)

Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar 

Cygnus Beyond Low Earth Orbit 

Congress Requires NASA to Develop a Deep Space Habitat

Benefits of a Single-Person Spacecraft for Weightless Operations

 A Commercially Based Lunar Architecture

Aerojet Rocketdyne and ULA win Air Force funds to replace Russian engine

Will Russia and China Dominate Ocean Nuclear Technology?

Chinese floating nuclear power station (Credit: China General Nuclear Corporation)

by Marcel F. Williams

Today, more than 180 small nuclear reactors power more than 140 sea vessels (submarines, aircraft carriers, and icebreakers) on the Earth's oceans. Nuclear power plants have been cruising the high seas since the United States Navy first deployed the USS Nautilus, the world's first nuclear submarine, in 1955. More than 12,000 reactor years of operation in the marine environment has been accumulated from floating nuclear reactors since the 1950's. Although originally designed for naval use, the US Army operated Pressurized Water Reactors from 1954 until 1974.  But the success of the Navy's Pressurized Water Reactors eventually led to the first commercial nuclear reactors in the US. 

Six countries, the United States, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, People's Republic of China, and India, currently deploy some form of strategic floating nuclear-powered vessel.  And other countries, such as Argentina and Brazil have ongoing projects to build strategic nuclear-powered submarines.

Russian Typhoon Class Nuclear Submarine

The American USS Enterprise and the French Charles de Gaulle nuclear aircraft carriers. 

Since the early 2000s, the Russian Federation has been working on the deployment of centrally mass produced floating nuclear power plants. With operating lifespans of 40 years, these floating nuclear barges are to be designed to produce 70 MW of electricity or 300 MW.  While these floating nuclear power plants are initially designed to be used in the Russian Arctic regions, Rosatom, the State Atomic Energy Corporation, has reported that nations such as:  China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Algeria, Namibia, Argentina,  and Cape Verde have shown interest in such floating reactors. 

Artist rendition of future Russian floating nuclear power station

Now Chinese nuclear company, CGN (China General Nuclear), has announced that its  ACPR50S reactor design has received approval by China's National Development and Reform Commission.
The construction of CGNs first floating reactor is expected to start in 2017, with electricity generation to begin in 2020. The reactor is being developed in order to supply 60 MW of electricity or 200 MW of heat for desalination.

In October of 2015,  Lloyd's Register of the UK announced it had signed a framework agreement with   a subsidiary of China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) - to support the design and development of a floating nuclear power plant based on a  100 MWe design.

But the United States is actually no stranger to floating nuclear power production. A US Antarctic base was powered by a 1.5 MWe marine reactor from 1961 until 1972. From 1967 until 1976, a 12,000 tonne ship that was originally built in 1945 was used as a floating nuclear power plant, supplying power on Gatun Lake in the Panama Canal Zone. The ship supplied 10 MWe of electricity for the Canal Zone for nine years. 

44% of the world's population lives within 150 kilometers of  marine coastlines. In a world facing the dangers of global sea rise and ocean acidification due to the use of fossil fuels,  centrally mass produced floating nuclear power plants could easily be deployed near coastal towns and cities around the world to produce carbon neutral electricity. And there is enough uranium in seawater to meet all of the world's energy needs for more than three thousand years (more than 5000 years if the spent fuel is reutilized). The use of thorium could add  another 2800 years.

Floating nuclear power plants also  have the safety advantage of not being vulnerable to earthquakes or tsunamis.  Additionally, the endless heat sink of the ocean environment would make nuclear meltdowns impossible.

US Navy modular floating platform concept (Credit: US Navy)

However, potential terrorist attacks on such facilities is likely to stoke some degree of nuclear phobia amongst the populace-- even though such an attacks are unlikely to cause any significant environmental damage. The political consequences, however, could have significant economic consequences for the nuclear industry.

Protection of a floating nuclear facility could be significantly enhanced by surrounding them with enormous floating  tubular cement modules such as those proposed by the US Navy for constructing ocean aircraft platforms and artificial islands. Each floating cement module for the naval platforms were supposed to be 20 meters in diameter an nearly 80 meters tall!  And each floating module could be assembled in a variety of configurations. The assemblage of  such statuesque structures could  enhance the protection of  floating nuclear power plants both above and the below the water.  

But nuclear phobic anxieties could be further reduced by simply moving floating nuclear  facilities out of the visual range of the coastline.   Most proposed floating nuclear facilities are usually positioned just 10 to 20 kilometers off the coast. But the relatively low cost of submarine cables could  make the  largest ocean nuclear power facilities (1000 MWe plus)  economically viable even if they were located a 1000 kilometers away from the coastline. Less than 300 kilometer off the coast would be well within a nations economic exclusion zone.

On the other hand,  floating nuclear power plants wouldn't have to be near any coastline  if they were simply used to produce synthetic carbon neutral fuels. Far out to sea, floating nuclear power plants could utilized to produce carbon neutral: methanol, gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and dimethyl ether. These synthetic fuels could be produced through the pyrolysis of garbage and sewage imported from coastal towns and cities. The syngas produced from the pyrolysis of the biowaste and plastics could then be converted into a variety of synthetic fuels. But the production of synfuels could be greatly enhanced  by adding hydrogen to the syngas produced through the electrolysis of seawater.

However, the US Navy has recently developed a technology that could produce carbon neutral synthetic fuels by solely using electricity and seawater, taking advantage of the high levels of carbon naturally present in seawater.

Methanol produced at sea could be shipped by tanker to coastal cities for the production of electricity while the gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel produced at sea could be shipped to coastal cities for use in automobiles, trucks, and aircraft.

MIT's floating nuclear power plant concept (Credit: MIT)

MIT has recently developed a concept for two types of floating nuclear power plants, a 45 meter in diameter 300 MWe power plant and a 75 meter in diameter 1100 MWe power plant. Large remotely located nuplexes consisting of several 1100 MWe floating power plants could supply all of the energy needs of coastal cities, towns, and islands throughout the world. And even substantial amounts of  the continental interiors of North and South America could be supplied with carbon neutral fuels from floating nuclear facilities via the transport of fuel up large river systems connected to the oceans.

While there are good economic reasons for the US to invest in floating nuclear power plants, the US Navy, for more than a decade,  has  expressed a desire to switch from fossil fuels to carbon neutral synthetic fuels  for both environmental and strategic reasons. The US Navy's desire for ocean nuclear synfuels  could be the means to get an Ocean Nuclear industry started in America.

 Through the urging of the DOD and the US Navy, Congress could pass a law offering funding to  private US and allied industries to develop  floating nuclear power plants ranging from 100 MWe up to 2500 MWe   for the production of carbon neutral aviation fuels and other carbon neutral synthetic fuels for the US armed forces. The US Navy could agree to  purchase carbon neutral jet fuel  from floating nuclear facilities for all of its liquid fuel needs once such carbon neutral fuels are available.

Such legislation could help the US Navy meet its environmental and strategic goals while also helping to develop a new carbon neutral  synthetic fuel industry,  the way the US Navy helped to develop the nuclear industry back in the 1950s.

Marcel F. Williams
New Papyrus Magazine

Links and References

Nuclear-Powered Ships

A new look for nuclear power

Russian floating nuclear power station

CGN to build floating reactor

CNNC to construct prototype floating plant

China plans 60 MWE modular nuclear reactor by 2020 and a floating reactor by 2025

The Floating Stable Platform: Office of Naval Research

The Future of Ocean Nuclear Synfuel Production

Nuclear Navy's Synfuel from Seawater Program: An interview with Kathy Lewis of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory

Extracting Uranium from Seawater

Fueling our Nuclear Future

Spent Fuel and the Thorium Solution

UN Atlas: 44 percent of us live in coastal areas

World War II from Space

Radio broadcast of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor

The SLS and the Case for a Reusable Lunar Lander

NASA  OTV with  single stage reusable lunar lander (credit NASA)

by Marcel Williams

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

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

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

Space Launch System crew vehicle and cargo vehicle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NASA reusable lunar lander concept on the Moon (Credit NASA)

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

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

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

NASA single stage reusable lander, Altair two stage expendable lunar lander, and the ETLV-2 single stage reusable lander 

But basically, the crew version of the ETLV-2 concept  utilizes just two common bulkhead cryotanks each capable of storing up to 14 tonnes of LOX/LH2 fuel. The crew cabin and the twin airlocks are both derived from fuel tank technology, having the same diameter as the fuel tanks  in order to further reduce vehicle development cost and recurring cost. So a standard cryotank  diameter somewhere between 2.5 to 3 meters would have to be firmly established before the vehicle went into development and eventual production.  

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

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

When fully manned and fueled, the ETLV-2 should weigh less than 37 tonnes and be capable of  departing from EML1 to land on the Moon and then return  EML1 on a single fueling, and vice versa, once the ETLV-2 can be refueled with cryogenic hydrogen and oxygen manufactured on the lunar surface. The addition of an ETLV-2 derived reusable OTV (Orbital Transfer Vehicles) with an aerobraker that could travel between LEO and L1, could also give private Commercial Crew vehicle passengers flown to LEO easy access-- all the way to the surface of the Moon. I will discuss this architectural possibility in a future post.

 Marcel F. Williams
© 2013 MuOmega Enterprises


References:

Lunar Lander Conceptual Design (NASA Johnson Space Center & Eagle Engineering)

http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/library/LB2-114-LanderConceptualDesign.pdf


Lunar Lander Configurations Incorporating Accessibility, Mobility, and Centaur Cryogenic Propulsion Experience

http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/LunarLanderConfigurationsIncorporatingAccessibility20067284.pdf

SLS Dual Use Upper Stage (DUUS) Opportunities

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20130013953


The Space Launch System Capabilities with a New Large Upper Stage(The Boeing Company)

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2013-5421


Mission and Implementation of an Affordable Lunar Return (Spudis and Lavoie )

http://www.spudislunarresources.com/Papers/Affordable_Lunar_Base.pdf

CECE (Common Extensible Cryogenic Engine)

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1709_prt.htm


An Integrated Vehicle Propulsion and Power System for Long Duration Cryogenic Spaceflight (ULA)
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/Integrated%20Vehicle%20Propulsion%20and%20Power%20System%20for%20Long%20Duration%20Cyrogenic%20Spaceflight%202011.pdf


Large-Scale Demonstration of Liquid Hydrogen Storage with Zero Boiloff for In-Space Applications (NASA) 2010

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110004377_2011003898.pdf


Conquering Cis-Lunar Space with Shuttle and ULA Derived Technologies

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2001/07/conquering-cis-lunar-space-with-ula-and.html


How Should Congress Respond to Obama's Manned Spaceflight Budget?

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2010/04/how-congress-should-respond-to-obamas.html

The Future of NASA and the Commercial Crew Program

The ruling oligarchy in China is currently using both capitalism and big government in order to economically dominate the world and the new frontiers of space. In the US, on the other hand,   many in Congress have purposely crippled the American economy with their  ideological war against a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Ironically, the Obama administration has used this right wing philosophy to cripple one the few government programs that the American right usually favors: NASA.

The US Federal debt is now approaching 17 trillion dollars. But the Federal government  has a titanic budget deficit not because the government is spending too much money on science and technology, but because of the  unnecessary war in Iraq and  unnecessary military bases in Europe while domestically running one of the most inefficient and inherently inflationary welfare states in the history of humankind in the form of: Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and unemployment insurance (the new welfare). Cutting unnecessary military expenditures overseas and dramatically  reforming the welfare state are the keys to substantially reducing the Federal deficit.

At one point, NASA expenditures represented nearly 5% of Federal expenditures. Now NASA represents less than  0.5% of Federal expenditures. So NASA's tiny budget is almost imperceptible when it comes to total Federal expenditures. And this is even truer for NASA's manned space program related expenditures which now represents less than half of NASA's annual expenditures.

 Of course, if you hate all government programs then every dollar spent on a government program, no matter how small,  is a waste of tax payer money!

But its easy to cripple a government program that has no direction. And Congress is obviously not going to increase the NASA budget when NASA doesn't know where its going!

The primary goal of NASA's manned space program over the next 25 years should be to set up permanently manned outpost first on the lunar surface and then on the surface of Mars. And once those goals are made clear to the Congress and to the public-- then NASA will be back on course with the appropriate amount of funding from Congress. A mere $3 billion increase in NASA's annual manned spaceflight budget should probably be enough to get this done. $1.5 billion a year alone should be more than enough to finance the development of a reusable single stage Extraterrestrial Landing Vehicle capable of placing humans on the Moon and even on Mars (with the addition of a ballute and heat shield).

While Commercial Crew Vehicles could be an important  part of this Federal space program in the long run, its doubtful that there would ever be enough demand for Commercial Crew flights for NASA purposes to sustain more than one company. The beauty of capitalism, of course, is that prices are kept low through competition amongst several companies.

It's clear that the  future of Commercial Crew flights will not be in big government programs but in private commercial programs such as space tourism for the super wealthy and for space lotto winners.

Boeing's CST-100

There are more than 50,000 individuals on our planet worth more than $100 million dollars: individuals who could easily afford a $25 million to $35 million dollar flight to a private space station. Even if private companies could only get less than  1% of those wealthy individuals every year  to fly into space aboard their private space craft to their private space stations, that could still mean nearly  100 private space launches per year. Of course, such a high flight rate would probably dramatically lower the cost of flying into space which should increase the annual volume of wealthy people wanting to fly into space.

Plus there are billions of average people around the world who would probably  be willing  to risk a dollar or two every year in a Space Lotto system for a chance to travel into space.

Private space companies need to stop whining about government contracts and development subsidies and focus on where-- the real demand-- in the future will be for their private manned space vehicles! And its not the government!

Marcel F. Williams

What Should NASA Priorities Be Over the Next 25 Years

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/25/1241421/-The-Future-of-NASA-the-Commercial-Crew-Program#comments




End of a Model – and a Program
http://www.spudislunarresources.com/blog/end-of-a-model-and-a-program/

 When Darkness Falls:the future of the US crewed spaceflight program
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2371/1

End of WWII Model Shakes Up Aerospace Industry
http://www.spacenews.com/article/opinion/37245end-of-wwii-model-shakes-up-aerospace-industry


Millionaires and Billionaires did great

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/09/millionaires-and-billionaires-did-great.html

 How a Real Public Option Could Reduce Deficits, Create Jobs, & Save the US Economy!
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2001/11/how-real-public-option-could.html

China launches its first woman into space

China's Long Term Space Station Goals

Chinese Cows Produce Human Breast Milk

Is the Future of Nuclear Energy in China?