Israel to Land First Private Spacecraft on the Moon

a reply to: EternalSolace

The stumbling block is that manned missions to the Moon require a gigantic (and therefore very expensive) rocket.

"But wait," some say, "Technology has advanced so much since then. So much has been miniaturized..."

One thing that hasn't changed is the size and mass of a human being, nor the mass and volume of the food he eats, the water he drinks or the air he breaths, or the volume within the spacecraft for him to move around comfortably. Now multiply this by the number of people in the crew, and add the above consumables for the amount of time you want them to spend on the Moon. Thus the payload mass and volume will be at least as large or larger than the Apollo spacecraft.

Another thing that hasn't changed is chemical reactions. The highest rocket exhaust velocity from chemical fuels comes from burning liquid hydrogen with liquid oxygen. This was true 50 years ago and is still true today. Other fuels such as kerosene, hypergolic or solid propellants are useful for lifting things out of the atmosphere, but to get the best performance for orbital and interplanetary rockets, the best is still LH2/LOX. Although modern rocket designs have better efficiency, it's not enough to significantly reduce the size of the rocket needed to lift the above payload.

Of course, technologies other than chemical rockets, such as electromagnetic launch systems (Maglifter and StarTram to name two). and nuclear upper stages could make a huge difference, and the operating costs would be cheaper than expendable chemical rockets, but the front-end development costs would still be formidable. Until someone is willing to front the money for something that won't start paying for itself for more than a decade, we aren't going anywhere.

*sigh* Damn-it.

a reply to: EternalSolace

posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 03:46 AM link quote reply So many unmanned missions to the moon being proclaimed as almost revolutionary. No man has walked on the moon since 1972. Why are lunar rovers all the revolutionary rage and why has no man set foot on the moon in just under 40 years?

We don't currently have a heavy lift rocket capable of a moon shot because we have been concentrating on LEO and unmanned exploration of Mars. Lunar rovers are cheaper and the space race was won years ago. the public got bored of sending men to the Moon.

In 1969, Armstrong reportedly landed on the moon. Over the past 50 years... we can’t do it again? No nation on the earth can do it again or replicate the claim?

Who says so? just because it hasn't been done does not make it not possible.

Look at concord - 1976 - 2003 we had a supersonic passenger jet. Since then we have not and do not have one today. Lots of reasons why, does not make Concord fake.

a reply to: FreeFalling

Ditto my friend.. I been thinking the same. Something seems off with all these movements of suddenly wanting to the Moon.

Guess we will find out eventually!

a reply to: Saint Exupery

The stumbling block is that manned missions to the Moon require a gigantic (and therefore very expensive) rocket.

Gigantic rockets are a thing of science fiction comic books. Just because Apollo/Saturn had a gigantic rocket does not preclude other methods of translunar space travel.

Earth Orbit Rendezvous (multiple launches, assembly in low earth orbit) ...

was planned to be used for Project Constellation, until that program’s cancellation in October 2010. Source: en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Giant rockets have been used many times, witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people. EOR is also possible, but you still need a very big rocket to get the payload up there. The launch to orbit of the equipment is the hard bit.

e2a:

The constellation programme needed a heavy lifter, like the Ares V:

Which is a big rocket.

a reply to: EternalSolace

So many unmanned missions to the moon being proclaimed as almost revolutionary. No man has walked on the moon since 1972. Why are lunar rovers all the revolutionary rage and why has no man set foot on the moon in just under 40 years?

Because in the last 40 years technology has advanced to the point that smaller players - China, Japan, India can now get into the game

Lunar lander/rovers are the first steps these nations do to get into the big leagues

Once have gained experience can then step up to get men and equipment to the moon

China has made no secret of wanting to construct a lunar base

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Giant rockets have been used many times, witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people. EOR is also possible, but you still need a very big rocket to get the payload up there. The launch to orbit of the equipment is the hard bit.

e2a:

The constellation programme needed a heavy lifter, like the Ares V:

Which is a big rocket.

Gigantic rockets (heavy lifters?) are not required for a human circumnavigation of the moon. Why do you oppose Low Earth Orbit and Assembly for a Trans-Lunar mission?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Why are you trying to put words in my mouth that I didn't say? Read my post properly, particularly the bit where I say "EOR is also possible".

What I oppose is your ridiculous claim that gigantic rockets are not real, and your deliberate attempt to try and fabricate a controversy where there isn't one. Again.

If you want to get to the moon in a sensible amount of time you need a big rocket. Assembling all the gear in Earth orbit can either be done in a couple of trips with a very big rocket or you can take months with lots of small ones. The main work, as I said quite clearly, is getting the payload to Earth orbit.

If you think otherwise let's see your maths.

Double post.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

The Constellation program was cancelled by Obama after a Committee review by the Augustine Commission whose reasons are summarised in the Wiki entry below:

The Committee judged the nine-year-old Constellation program to be so behind schedule, underfunded and over budget that meeting any of its goals would not be possible. The President removed the program from the 2010 NASA budget request and a bi-partisan congress refused to fund it any longer, effectively canceling the program. One component of the program, the Orion crew capsule, was added back to plans but as a rescue vehicle to complement the Russian Soyuz in returning Station crews to Earth in the event of an emergency.[12]

So, what's your point?

a reply to: oldcarpy

So, what's your point?

Just pointing out some major ignorance in this thread:

1. Artistic renderings of SLS/Ares rocket designs are science fiction comic book rockets because they do not exist.
2. Gigantic, big or very big rockets are not required for translunar space travel.
3. The Israeli $100 million dollar lunar lander is not a private mission. (10% funded by Israeli government.)

Where do you stand on points 1, 2 and 3?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

1. Here is a Youtube video (not an artistic rendering - what a silly point!) of a launch of an Ares 1 which you claim does not exist. Plenty more freely available of launches of bloody great big rockets:



So, you claiming all these are CGI or something?

2. True, but they are the preferred option.

3. You know very well what was meant. Just stop it.

Reminder:

The thread topic is: "Israel to Land First Private Spacecraft on the Moon"

Not Apollo Moon landings. Not Moon Landing Hoax.

That discussion has completely derailed this thread.

Stop now.

Anymore discussion in that area will be considered Off Topic and removed.

Return to the topic of the OP. There are plenty of other threads involving the Off Topic comments here. Take your postings there.

Do not reply to this post.

Return to the topic of the OP of this thread.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

3. The Israeli $100 million dollar lunar lander is not a private mission. (10% funded by Israeli government.)

Even Elon Musk and SpaceX were given seed money by NASA (under NASA's C.O.T.S. program) to help develop the cargo version of the Dragon Capsule, but people still call what SpaceX does as "private".

NASA gave further development money to SpaceX under the CCDev program, which is the program created to spur on private companies to develop crew capsules for LEO transportation services.

Private companies regularly pull from available government funding, especially when it comes to developing new technologies. Governments want companies developing new technologies because it is good for economic growth. That money is usually offered by governments to allow a private company to take the risk in development of technologies, reducing the financial risk to the private company by partially using government funds for the R&D.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Just watched launch of SPACE X Falcon 9 containing communication satellite and Israeli probe

Night Launch - spectacular

The Israeli lander is not doing a direct ascent - be launch into highly elliptical orbit then by series of burns raise orbit to
lunar distance

Beresheet has sent back it's first "selfie" while enroute to the moon, showing the Earth in the background.



Source:
www.space.com...