Canadian Mounted Aerospace Division (Division Arospatiale Monte Canadienne)
PLAN FORM A, Revision 13;
Requirement for Canadian Moon Mission are as follows.
1) Supraorbital vehicle
2) Orbital Construction
3) Intrastellar Transit
4) Foreign Body Landing
5) Return Mission.
1) Supraorbital Vehicle.
a) It is the submission of this division that the most feasible way to break free of the gravitational well of this planet is with a three-pronged approach. The initial launch to approximately 15 kilometres is provided by a modified Boeing jet plane. (See previous NASA uses of Boeing jets to 'piggyback' the American Space Shuttle). From that point, the hypothetical vehicle would accelerate and rise to the edge of atmosphere using attached SCRAMJET engines. At this height of approximately 100 kilometres, the SCRAMJET booster would decouple, and a simple chemical rocket would boost the vessel clear into outer Earth orbit.
b) Rail Launch. The prime alternative believed to be plausible is a rail launching system, where essentially a giant ramp would allow a ground-based vessel to attain signifigant altitude and speed without external power. This has the benefits of the jet 'carrier' launch, but has the drawback of requiring a signifigant investment in ground-based engineering. Several appropriate mountains have been identified. This alternative requires perhaps the largest initial investment, but can reduce the costs of reaching orbit, or even direct one-way moon shots, to the lowest amount. If Canada is to have a signifigant prescence in space and on the Moon over time, this is the reccomended route.
c) Alternative methodologies include preliminary launch from a lighter-than-air platform, which has the drawback of little or no initial velocity, essentially being a static 'drop' launch, but the benefit of being very inexpensive and easy. Also an alternative is conventional rocketry from a ground launch platform. This alternative was not investigated in detail, as preliminary engineering shows a far better economical profile for other launch methods.
2) Orbital Construction
a) Whereas the current state-of-the-art in launch methods does not allow the use of sufficient mass to enable us to provide the safety and redundancy needed, it is the reccomendation of this division to first launch a 'crew capsule' into a stable Low Earth Orbit, and then to follow it with further launches containing the hardware and supplies neccesary to build the actual transit vehicle and landing vehicle, in orbit.
b) The preliminary landing vehicle designs work well enough with any of our launch system parameters that we can launch them in pairs, and the division reccomends sending up two pairs of landers. The fourth lander can be used as a beacon and an emergency landing vehicle during construction, and during the return flight to Earth.
3) Intrastellar Transit.
a) It is the reccomendation of this division that the transit vehicle be provided with a nuclear reactor and ion propulsion system. While this has a low actual impetus of thrust, it is extremely efficient on reaction mass, and allows for more precise astronavigation, due to the long, slow nature of the 'burns'.
b) American astronavigation is a well-developed science, but they put incredibly small amounts of processing power in-vehicle. It is our reccomendation to duplicate the American process as much as possible, and preliminary contacts with our American counterparts indicate a willingness to allow Canadian access to their radars and telemetry radios. This will provide a signifigant cost savings. We also reccomend a signifigantly higher grade of computing power onboard. A modern PC running appropriate software is more than sufficient, and our preliminary design calls for two twos - that is, two protected installations (shielded with water, and part of the reaction mass system in an emergency) each containing two identical machines, all cross-checking each other.
This will allow Canadian astronauts much more computing power than any other nation's.
4) Foreign Body Landing.
a) Given the nuclear nature of our transit drive, our engineers have made available a signifigant payload for the mission, and we reccomend a three-layer backup plan for the actual landing vehicle. Three identical landing vehicles will be provided, allowing a two-party exploration and science team, with one entire lander held in reserve. Each lander should be based off of a mobile 'rover' design, with a relatively massive cargo capability for the landing.
b) The preliminary engineering for the landers has produced multiple designs, but the major commonality is the 'cargo trailer' effect, wherein a cargo module mounts the actual landing rockets, and contains the chemical rockets for return to orbit. These cargo modules contain the 'actual' lander, which is mobile and semi-independant of its module. However, the modules also contain the return rockets, enough for two trips back, allowing each cargo module to 'return' either or both landers. This gives us maximum flexibility for return launches to the transit vehicle. Indeed, the most popular of the preliminary designs specifies a truly massive capability, so that any one return rocket 'pack' can clip onto a lander loaded with both crews and signifigant additional weight, and return it safely to the transit vehicle.
c) The division believes that this massive redundancy is not only desireable, but neccesary. Our worst-case scenario with the current lander design allows one rescue personnel from the transit vehicle to retrieve both landers, including crew and scientific samples.
d) The division believes that there will be no need or call for offensive weaponry on this mission, but has provided for an extensive medical supply, including single shot pressurised gas 'blowguns', with fast-acting anesthetic. Testing has determined that these can be applied through any of the limbs on a spacesuit without endangering the occupant.
5) Return Mission
a) The return of the landers and crew on the Moon's surface to the transit vehicle can be accomplished in quite a wide timeframe, given the massive life support capability granted by the orbital construction and nuclear motor techniques.
b) The return of the transit vehicle is likewise flexible, given the nuclear motor. The transit vehicle will maintain a Lunar orbit whilst the landers are below, and will maintain a running schedule of available 'short windows' for quick transit to Earth. this schedule will be updated with and checked against ground-based calculations here.
c) The transit vehicle itself is not landable, therefore this division reccomends abandoning it on autopilot in earth orbit, and reccomends a geosynchronus orbit for this. The nuclear motor will allow for signifigant stationkeeping over time, and the transit vehicle will provide a very useful platform for additional missions, whether they be orbital or Lunar.
d) the landing vehicles previously used on the Lunar surface can be used for return to Earth, or the Lunar team can be met in Earth orbit by a more specialized landing vehicle. The fourth lander deployed initially can also be a modified or more atmospheric capable version, to allow for the return flight.
This concludes the prospectus for lunar exploration. The CMAD believes that it has a workable plan for Canada to become a first-rate space power, and being reaping the benefits thereof. Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979
PLAN FORM A, Revision 13;
Requirement for Canadian Moon Mission are as follows.
1) Supraorbital vehicle
2) Orbital Construction
3) Intrastellar Transit
4) Foreign Body Landing
5) Return Mission.
1) Supraorbital Vehicle.
a) It is the submission of this division that the most feasible way to break free of the gravitational well of this planet is with a three-pronged approach. The initial launch to approximately 15 kilometres is provided by a modified Boeing jet plane. (See previous NASA uses of Boeing jets to 'piggyback' the American Space Shuttle). From that point, the hypothetical vehicle would accelerate and rise to the edge of atmosphere using attached SCRAMJET engines. At this height of approximately 100 kilometres, the SCRAMJET booster would decouple, and a simple chemical rocket would boost the vessel clear into outer Earth orbit.
b) Rail Launch. The prime alternative believed to be plausible is a rail launching system, where essentially a giant ramp would allow a ground-based vessel to attain signifigant altitude and speed without external power. This has the benefits of the jet 'carrier' launch, but has the drawback of requiring a signifigant investment in ground-based engineering. Several appropriate mountains have been identified. This alternative requires perhaps the largest initial investment, but can reduce the costs of reaching orbit, or even direct one-way moon shots, to the lowest amount. If Canada is to have a signifigant prescence in space and on the Moon over time, this is the reccomended route.
c) Alternative methodologies include preliminary launch from a lighter-than-air platform, which has the drawback of little or no initial velocity, essentially being a static 'drop' launch, but the benefit of being very inexpensive and easy. Also an alternative is conventional rocketry from a ground launch platform. This alternative was not investigated in detail, as preliminary engineering shows a far better economical profile for other launch methods.
2) Orbital Construction
a) Whereas the current state-of-the-art in launch methods does not allow the use of sufficient mass to enable us to provide the safety and redundancy needed, it is the reccomendation of this division to first launch a 'crew capsule' into a stable Low Earth Orbit, and then to follow it with further launches containing the hardware and supplies neccesary to build the actual transit vehicle and landing vehicle, in orbit.
b) The preliminary landing vehicle designs work well enough with any of our launch system parameters that we can launch them in pairs, and the division reccomends sending up two pairs of landers. The fourth lander can be used as a beacon and an emergency landing vehicle during construction, and during the return flight to Earth.
3) Intrastellar Transit.
a) It is the reccomendation of this division that the transit vehicle be provided with a nuclear reactor and ion propulsion system. While this has a low actual impetus of thrust, it is extremely efficient on reaction mass, and allows for more precise astronavigation, due to the long, slow nature of the 'burns'.
b) American astronavigation is a well-developed science, but they put incredibly small amounts of processing power in-vehicle. It is our reccomendation to duplicate the American process as much as possible, and preliminary contacts with our American counterparts indicate a willingness to allow Canadian access to their radars and telemetry radios. This will provide a signifigant cost savings. We also reccomend a signifigantly higher grade of computing power onboard. A modern PC running appropriate software is more than sufficient, and our preliminary design calls for two twos - that is, two protected installations (shielded with water, and part of the reaction mass system in an emergency) each containing two identical machines, all cross-checking each other.
This will allow Canadian astronauts much more computing power than any other nation's.
4) Foreign Body Landing.
a) Given the nuclear nature of our transit drive, our engineers have made available a signifigant payload for the mission, and we reccomend a three-layer backup plan for the actual landing vehicle. Three identical landing vehicles will be provided, allowing a two-party exploration and science team, with one entire lander held in reserve. Each lander should be based off of a mobile 'rover' design, with a relatively massive cargo capability for the landing.
b) The preliminary engineering for the landers has produced multiple designs, but the major commonality is the 'cargo trailer' effect, wherein a cargo module mounts the actual landing rockets, and contains the chemical rockets for return to orbit. These cargo modules contain the 'actual' lander, which is mobile and semi-independant of its module. However, the modules also contain the return rockets, enough for two trips back, allowing each cargo module to 'return' either or both landers. This gives us maximum flexibility for return launches to the transit vehicle. Indeed, the most popular of the preliminary designs specifies a truly massive capability, so that any one return rocket 'pack' can clip onto a lander loaded with both crews and signifigant additional weight, and return it safely to the transit vehicle.
c) The division believes that this massive redundancy is not only desireable, but neccesary. Our worst-case scenario with the current lander design allows one rescue personnel from the transit vehicle to retrieve both landers, including crew and scientific samples.
d) The division believes that there will be no need or call for offensive weaponry on this mission, but has provided for an extensive medical supply, including single shot pressurised gas 'blowguns', with fast-acting anesthetic. Testing has determined that these can be applied through any of the limbs on a spacesuit without endangering the occupant.
5) Return Mission
a) The return of the landers and crew on the Moon's surface to the transit vehicle can be accomplished in quite a wide timeframe, given the massive life support capability granted by the orbital construction and nuclear motor techniques.
b) The return of the transit vehicle is likewise flexible, given the nuclear motor. The transit vehicle will maintain a Lunar orbit whilst the landers are below, and will maintain a running schedule of available 'short windows' for quick transit to Earth. this schedule will be updated with and checked against ground-based calculations here.
c) The transit vehicle itself is not landable, therefore this division reccomends abandoning it on autopilot in earth orbit, and reccomends a geosynchronus orbit for this. The nuclear motor will allow for signifigant stationkeeping over time, and the transit vehicle will provide a very useful platform for additional missions, whether they be orbital or Lunar.
d) the landing vehicles previously used on the Lunar surface can be used for return to Earth, or the Lunar team can be met in Earth orbit by a more specialized landing vehicle. The fourth lander deployed initially can also be a modified or more atmospheric capable version, to allow for the return flight.
This concludes the prospectus for lunar exploration. The CMAD believes that it has a workable plan for Canada to become a first-rate space power, and being reaping the benefits thereof. Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979