# Bush's moon plans. Any ideas on what is planned for heavy lifting tech? **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [January 14, 2004, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-moon-plans-any-ideas-on-what-is-planned-for-heavy-lifting-tech/224406 "2004-01-14T17:26:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![bernse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@bernse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bernse)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-moon-plans-any-ideas-on-what-is-planned-for-heavy-lifting-tech/224406/1 "2004-01-14T17:26:50Z")
Been gone for a while! Wow. What a change. Anyhow, lets assume for sake of argument the GWB gets his moon plans approved. Any ideas on what the US is going to use for lifting tech to get goodies to the moon? The Saturn V, while a great workhorse is ancient and from what I understand, virtually unmakeable now since most of the supporting tech is no longer around. So, whats next? Is the US going to design a new rocket from scratch? Or, is there any heavy lifting Russian rockets capable of the job? Could the Shuttle be used to ferry several smallish components into orbit and use a smaller booster from Earth orbit or is that verboten after the Challenger/Columbia accidents? (putting a fueled booster in the cargo bay of the shuttle). Any other thoughts? ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-moon-plans-any-ideas-on-what-is-planned-for-heavy-lifting-tech/224406/2 "2004-01-14T17:54:56Z")
It looks like they won’t be using the shuttles. I was just reading on [MSN.com](http://MSN.com) that NASA is going to retire the shuttle fleet in 2010. Apparently, they’re only certified for use until then, and NASA has decided that getting them re-certified would be too much trouble. Bummer. ---
**Author:** ![paperbackwriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@paperbackwriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paperbackwriter)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-moon-plans-any-ideas-on-what-is-planned-for-heavy-lifting-tech/224406/3 "2004-01-14T18:21:25Z")
My WAG is that it would be a new booster, but not a clean sheet design. IOW, something built on the experience of the Delta or Atlas series. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-moon-plans-any-ideas-on-what-is-planned-for-heavy-lifting-tech/224406/4 "2004-01-14T18:29:40Z")
This is a nice [summary site](http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/index.htm) for rockets. Shuttle C was a NASA concept to turn the shuttles into cargo carriers. Not a bad idea if you’re planning on retiring them I suppose Ares was a Shuttle C derivative that could throw 40 tonnes to Mars (70 to the moon) Ariane 5 can put 10 tonnes into geosynchronous orbit. I would think that could be pumped up a bit. Energia was a Russian rocket that might be useful too. The last two tie into the comments made that the US would rely on French and Russian support to get to ISS and maybe beyond. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2004, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-moon-plans-any-ideas-on-what-is-planned-for-heavy-lifting-tech/224406/5 "2004-01-14T21:33:01Z")
> [@Diceman](#): > > It looks like they won’t be using the shuttles. I was just reading on [MSN.com](http://MSN.com) that NASA is going to retire the shuttle fleet in 2010. Apparently, they’re only certified for use until then, and NASA has decided that getting them re-certified would be too much trouble. > > Bummer. I hope we’re not just going to build another huge rocket and fly directly from the Earth to the Moon. What would be the point? We’ve already done that. I think space exploration is well worth the expenditure but we should also be exploring new technology instead of just rehashing what we’ve already done. And welcome back, **Bernse**. I haddn’t actually noticed you were away, but when I saw your name here I realized that it had been a while since I saw you around. ---
**Author:** ![paperbackwriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@paperbackwriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paperbackwriter)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-moon-plans-any-ideas-on-what-is-planned-for-heavy-lifting-tech/224406/6 "2004-01-15T22:32:22Z")
I found these numbers at the [astronautix.com](http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/index.htm) site **Grey** linked to. This compares the only rocket to make it to the moon, the Saturn V, to current launch vehicles: > [@](#): > > Model: Saturn V. Family: Saturn V. > LEO Payload: 118,000 kg. to: 185 km Orbit. at: 28.0 degrees. > Payload: 47,000 kg. to a: Translunar trajectory. > Liftoff Thrust: 3,440,310 kgf. Liftoff Thrust: 33,737.90 kN. > Total Mass: 3,038,500 kg. > > Model: Ariane 5G Family: Ariane 5 > LEO Payload: 16,000 kg. to: 407 km Orbit. at: 51.6 degrees. > Payload: 6,800 kg. to a: Geosynchronous transfer, 7 deg inclination trajectory. Apogee: 40,000 km. > Liftoff Thrust: 1,160,000 kgf. Liftoff Thrust: 11,400.00 kN. > > Model: Atlas V 551 Family:Atlas > LEO payload: 20,050kg to: 185 km Orbit. at:28 degrees. > Payload: 8,200kg to: Geosynchronous transfer > Liftoff Thrust: ? kgf. Liftoff Thrust: ? kN. > > Model: Delta IV Large Family: Delta > LEO Payload: 25,800 kg. to: 185 km Orbit. at: 28.5 degrees. > Payload: 10,843 kg. to a: Geosynchronous transfer, 27deg inclination trajectory. > Liftoff Thrust: 884,000 kgf. Liftoff Thrust: 8,670.00 kN. > > Model: Zenit-3SL (SeaLaunch) Family: Energia > Payload: 5,250 kg. to a: Geosynchronous transfer trajectory. Apogee: 40,000 km. > Liftoff Thrust: 740,000 kgf. Liftoff Thrust: 7,300.00 kN. > > Model: Energia M Family: Energia > LEO Payload: 34,000 kg. to: 200 km Orbit. > Liftoff Thrust: 1,633,160 kgf. Liftoff Thrust: 16,015.80 kN. > > Model: Titan 4U Family: Titan > LEO Payload: 17,700 kg. to: 185 km Orbit. > Payload: 6,350 kg. to a: Geosynchronous transfer trajectory. > Liftoff Thrust: 1,307,380 kgf. Liftoff Thrust: 12,821.00 kN. Comparing LEO payload perfromance of the Saturn V to the current crop shows that even the most capable of them, the Atlas V and Arian 5G, are far less capable. There’s going to need to be serious improvements to fulfill the President’s plan. Maybe a clustered design? ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2004, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-moon-plans-any-ideas-on-what-is-planned-for-heavy-lifting-tech/224406/7 "2004-01-15T22:50:36Z")
> [@Spectre of Pithecanthropus](#): > > I hope we’re not just going to build another huge rocket and fly directly from the Earth to the Moon. What would be the point? We’ve already done that. I think space exploration is well worth the expenditure but we should also be exploring new technology instead of just rehashing what we’ve already done. From what I understand (which is very little), is that there is some pretty prime real estate on the Moon in terms of scientific value, and it would greatly behoove us to plant a giant substation in those locations.