I’ve been watching a few Apollo vids lately and I was wondering how much better we could do it today, even using gear based almost totally on the 1960’s/70’s gear, but upgraded with modern electronics and materials.
For example, instead of the large & heavy computers, use modern gear which would be a fraction of the size & weight. That alone would free up a fair bit of weight & space to use for extending the time on the Moon, etc. Perhaps something like having a set of solar panels that fold out of the LM to power it, instead of batteries alone. Modern batteries by themselves are vastly better than the ones from 40+ years ago as well. Much smaller and lighter for the same capacity.
Modern materials, such as better insulation, would also make the entire rocket lighter.

I’m guessing that the LM could easily stay on the Moon for a good week or so …. ?

Spiny Norman said:

I’ve been watching a few Apollo vids lately and I was wondering how much better we could do it today, even using gear based almost totally on the 1960’s/70’s gear, but upgraded with modern electronics and materials.
For example, instead of the large & heavy computers, use modern gear which would be a fraction of the size & weight. That alone would free up a fair bit of weight & space to use for extending the time on the Moon, etc. Perhaps something like having a set of solar panels that fold out of the LM to power it, instead of batteries alone. Modern batteries by themselves are vastly better than the ones from 40+ years ago as well. Much smaller and lighter for the same capacity.
Modern materials, such as better insulation, would also make the entire rocket lighter.

I’m guessing that the LM could easily stay on the Moon for a good week or so …. ?

Hi, Bill. LTNS.

Maybe you should ask the Chinese. I understand that they have a Moon expedition in the pipeline.

A side effect of having so much stuff was that the personnel were shielded from high energy solar (and cosmic) radiation that’s normally deflected by the Earth’s magnetic field or stopped by the atmosphere, so that’d have to be allowed for. One option might be to use water to line the inside of the craft: this would have the added advantage of reducing the amount of supplies the crew needed. Similar considerations would apply to personnel on the surface of the moon.

Reckon there would be any lead on mars to use as shielding or could something else be used?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Reckon there would be any lead on mars to use as shielding or could something else be used?

question occurs to me:

will they ever get anything to fly on Mars? what with the atmosphere being so thin, and all.

mcgoon said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Reckon there would be any lead on mars to use as shielding or could something else be used?

question occurs to me:

will they ever get anything to fly on Mars? what with the atmosphere being so thin, and all.

highly unlikely. balloons maybe.

mcgoon said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Reckon there would be any lead on mars to use as shielding or could something else be used?

question occurs to me:

will they ever get anything to fly on Mars? what with the atmosphere being so thin, and all.

Martian gravity is less than half Earth’s so maybe there’s a chance.

Boris said:

mcgoon said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Reckon there would be any lead on mars to use as shielding or could something else be used?

question occurs to me:

will they ever get anything to fly on Mars? what with the atmosphere being so thin, and all.

highly unlikely. balloons maybe.

What about something like a U-2? i wonder h
ow thin is the atmosphere on Mars, compared with, say, 70,000 feet alt. on Earth?

mcgoon said:

Boris said:

mcgoon said:

question occurs to me:

will they ever get anything to fly on Mars? what with the atmosphere being so thin, and all.

highly unlikely. balloons maybe.

What about something like a U-2? i wonder h
ow thin is the atmosphere on Mars, compared with, say, 70,000 feet alt. on Earth?

“sea” level pressure on mars is 6 mbar. 24km (80000’) is around 70 mbar. 30km is 10mbar.

Boris said:

mcgoon said:

Boris said:

highly unlikely. balloons maybe.

What about something like a U-2? i wonder h
ow thin is the atmosphere on Mars, compared with, say, 70,000 feet alt. on Earth?

“sea” level pressure on mars is 6 mbar. 24km (80000’) is around 70 mbar. 30km is 10mbar.

Look on the bright side, low gravity, low air resistance.

Boris said:

mcgoon said:

Boris said:

highly unlikely. balloons maybe.

What about something like a U-2? i wonder h
ow thin is the atmosphere on Mars, compared with, say, 70,000 feet alt. on Earth?

“sea” level pressure on mars is 6 mbar. 24km (80000’) is around 70 mbar. 30km is 10mbar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_aircraft

Probably use true rockets as a propulsion system on Mars.

Peak Warming Man said:

Probably use true rockets as a propulsion system on Mars.

Plus a ram jet function at high speed.

could a rocket parachute combination work ?

either forward rocket and braking parachute from behind

or upwards rocket then floating down parachute

could ultra light drones work on mars?

CrazyNeutrino said:

could a rocket parachute combination work ?

either forward rocket and braking parachute from behind

or upwards rocket then floating down parachute

could ultra light drones work on mars?

and use better attitude speed sensors than ESA

CrazyNeutrino said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

could a rocket parachute combination work ?

either forward rocket and braking parachute from behind

or upwards rocket then floating down parachute

could ultra light drones work on mars?

and use better attitude speed sensors than ESA

altitude

better altitude sensors

This thread had got me thinking about the differences in approach of the Russians and Americans in the original Apollo era.

American approach:
The truss
Retrorockets
Mylar
Computer
Minimum weight

Russian approach:
Spherical strength
Airbags
Self-righting
OHS
Mathematics
Raw power

Making a LEM from Mylar would never pass today’s OHS laws.

Spiny Norman said:

I’ve been watching a few Apollo vids lately and I was wondering how much better we could do it today, even using gear based almost totally on the 1960’s/70’s gear, but upgraded with modern electronics and materials.
For example, instead of the large & heavy computers, use modern gear which would be a fraction of the size & weight. That alone would free up a fair bit of weight & space to use for extending the time on the Moon, etc. Perhaps something like having a set of solar panels that fold out of the LM to power it, instead of batteries alone. Modern batteries by themselves are vastly better than the ones from 40+ years ago as well. Much smaller and lighter for the same capacity.
Modern materials, such as better insulation, would also make the entire rocket lighter.

I’m guessing that the LM could easily stay on the Moon for a good week or so …. ?

Yes on the computers.

Apollo used fuel cells rather than batteries. Oh wait, they switched to off the shelf batteries which incurred a 45 kg weight penalty.

Lunokhod used both solar and nuclear power if I remember correctly.

Solar panels weigh a lot less than they used to, but they still need special cooling or they fail in the heat.

Agree with modern batteries being better and lighter.

Modern materials really only fall into three classes – better structural glasses/fibreglass. Kevlar and aramids. Carbon fibre. Most of the metal alloy improvements were made during the Apollo era or slightly afterwards.

As for staying on the Moon for longer. Would air supply be the dominant limitation? I don’t think we can do much better there than they did before, except for lighter weight CO2 scrubbers. I’ll think about that some more.

I’m sure a better lunar rover could be built now, at lower cost.

Taking a “lot of glamour out of the business” of being an astronaut, one spaceman termed the training toilet: “the deepest, darkest secret about space flight.”

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/astronauts-go-bathroom-space/

tauto said:

Taking a “lot of glamour out of the business” of being an astronaut, one spaceman termed the training toilet: “the deepest, darkest secret about space flight.”

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/astronauts-go-bathroom-space/

The book “Packing for Mars” by Mary Roach has a chapter about the training toilet. It’s no longer a secret.

> I’m guessing that the LM could easily stay on the Moon for a good week or so …. ?

I’d guess two weeks. Beyond that, they’d have to stay on the Moon overnight, which would lead to local temperatures plummeting to minus 153 degrees C (other sources say -173 and -183), and associated problems.

Forgot to mention earlier. Rocket designers are inherently conservative, avoiding new technology. They have to be. Because one place not to test new technology to failure is outer space. So remarkably few modern materials are used in rockets. One exception is that there is now a rocket built with the best modern material – spirally-wound carbon fibre. It may be a missile.

mollwollfumble said:

Forgot to mention earlier. Rocket designers are inherently conservative, avoiding new technology. They have to be. Because one place not to test new technology to failure is outer space. So remarkably few modern materials are used in rockets. One exception is that there is now a rocket built with the best modern material – spirally-wound carbon fibre. It may be a missile.

They are 3D printing rockets now, so that a small step forward, scam-jets are moving forward slowly, rockets that can land have been developed, but yes the overall picture is slow.