Author Topic: The new lunar lander  (Read 34714 times)

Offline JonSBerndt

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Westminster, CO
    • JSBSim Open Source Flight Dynamics Software Library
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 61
The new lunar lander
« on: 02/23/2007 11:26 am »
I attended a fascinating dinner lecture last night at which John Connolly (NASA) presented the latest information about the new lunar lander concept development effort. It's now apparently called the Lunar Lander, and the LSAM acronym is not being used.

The lander design that we have all seen is not the design that will eventually be built, since it is the result of a quick study. A more thorough, preliminary, effort to identify potential lander approaches, features, and technologies was made since the ESAS was released, with many NASA centers providing input given each center's unique strengths. That lead to some concensus, good ideas that were kept, and equally fascinating ideas that were deemed unworkable. One of the concepts from Langley had long tanks oriented horizontally (as the lander sits on the moon) with the crew cabin nestled inside the assembly of tanks. This approach was taken to allow the lander to be packaged atop the Ares V more easily. Another approach showed the airlock acting as the ascent stage. One concept goal seen in several illustrations is a minimalized ascent stage crew cabin, with additional habitable volume in an adjacent position. So, instead of discarding the entire habitable volume after ascent from the moon,  some of it remains on the lander, in order to begin building up a base.

More information about the lecture will be written up for the next issue of Horizons. The charts presented may eventually end up on the AIAA Houston web site, here: http://www.aiaa-houston.org/.

Jon

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #1 on: 02/23/2007 11:48 am »
I remember Doug Stanley mentioning the "minimalised ascent stage" lander in one of his Q&As; I guess the concept has survived.

Something like it could be the Mars lander in the ESA's baseline Mars mission: ftp://ftp.estec.esa.nl/pub/aurora/Human_Missions_to_Mars/HMM_Executive_Summary_Final_Version.pdf

Simon ;)

Online Chris Bergin

RE: The new lunar lander
« Reply #2 on: 02/23/2007 11:58 am »
Not forgetting the LM Lunar Landers. Document on L2.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline RedSky

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: The new lunar lander
« Reply #3 on: 02/23/2007 03:19 pm »
I recalled this image of the LSAM (now LL?) with a somewhat different (horizontal) configuration of the descent stage tanks.  But the ascent stage was still basically the "ISS module" form...

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/133832main_Orion_with_LSAM.jpg

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #4 on: 02/24/2007 12:55 am »
Quote
simonbp - 23/2/2007  6:48 AM
Something like it could be the Mars lander in the ESA's baseline Mars mission: ftp://ftp.estec.esa.nl/pub/aurora/Human_Missions_to_Mars/HMM_Executive_Summary_Final_Version.pdf

Here's what I meant:

Simon ;)

Offline JonSBerndt

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Westminster, CO
    • JSBSim Open Source Flight Dynamics Software Library
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #5 on: 02/24/2007 04:14 pm »
Another approach I've heard about was "staged descent". Staging works good for ascent, but for descent? It was mentioned in Mr. Connolly's lecture that the staging would occur fairly close to the ground, and that was judged to be a probably unacceptable risk.

Jon

Offline kfsorensen

  • aerospace and nuclear engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1568
  • Huntsville, AL
    • Flibe Energy
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: The new lunar lander
« Reply #6 on: 02/24/2007 05:18 pm »
If they want to move towards a sustainable, reusable architecture someday with ISRU (which I have to assume is the reason for the South Pole landing site) then they need to moving away from staging, not towards it.  Otherwise, they will be looking at a total lander redesign when they want to get to a better architecture.

Offline JonSBerndt

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Westminster, CO
    • JSBSim Open Source Flight Dynamics Software Library
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #7 on: 02/24/2007 09:28 pm »
The charts from John Connolly's lecture earlier this week are up on our AIAA Houston web site:

http://www.aiaa-houston.org/cy0607/event-22feb07/Connolly_AIAA_2-20-07.pdf

The main site is www.aiaa-houston.org.

Jon

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #8 on: 02/24/2007 09:52 pm »
Quote
JonSBerndt - 24/2/2007  4:28 PM

The charts from John Connolly's lecture earlier this week are up on our AIAA Houston web site:

http://www.aiaa-houston.org/cy0607/event-22feb07/Connolly_AIAA_2-20-07.pdf

The main site is www.aiaa-houston.org.

Thanks! Lots of really innovative ideas there...

I especially like the vertically arranged, minimalised-ascent stage designs, the MSFC and JSC concepts particularly.  A combination of MSFC's near-to-the-ground ascent stage and JSC's wet workshop LH2 tanks, with some sort of ATHELETE-style mobility system sounds perfect...

Simon ;)

Offline Marsman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • U.S.
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #9 on: 02/24/2007 10:49 pm »
I'm not too keen on the wet workshop idea, it might be to much work for little benefit. I really liked the MSFC lander, with the hab in the middle of the propellant tanks. The ATHLETE system looked great, but how does it work?

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #10 on: 02/25/2007 02:21 am »
Quote
Marsman - 24/2/2007  5:49 PM

I'm not too keen on the wet workshop idea, it might be to much work for little benefit. I really liked the MSFC lander, with the hab in the middle of the propellant tanks. The ATHLETE system looked great, but how does it work?

Here's some more info on ATHLETE; basically, it's a giant 6-legged spider robot: http://ai.stanford.edu/~latombe/papers/athlete-06/paper.pdf

The wet workshop wouldn't be that useful for sortie missions, but for a lunar base, you want as much internal volume as possible, and so you don't want to waste the big huge LH2 tanks that you lugged all the way from earth...

Simon ;)

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #11 on: 02/26/2007 02:06 am »
ATHLETE looks like a lot of vulnerable joints for an extremely hostile environment. KISS would be more appropriate.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Online CuddlyRocket

RE: The new lunar lander
« Reply #12 on: 02/27/2007 07:33 am »
Quote
JonSBerndt - 23/2/2007  12:26 PM

One concept goal seen in several illustrations is a minimalized ascent stage crew cabin, with additional habitable volume in an adjacent position. So, instead of discarding the entire habitable volume after ascent from the moon,  some of it remains on the lander, in order to begin building up a base.
Yes, that does seem a good idea that would seem to have a high probability of being in the final design. Not only for the reason you give, but also because such an ascent module would require a smaller ascent engine and therefore smaller fuel tanks, freeing mass for even more usable payload.

I assume they envisage the ascent module being the control module for the descent? It makes sense for as much equipment that is needed for the descent but not the ascent to be on/in those modules left behind as possible, but the ascent computers can presumably handle both tasks?

I envisage the ascent module engine to be a simple pressure-fed, ignite-on-contact propellant one. There is a mass penalty over a more efficient engine, but it simply has to work - in that it must both start and keep firing - to avoid loss of crew. (The descent engine need not be quite as reliable, as if it fails to start this would probably only mean loss of mission. In any event, a highly efficient engine is a necessity in order to make it work at all.)

At least this would be the case in the early sortie missions. Later on, when the outpost is more established, it may be an idea to take a leaf out of the Mars Direct book and to send a lander unmanned - although presumably full of useful cargo - but with an ascent module, so that the following manned missions would have two ascent modules available in emergencies. They'd use the older one to return, leaving the one they brought with them for the next crew. With such a fall-back, the reliability of the ascent module can be relaxed, enabling use of more efficient engines etc. (You could actually consider doing this from the beginning.  Alternatively, sending a smaller automatic lander with just an extremely reliable ascent module - perhaps as a contribution by an international partner - might be considered? Such a lander could later be used to send additional one-off items of 'contributed' equipment - pressurised rover, telescope, solar power storage etc.)

The idea of fitting together successive habitation modules is a good idea, although moving them into position would be a problem. Perhaps the descent module can have wheels instead of pads at the end of its legs? Lockable in place, of course - one wouldn't want to go rolling down the hill at an inopportune moment! But a small crane cum tug would seem advisable. (Another international contribution?)

If you're landing twice a year, you'll soon have more than enough 'habitation'. Later missions may replace the habitation module with pure cargo. And later habitation modules can be specialised. Perhaps fitted out with individual cabins? If it's big enough for four people to live and work in for a time, you'd get three cabins in one. And one as a kitchen/galley? And you might want to make one double-hulled with a hatch at the top into which you can pour regolith to act as a radiation storm-shelter.

You should certainly use the large hydrogen tanks as additional space - perhaps working and storage (including a rover garage?) rather than living space. You'd need to flush out the hydrogen, but the ability to expose it to vacuum should deal with that easily and quickly (though if you send anything pre-packed within them it would need to be able to withstand vacuum). But again, you'll soon have more space than you need, so an ability to re-work or otherwise re-use the tanks and all the other material and equipment on the landers (including the descent engines) would be a most useful, later facility.

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #13 on: 02/27/2007 10:54 am »
Thanks for the charts !

1.
Quote
GSFC-JSC-GRC Lunar Lander Concept
Vertical configuration with airlock re-used as ascent crew cabin. ...
Focus
• Airlock-based ascent stage more fully

MORE FULLY indeed ! 4 guys, 7 days, in-and-out = lots of lunar dust/powder inside the ascent stage!

2. JPL MobiLander and MSFC Lander : side-mounted ascent stage. Complexity added wrt descent abort-to-orbit. Yes or no ?

3. Minimize LOM/LOC numbers -> separate crew from cargo. True for Earth. True for Luna ? ATHLETE = cargo.



Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #14 on: 03/02/2007 06:05 pm »
It also looks to be a good way to deploy outsized instruments upon the moon.

Offline GraphGuy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 292
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #15 on: 03/02/2007 08:30 pm »
I think that if you could land a dedicated tractor that it would be superior to walking over every hab module with ATHELETE.  Why waste ATHELETE's weight on every landing, why  not just land one tractor/crane and reuse it every mission?  Food for thought.

I'm no rocket scientist, but when you can bury yourself in regolith, inflatable > hardshell.  Inflatable gives more space to do more things and you can always attach dedicated hard modules (e.g. airlock).  Regolith means there is next to no micrometeorite danger and that you aren't directly exposed to the sun.  Would you rather spend 6 months inside various tin cans or inside a big dome?

Also why land with one engine and take off with another?  Why not share a common engine for descent and ascent and have it use common propellants?  Reliability issues?  Poor performance compared to LH2/LOX?  Carrying larger tanks up on ascent?

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #16 on: 03/02/2007 08:58 pm »
Quote
GraphGuy - 2/3/2007  3:30 PM

 Would you rather spend 6 months inside various tin cans or inside a big dome?


Both. A metal tube doesn't have to be as labor intensive--and you can heap rego on it later

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #17 on: 03/03/2007 02:50 am »
Quote
Also why land with one engine and take off with another?

Safety and mass minimisation. The decent engine might kick up dust and rocks which could damage it or the decent stage. The ascent engine has to work or it's LOC. Also you want to minimise the mass of a ascent stage, separating the ascent and descent stages in one way to do this.


Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #18 on: 03/03/2007 02:07 pm »
Quote
GraphGuy - 2/3/2007  3:30 PM

I think that if you could land a dedicated tractor that it would be superior to walking over every hab module with ATHELETE.  Why waste ATHELETE's weight on every landing, why  not just land one tractor/crane and reuse it every mission?  Food for thought.

Most of the mass of ATHELETE, or any other mobility system, is in the wheels and suspension, not the power. So, a tractor would save relatively little mass, for the cost of an extra Ares V launch.

Quote
GraphGuy - 2/3/2007  3:30 PM
I'm no rocket scientist, but when you can bury yourself in regolith, inflatable > hardshell.  Inflatable gives more space to do more things and you can always attach dedicated hard modules (e.g. airlock).  Regolith means there is next to no micrometeorite danger and that you aren't directly exposed to the sun.  Would you rather spend 6 months inside various tin cans or inside a big dome?

Inflatable is better overall, but you don't want to get to the moon, only to find the inflatable won't deploy. So, the manned landers are hardshell, but then the cargo landers can bring inflatable habs. Also, regolith has to be pretty thick to provide decent hard radiation and micrometeorite protection. Again, that's what you want to more towards eventually, but in the mean time, the big nissan-hut-type shelters shown in the presentation are much better.

Quote
GraphGuy - 2/3/2007  3:30 PM
Also why land with one engine and take off with another?  Why not share a common engine for descent and ascent and have it use common propellants?  Reliability issues?  Poor performance compared to LH2/LOX?  Carrying larger tanks up on ascent?

The reason for not for common propellants is storability. You can only store LH2 for so long, and 6 months is rather difficult, though the GRC lander seemed to manage it. Also, if you are building a lunar base, you want to leave as much habitable volume on the surface as possible for future residents.

Simon ;)

Offline GraphGuy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 292
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #19 on: 03/05/2007 04:20 pm »
Quote
nacnud - 2/3/2007  9:50 PM

Quote
Also why land with one engine and take off with another?

Safety and mass minimisation. The decent engine might kick up dust and rocks which could damage it or the decent stage. The ascent engine has to work or it's LOC. Also you want to minimise the mass of a ascent stage, separating the ascent and descent stages in one way to do this.


That's what I figured.

Offline zinfab

  • Space Junkie
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
  • North Carolina
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #20 on: 03/14/2007 07:25 pm »
Excellent stuff. thanks for the link and pdf!

Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #21 on: 03/15/2007 07:20 am »
In looking at the recurring theme of "minimal ascent cabins," an obvious question comes to mind.  Why not come up with a minimalist lander that would touch down next door to a larger habitat module for the astronauts to live in?
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37443
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #22 on: 03/15/2007 12:54 pm »
Quote
CFE - 15/3/2007  5:20 AM

In looking at the recurring theme of "minimal ascent cabins," an obvious question comes to mind.  Why not come up with a minimalist lander that would touch down next door to a larger habitat module for the astronauts to live in?

It doesn't make sense for the first phase of lunar mission, i.e. the sorties.   One lander is needed that supports 4 crew for x days.   The first phase will have landers going to different places to find a spot for the first base

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #23 on: 03/15/2007 09:02 pm »
Quote
Jim - 15/3/2007  8:54 AM

It doesn't make sense for the first phase of lunar mission, i.e. the sorties.   One lander is needed that supports 4 crew for x days.   The first phase will have landers going to different places to find a spot for the first base

... And Griffin's recent comments suggest that after 2021 there will be 1 sortie (not lunar base) mission each year, in addition to 2 base crew rotations and 1 base cargo. So, to keep from having to support two different landers, you want as much commonality as possible between the sortie and base landers...

Simon ;)

Offline copernicus

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #24 on: 03/30/2007 03:54 pm »
I still find Lockheed-Martin's proposed Lunar Lander (LASM) to be the most realistic and flexible.  

Check this review -
 
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4810


Also, this thread on LM's concepts -

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=4393&posts=59&start=1

LM's design does away with trying to land Statue of Liberty-sized landers on the Moon.  
Their concept allows for excellent pilot visibility during approach and landing, as well
as "ground-level" access to the lunar surface.  The astronauts won't have to descend
several "floors" to get to surface as is required by NASA's standard LSAM design.  







Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3113
  • Likes Given: 3862
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #25 on: 03/30/2007 04:59 pm »
I think that nearly every once of the vehicle that stays on the surface after the ascent stage leaves need to reusable in some fashion.  Whether its using the tanks as hab modules like the one proposal, or the tanks themselves for LunOx and water storage, disassembly for reuse or burning and metaling down (in to plates, wires and castings) the materials into shapes and objects of use.  It would be ridiculous to have a 10,000 pound lander sitting on the surface while resorces are put into landing further supplies or generating In-situ resources.

Just like western settlers in the 1800's and polar explorers everything needs to be used over and over.  Work and ideas need to start going into this as it will effect the materials the lander is made of and likely its configuration.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline aftercolumbia

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #26 on: 03/30/2007 08:00 pm »
Quote
copernicus - 30/3/2007  9:54 AM

I still find Lockheed-Martin's proposed Lunar Lander (LASM) to be the most realistic and flexible.  

Aw, fizzle farts, let's look a gift horse in the mouth:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/13350.pdf

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #27 on: 04/03/2007 02:23 am »
The above combined with this article

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5063

What I find most interesting about this is that it is not dependant on the Ares/Constellation LVs. Using the Atlas V Heavy means that an alternative to the NASA ESAS exists and that some form of lunar operations may be viable using existing LVs if the CEV can be launched on some other LV besides the stick.

With robotic precursors delivering both payload and multiple power generation capabilities as well as a backup ascent module the initial base would be ready for assembly prior to the first manned mission. This is a well thought out program and I would love to see what the cost figures would be.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #28 on: 04/03/2007 12:47 pm »
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 2/4/2007  9:23 PM

The above combined with this article

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5063

What I find most interesting about this is that it is not dependant on the Ares/Constellation LVs. Using the Atlas V Heavy means that an alternative to the NASA ESAS exists and that some form of lunar operations may be viable using existing LVs if the CEV can be launched on some other LV besides the stick.

With robotic precursors delivering both payload and multiple power generation capabilities as well as a backup ascent module the initial base would be ready for assembly prior to the first manned mission. This is a well thought out program and I would love to see what the cost figures would be.

I thought based on the article Atlas Heavy would work for unmanned landing and testing of up to 2 mT of payload to the surface. It would not be able to send a manned mission to the surface. You would still need the Aries V launched EDS for that push.

But if you dig around they do have some atlas growth options that could do that ;) But be very very quite about that one...
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #29 on: 04/09/2007 08:43 pm »
Quote
Jim - 15/3/2007  8:54 AM

Quote
CFE - 15/3/2007  5:20 AM

In looking at the recurring theme of "minimal ascent cabins," an obvious question comes to mind.  Why not come up with a minimalist lander that would touch down next door to a larger habitat module for the astronauts to live in?

It doesn't make sense for the first phase of lunar mission, i.e. the sorties.   One lander is needed that supports 4 crew for x days.   The first phase will have landers going to different places to find a spot for the first base

Probably not with the heavy architecture NASA has chosen. With a more flexible architecture based on EELVs, it would make sense to land a base first, then a minimalist crew lander. Something like the old Langley Light concepts of the early 60s, where they even proposed unpressurized landers. This seems logical gicen you only need to transport crew for a few hours from Orion to Base.

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #30 on: 04/09/2007 08:46 pm »
Quote
simonbp - 15/3/2007  5:02 PM

Quote
Jim - 15/3/2007  8:54 AM

It doesn't make sense for the first phase of lunar mission, i.e. the sorties.   One lander is needed that supports 4 crew for x days.   The first phase will have landers going to different places to find a spot for the first base

... And Griffin's recent comments suggest that after 2021 there will be 1 sortie (not lunar base) mission each year, in addition to 2 base crew rotations and 1 base cargo. So, to keep from having to support two different landers, you want as much commonality as possible between the sortie and base landers...

Simon ;)

Didn't see this comment, but in principle, wouldn't it be more efficient to scrap the sorties, and instead land a really capable Rover able to cover several thousand kilometres?

Has this trade-off been done?

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
RE: The new lunar lander
« Reply #31 on: 04/09/2007 09:09 pm »
Quote
vanilla - 24/2/2007  12:18 PM

If they want to move towards a sustainable, reusable architecture someday with ISRU (which I have to assume is the reason for the South Pole landing site) then they need to moving away from staging, not towards it.  Otherwise, they will be looking at a total lander redesign when they want to get to a better architecture.

I estimated it would take about sixty tons of cargo and one manned mission, to build up the capability to mine water and process it for propellant, assuming there are available water bearing soils (above about 1%). That then gives the ability to refuel a lander for rendez-vous with a CEV or a cargo module. But what landers will they refuel? The ideal answer is the landers which have just landed all the equipment.

That means planning in ISRU from the start. The only lander that's needed is a reusable lander. After two years or so the base will have a collection of landers waiting to be refueled.

Alex

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #32 on: 04/10/2007 01:14 pm »
Quote
alexterrell - 9/4/2007  3:46 PM

Didn't see this comment, but in principle, wouldn't it be more efficient to scrap the sorties, and instead land a really capable Rover able to cover several thousand kilometres?

Has this trade-off been done?

See the JPL design in the above document; basically it's a lunar base on wheels that travels from nearside equatorial down to the south pole, accumulating modules along the way...

Simon ;)

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #33 on: 04/10/2007 02:04 pm »
Quote
simonbp - 10/4/2007  2:14 PM

Quote
alexterrell - 9/4/2007  3:46 PM

Didn't see this comment, but in principle, wouldn't it be more efficient to scrap the sorties, and instead land a really capable Rover able to cover several thousand kilometres?

Has this trade-off been done?

See the JPL design in the above document; basically it's a lunar base on wheels that travels from nearside equatorial down to the south pole, accumulating modules along the way...

Simon ;)

Hard to imagine a harder way to do it. (A south polar base.)

Offline Ankle-bone12

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 207
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #34 on: 04/19/2007 11:43 pm »
anybody see the new "returning to the moon" trailer on the nasa web sight?

heres the URL

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/index.html
Alex B.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #35 on: 04/20/2007 07:11 pm »
Quote
Ankle-bone12 - 19/4/2007  6:43 PM

anybody see the new "returning to the moon" trailer on the nasa web sight?

heres the URL

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/index.html

Here's the high-quality version; finally something cinematic from NASA PAO: :)

http://anon.nasa-global.edgesuite.net/anon.nasa-global/CEV/Lunar_Exploration_Trailer.mov

Simon ;)

Offline copernicus

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #36 on: 05/25/2007 09:04 pm »

   As far as I can tell, the RFP for the Lunar Lander is still years down the road.  As others have
noted, this delay in building the lander puts funding for the VSE in jeopardy after Bush leaves
office.  
   My proposal would be for Griffin and NASA to award the prime contract for the Lunar Lander
as soon as possible.  Its development should not be tied to the development of the Ares-5.  
The Lunar Lander could conduct a series of Earth orbital flights, manned and unmanned, to test
its systems.  This would be similar to Apollo 5 and Apollo 9, as well as to the 2 LEO unmanned tests
of the Soviets' LK lunar module.  
   What are the prospects for launching this with the Ares-1 or the Atlas-5 or the Delta-4, perhaps with
a partial propellant load on the Lunar Lander?  I think that we need to start bending metal on the Lunar
Lander soon.  




Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #37 on: 05/25/2007 09:40 pm »
Quote
copernicus - 25/5/2007  4:04 PM

 What are the prospects for launching this with the Ares-1 or the Atlas-5 or the Delta-4, perhaps with a partial propellant load on the Lunar Lander?  I think that we need to start bending metal on the Lunar Lander soon.  

Not much; the baseline full lander masses about 40 tonnes, and fits in a 8-meter faring. Even with empty tanks, it would still be too big for an Delta IV Heavy or Ares I or anything else but Ares V to launch. That means that first LSAM flown will probably on the first full-up Ares V...

Besides, if Ares V is canceled, we;re most likely not going to the moon... :(

Simon ;)

Offline mong'

  • Whatever gets us to Mars
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 689
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #38 on: 05/25/2007 09:50 pm »
and spending $$$ on LSAM right now would probably delay Orion even more

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #39 on: 05/26/2007 09:57 pm »
Mong' is right.   While some very general planning is being looked at for the LSAM - and its cargo options - no significant money is being invested in the LSAM yet.

That comes from the cash which is made available only when STS has been retired.   Give it one year to shut down STS properly, and that will be when funding for LSAM really begins - 2011.

R.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline aftercolumbia

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #40 on: 05/28/2007 09:14 pm »
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 2/4/2007  8:23 PM

The above combined with this article

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5063

What I find most interesting about this is that it is not dependant on the Ares/Constellation LVs. Using the Atlas V Heavy means that an alternative to the NASA ESAS exists and that some form of lunar operations may be viable using existing LVs if the CEV can be launched on some other LV besides the stick.

-----
"Now is the time to question our operating assumptions and technical dogmas." Mike Griffin

The juxtaposition of your post with the Mike Griffin quote (apparently a coincidence, since I had to paste it separately), is sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet  :cool:  The truth is, of course, that we should always be questioning our operating assumptions and technical dogmas, because if we don't, we basically quit steering and fly off on whatever tangent we happen to be on at a given moment.

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
RE: The new lunar lander
« Reply #41 on: 05/29/2007 08:27 am »
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 27/2/2007  2:33 AM

Quote
JonSBerndt - 23/2/2007  12:26 PM

One concept goal seen in several illustrations is a minimalized ascent stage crew cabin, with additional habitable volume in an adjacent position. So, instead of discarding the entire habitable volume after ascent from the moon,  some of it remains on the lander, in order to begin building up a base.
Yes, that does seem a good idea that would seem to have a high probability of being in the final design. Not only for the reason you give, but also because such an ascent module would require a smaller ascent engine and therefore smaller fuel tanks, freeing mass for even more usable payload.


Perhaps NASA should start at the other end of the transport chain.

1. Design a very light weight lunar ascent module to go from Lunar Surface to an orbiting CEV with 4 astronauts.

Dig out the old Langley-Light studies. Journey time will be no more than a few hours, so the module can be unpressurized. Total ascent stage mass could be of the order of 3 tons. (Compared to the ESAS baseline, that would allow an extra 7 tons to remain on the surface.)

2. Design a lander infrastructure to get the ascent stage to the surface. There are two options:
a. Minimal approach. Just land the ascent stage, and the crew will make use of a hab module landed previously.
b. Traditional approach. Descent stage and hab module are part of one unit. When it's time to go home, wheel the ascent stage some way off and head for the CEV.





Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
RE: The new lunar lander
« Reply #42 on: 05/29/2007 09:18 am »
Quote
alexterrell - 29/5/2007  3:27 AM

1. Design a very light weight lunar ascent module to go from Lunar Surface to an orbiting CEV with 4 astronauts.

Dig out the old Langley-Light studies. Journey time will be no more than a few hours, so the module can be unpressurized. Total ascent stage mass could be of the order of 3 tons. (Compared to the ESAS baseline, that would allow an extra 7 tons to remain on the surface.)
Umm, but then that requires either

a) the CEV to depressurize to allow entry from vacuum which also requires an extra CEV O2 press load mass over contingency requirements, or

b) a docking airlock adapter with its own O2 supply either as part of the lunar ascent module, or attached to the LSAM at launch and then left docked to the CEV until the ascent module returns... and there goes quite a bit of your extra mass 'savings'
(of course the CEV, at least as it stands now, will not have any type of airlock; at least not without wholesale redesigns of both CEV/SM, and lots more money to do it)


Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
RE: The new lunar lander
« Reply #43 on: 05/29/2007 10:26 pm »
Quote
MKremer - 29/5/2007  4:18 AM

Quote
alexterrell - 29/5/2007  3:27 AM

1. Design a very light weight lunar ascent module to go from Lunar Surface to an orbiting CEV with 4 astronauts.

Dig out the old Langley-Light studies. Journey time will be no more than a few hours, so the module can be unpressurized. Total ascent stage mass could be of the order of 3 tons. (Compared to the ESAS baseline, that would allow an extra 7 tons to remain on the surface.)
Umm, but then that requires either

a) the CEV to depressurize to allow entry from vacuum which also requires an extra CEV O2 press load mass over contingency requirements, or

b) a docking airlock adapter with its own O2 supply either as part of the lunar ascent module, or attached to the LSAM at launch and then left docked to the CEV until the ascent module returns... and there goes quite a bit of your extra mass 'savings'
(of course the CEV, at least as it stands now, will not have any type of airlock; at least not without wholesale redesigns of both CEV/SM, and lots more money to do it)


Good point - I thought CEV would have an airlock, but it appears not. This will limit its flexibility in the future.

Could the ascent module consist of an airlock with an inflatable accommodation section?

Option B might not be too infeasible, since the docking adaptor doesn't need to go to lunar surface and back. Long term, with a high enough flight rate, it would make sense to leave the docking adaptor in lunar orbit.

With the current proposals, the ascent module needs to be attached to the descent module. How will they launch it without damaging the descent module?

Offline Marsman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • U.S.
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #44 on: 05/29/2007 10:39 pm »
The descent module is not reused and can be designed so that any equipment needed for future missions is protected.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37443
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: The new lunar lander
« Reply #45 on: 05/30/2007 02:44 am »
Quote
alexterrell - 29/5/2007  6:26 PM

Good point - I thought CEV would have an airlock, but it appears not. This will limit its flexibility in the future.


It is not needed, and won't limit anything,  The CEV is a taxi and not the shuttle.

  • Guest
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #46 on: 05/30/2007 03:07 am »
The cev will only provide the seating and controls for the ride into space. The lunar lander will be what the crew goes into to get out the door.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7349
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #47 on: 05/30/2007 12:44 pm »
Quote
Justin Wheat - 29/5/2007  11:07 PM

The cev will only provide the seating and controls for the ride into space. The lunar lander will be what the crew goes into to get out the door.
What you're saying (admitting) is that the CEV is useless unless it docks to something (ISS/LSAM/etc)
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #48 on: 05/30/2007 02:29 pm »
Quote
clongton - 30/5/2007  7:44 AM
What you're saying (admitting) is that the CEV is useless unless it docks to something (ISS/LSAM/etc)

Well Duh! As Jim said, Orion is a crew taxi, a passenger means of transportation. Generally, means transportation are useless unless they go somewhere. Likewise, the Lunar Lander is useless unless it lands on the Moon!

Simon ;)

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7349
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #49 on: 05/30/2007 02:49 pm »
Quote
simonbp - 30/5/2007  10:29 AM

Quote
clongton - 30/5/2007  7:44 AM
What you're saying (admitting) is that the CEV is useless unless it docks to something (ISS/LSAM/etc)

Well Duh! As Jim said, Orion is a crew taxi, a passenger means of transportation. Generally, means transportation are useless unless they go somewhere. Likewise, the Lunar Lander is useless unless it lands on the Moon!

Simon ;)
Ah – but lunar lander COULD function as a mission module/science lab/lander if Orion were sent to a NEO. The plot thickens.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline 02hurnella

  • Regular
  • Member
  • Posts: 87
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #50 on: 05/30/2007 09:04 pm »
So what will any heavy cargo lander be like?  
>
How will the resupply landers be different? (not equipped with return stages? Or will they be, as a fail-safe)

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #51 on: 05/31/2007 01:40 am »
Quote
02hurnella - 30/5/2007  4:04 PM

So what will any heavy cargo lander be like?  
>
How will the resupply landers be different? (not equipped with return stages? Or will they be, as a fail-safe)

That (like pretty much else about the lander) is yet to be determined, but since it is being directly injected to the moon, without any Orion to lug around, the cargo lander will probably just be a standard descent stage with more stuff on top. Some of the lander designs in the presentation (at the start of this thread) have a combined airlock/ascent stage, so if such a design is sent, they'd have to bring the ascent stage (to get into the pressurized hab). On the other hand, if the "cargo" is unpressurized, like, say, a lunar bulldozer, then they probably wouldn't carry an ascent stage.

For an idea what I mean, look at the post-Apollo plans:

AES: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/aesrbase.htm

ALSS: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/alsrbase.htm

LESA: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lesrbase.htm

Simon ;)

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #52 on: 05/31/2007 02:44 pm »
Quote
simonbp - 31/5/2007  2:40 AM

Quote
02hurnella - 30/5/2007  4:04 PM

So what will any heavy cargo lander be like?  
>
How will the resupply landers be different? (not equipped with return stages? Or will they be, as a fail-safe)

That (like pretty much else about the lander) is yet to be determined, but since it is being directly injected to the moon, without any Orion to lug around, the cargo lander will probably just be a standard descent stage with more stuff on top. Some of the lander designs in the presentation (at the start of this thread) have a combined airlock/ascent stage, so if such a design is sent, they'd have to bring the ascent stage (to get into the pressurized hab). On the other hand, if the "cargo" is unpressurized, like, say, a lunar bulldozer, then they probably wouldn't carry an ascent stage.

For an idea what I mean, look at the post-Apollo plans:

AES: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/aesrbase.htm

ALSS: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/alsrbase.htm

LESA: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lesrbase.htm

Simon ;)

Thanks! What gems. I love this forum.

Offline 02hurnella

  • Regular
  • Member
  • Posts: 87
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #53 on: 05/31/2007 02:48 pm »
Yeah thanks

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #54 on: 06/01/2007 01:15 am »
Actually, come to think of it, the LESA Lunar Lander was pretty darn close to the LSAM...

Quote
For LESA a "clean sheet of paper" direct lunar lander, the Lunar Landing Vehicle (LLV) was conceived, which would take full advantage of the Saturn V trans-lunar payload capability. The LLV would have a payload of 12,700 kg, which would include life support systems and consumables, a shelter, and a Lunar Roving Vehicle. The shelter was designed for six crew, but only three would use it in the early missions. It consisted of an airlock, a cylindrical domed center structure, and an outer toroid work area. Adequate space existed in the toroid for suited astronauts to function and operate the controls in case of an emergency depressurization. Net LLV translunar injection mass was 41,000 kg (equivalent to a 43,000 kg mass payload for the Saturn V, including fairings). Landed mass was 18,000 kg, including 11,5000 to 13,500 kg payload (depending on whether a one or two stage LLV was developed), 900 to 1,000 cu m of living area, and access platforms 1.6 to 3.0 m above the surface, depending on the staging concept. Engines for the LLV would be modifications of the RL10-A3 Lox/LH2 engine.

Simon ;)

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #55 on: 07/20/2007 07:48 pm »
Quote
Marsman - 29/5/2007  11:39 PM

The descent module is not reused and can be designed so that any equipment needed for future missions is protected.

If the Centenary competition entry is any guide the ascension motor will be sufficiently hot that it can melt concrete, how much mass will the protection add?

After 3 landings would it be easier to create a special launch pad?
Possibly using a mining rover to carry the ascension stage to the launch pad.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37443
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #56 on: 07/21/2007 01:27 pm »
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 20/7/2007  3:48 PM

Quote
Marsman - 29/5/2007  11:39 PM

The descent module is not reused and can be designed so that any equipment needed for future missions is protected.

If the Centenary competition entry is any guide the ascension motor will be sufficiently hot that it can melt concrete, how much mass will the protection add?

After 3 landings would it be easier to create a special launch pad?
Possibly using a mining rover to carry the ascension stage to the launch pad.

There first will be sortie missions, 2 per year for awhile, then the lunar base, which will take a good number of flights over a few years.  Mining is not part of the plan and it won't be done by NASA.  It won't start for 10 or more years after the first landing

Landing is different that liftoff, the descent stage will be exposed to the ascent engine for a moment

PS. It is  ascent engine or stage, not ascension

Offline SteveNovak

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 27
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The new lunar lander
« Reply #57 on: 07/22/2007 08:17 pm »
Quote
Jim - 21/7/2007  6:27 AM

There first will be sortie missions, 2 per year for awhile, then the lunar base, which will take a good number of flights over a few years.  Mining is not part of the plan and it won't be done by NASA.  It won't start for 10 or more years after the first landing

Landing is different that liftoff, the descent stage will be exposed to the ascent engine for a moment

PS. It is  ascent engine or stage, not ascension

Ah! We are receiving grammar lessons now on this site. Let me help! Your sentences should end with a "." (period). :-)

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0