Author Topic: Can SLS/Orion carry a Lunar lander with ascent vehicle and surface habitat?  (Read 10997 times)

Offline TakeOff

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 392
  • Liked: 85
  • Likes Given: 115
Orion with the service module has a dry weight of 26 tons, the Apollo CSM weighed 12 tons, according to Wikipedia. Will SLS have capacity to squeeze in a Lunar lander with ascent vehicle and a habitat for, say, three astronauts during two weeks? Isn't Orion too big to function as a CSM?

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
A fully fueled and loaded Apollo CSM like that on Apollo 17 weighed about 67,000 pounds - a bit more than 30 metric tons.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline TakeOff

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 392
  • Liked: 85
  • Likes Given: 115
A fully fueled and loaded Apollo CSM like that on Apollo 17 weighed about 67,000 pounds - a bit more than 30 metric tons.
But Orion's dry weight is about twice that of Apollo CSM, is that correct?

Maybe I should ask it like this:
How much mass could an SLS with an Orion spare to land on the Lunar surface and how does that compare to the Apollo landings?

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39218
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32738
  • Likes Given: 8196
Orion with the service module has a dry weight of 26 tons, the Apollo CSM weighed 12 tons, according to Wikipedia.

Orion capsule without crew is 9887 kg and service module inert mass is 6858 kg. Total dry mass is 16,745 kg. [1] Apollo 17 Service Module dry mass is 6101 kg and Command Module mass is 5840 kg. Total dry mass is 11,941 kg. [2] So Orion is 40% heavier than Apollo.

Quote
Will SLS have capacity to squeeze in a Lunar lander with ascent vehicle and a habitat for, say, three astronauts during two weeks?

Yes. Block IB should be able to deliver a Lunar Module to low Lunar orbit.

Quote
Isn't Orion too big to function as a CSM?

The Service Module of Orion is too small to function in the same way as the CSM did for Apollo.

[1] Boeing, "The Space Launch System and the pathway to Mars," Annual Meeting of the Lunar Exploration Analysis Group, Laurel, MD, USA, Oct. 2014.

[2] R. W. Orloff and D. M. Harland, "Apollo: The definitive sourcebook," Springer-Praxix Publishing, Chichester, UK, 2006.
« Last Edit: 02/02/2017 07:57 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Orion capsule without crew is 9887 kg [...] Apollo 17 Command Module mass is 5840 kg.

So with an Orion crew of 6 the capsule dry mass per crew member is 1648 kg and with a crew of 3 the Apollo CM dry mass per crew member is 1947 kg. Orion saves 299 kg per crew member, or (299 / 1947) = 15%.

Is that correct and fair?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline JH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Liked: 281
  • Likes Given: 72
If NASA had any plans to fly more than 4 crew per flight, which they don't.

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Orion capsule without crew is 9887 kg [...] Apollo 17 Command Module mass is 5840 kg.

So with an Orion crew of 6 the capsule dry mass per crew member is 1648 kg and with a crew of 3 the Apollo CM dry mass per crew member is 1947 kg. Orion saves 299 kg per crew member, or (299 / 1947) = 15%.

Is that correct and fair?

Not really.

Apollo was designed for a mission crew of 3, but could have as many as 5 in the Skylab Rescue version.

Orion is designed for a mission crew of 4, but could have as many as 6. Since it is bigger than Dragon or Starliner which can hold up to a crew of 7, you could probably get even more astronauts in an Orion if you wanted.

Orion needs more volume per crewperson because of longer missions (21 days instead of 14 days), so that makes direct comparisons difficult.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Um? What size crew do you think NASA is planning to send on Mars missions?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39218
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32738
  • Likes Given: 8196
Um? What size crew do you think NASA is planning to send on Mars missions?

Well, we're getting a bit side tracked since this is the Lunar thread, but NASA had planned on sending six crew in previous Design Reference Missions (DRM). I think the current plan though is sending four crew. That's how many crew fit in the Exploration Augmentation Module (EAM).
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline TakeOff

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 392
  • Liked: 85
  • Likes Given: 115
Um? What size crew do you think NASA is planning to send on Mars missions?
What does that have to do with the Orion? It can only land in Earth's oceans, and Steven Pietrobon here says that it is too small to be used as Apollo's CSM. So I don't understand what it has been designed for, it seems to be completely useless by design.

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 684
  • Likes Given: 97
My question would be how large could a Lunar lander be if carried alongside Orion?  I'd presume something would be possible via the Block IB or II versions.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Um? What size crew do you think NASA is planning to send on Mars missions?
What does that have to do with the Orion? It can only land in Earth's oceans, and Steven Pietrobon here says that it is too small to be used as Apollo's CSM. So I don't understand what it has been designed for, it seems to be completely useless by design.

Orion can do lunar missions with a crew of four. Orion can be used as a taxi on Mars missions with a crew of six. As the Mars ship stack loops around to go back to L2, Orion reenters with the crew. Probably better ways to do that.

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
My question would be how large could a Lunar lander be if carried alongside Orion?  I'd presume something would be possible via the Block IB or II versions.

Block 1B can launch about 10 tonnes with Orion. That's not enough to include a lunar lander. Block 2 might be able to carry a small lander with Orion.

SLS is a reworked Ares V concept. The plan with Ares V was to take two launches to put Orion and Altair in lunar orbit. They could then land Altair with a crew of four and stay longer.

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Saturn V ~110-115mt.

SLS 1B only 105mt.

SLS 1B is just too small and Orion is just to big and heavy for any significant co-manifested Lunar Lander.

But a SLS 2 130mt may be big enough if the prop used on the lander is hydrolox not storable prop. SLS 2 would have only a capability of < 25mt for a co-manifested payload. The other additioanl problems is that the SM must be larger than current as well which then eats into this value too.

Remember the Constellation was estimating that a hydrolox =co-manifested lander with Orion would need a 200mt launcher. SLS 2 would still be 50mt or more under performing for a true Lunar surface co-manifestied lander capibility. You would have to drastically do weight reductions and other limitations to do a co-manifested Lunar surface mission.

The numbers just do not support it.

With a different much lighter crew capsule probably but not with an Orion.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
IMHO Use separate launches to send a reusable lander, a lunar orbit space station with hanger for the lander and a SEP tug to deliver propellant plus other consumables. Then further landings just need to send the Orion with crew and a few supplies.

Offline punder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1238
  • Liked: 1827
  • Likes Given: 1436
IMHO Use separate launches to send a reusable lander, a lunar orbit space station with hanger for the lander and a SEP tug to deliver propellant plus other consumables. Then further landings just need to send the Orion with crew and a few supplies.

Yes. There is no need to think in terms of single-flight missions as with Apollo, and that is booster-agnostic.

I would add a surface habitat delivered on one unmanned flight, so the reusable lander can be even smaller. Or two flights: one to put the hab in lunar orbit, and a second carrying a bare-bones lander to take it down to the surface.

The thing is, none of this can work if SLS flies only once a year.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
IMHO Use separate launches to send a reusable lander, a lunar orbit space station with hanger for the lander and a SEP tug to deliver propellant plus other consumables. Then further landings just need to send the Orion with crew and a few supplies.

Yes. There is no need to think in terms of single-flight missions as with Apollo, and that is booster-agnostic.

I would add a surface habitat delivered on one unmanned flight, so the reusable lander can be even smaller. Or two flights: one to put the hab in lunar orbit, and a second carrying a bare-bones lander to take it down to the surface.

The thing is, none of this can work if SLS flies only once a year.

If the SEP tug is launched using a different type of launch vehicle there can be a manned landing within a 3 year period and a base in 4 years using launch one a year SLS.

Offline TrevorMonty

Any lunar missions using SLS/Orion are likely to stage from DSH and will require to launchers. One launch to deliver lander to DSH and another for crew. Return trip of approx 5km/s from DSH to surface is big ask of lander but possible.


Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39218
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32738
  • Likes Given: 8196
Saturn V ~110-115mt.

SLS 1B only 105mt.

Apple with oranges here. The Saturn V payload (nominally 118 t) does not include the S-IVB. The SLS IB payload includes the Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) mass of 11.9 t.

Apples (including upper stage)
Saturn V 140 t
SLS IB 105 t

Oranges (without upper stage)
Saturn V 118 t
SLS IB 93.1 t

Quote
But a SLS 2 130mt may be big enough if the prop used on the lander is hydrolox not storable prop. SLS 2 would have only a capability of < 25mt for a co-manifested payload. The other additioanl problems is that the SM must be larger than current as well which then eats into this value too.

I'm not sure that would work with 130 t. A hydrolox descent stage is very mass inefficient. With 140 t of true payload mass, I was able to get it to work using staged descent with a cryogenic propulsion stage (CPS). See my paper "Fly me to the Moon on an SLS Block II". If the Descent Stage or CPS performs low Lunar orbit (LLO) insertion, Orion has enough delta-V for Trans Earth Injection (TEI).

http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/pub/SLS-Moon-200715.pdf
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline jtrame

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 309
  • W4FJT
  • Knoxville, TN
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 346
In an alternate timeline the Apollo missions became multiple launch missions with the LM modified as a lander only and delivering the longer stay hab in place of the ascent stage.  The 2 stage LM became a taxi and longer missions centering around a base camp became possible.  Going forward, this is how we should set up lunar exploration.  With the modern addition of a re-usable lunar taxi. 
SLS could play a role in delivering the surface  hab.  It could play a role in delivering the orbital station.  As these other programs come on line (New Glenn, etc.), the role of SLS would be diminished in this arena, but might soldier on for a time delivering components for the Mars transfer ship.  SLS is probably a short term bridge as we ramp up to the next phase of space exploration. 

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Um? What size crew do you think NASA is planning to send on Mars missions?
What does that have to do with the Orion? It can only land in Earth's oceans, and Steven Pietrobon here says that it is too small to be used as Apollo's CSM. So I don't understand what it has been designed for, it seems to be completely useless by design.

It was designed for 4 on a lunar mission where the lander would do the lunar orbit insertion and to return 6 people to earth from a Mars transfer vehicle.

Apollo SM was overdesigned since it originally was going to lift off the moon's surface.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
IMHO Use separate launches to send a reusable lander, a lunar orbit space station with hanger for the lander and a SEP tug to deliver propellant plus other consumables. Then further landings just need to send the Orion with crew and a few supplies.

So, you're  saying it would take four SLS flights...  Worth noting that we don't have a reusable lander, or a Lunar orbit space station (with or without a hanger for the lander we don't have), or an SEP tug to deliver propellant, or the technology demonstrated for in-space refueling.  Not a problem, since we don't have SLS either, or Orion.

If we had some bacon, we could have bacon and eggs for breakfast... if we had some eggs.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline TakeOff

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 392
  • Liked: 85
  • Likes Given: 115

Shouldn't the SLS be used to launch to LEO with the to-be-developed Lunar lander and ascent stack, and the upper stage needed to get to Lunar orbit and back, while a Dragon or Starliner is used for launching the crew to dock with it and be their transfer habitat and Earth lander, on a rocket that is human rated and frequently launched and proven? It would add the mass of the Dragon or equivalent to the mission and the SLS would not need its launch escape tower or other burdens of human rating. Wasn't it a sound idea of Ares V and I to keep heavy cargo launches separate from crewed launches?

I don't see how the Orion is useful for a program of putting humans on the Lunar surface. One would have to pick up a boulder from some asteroid and put it in Lunar orbit in order to find any use of the Orion. One has to redecorate space in order to make it look useful. It kind of lacks the matching colors by design.
« Last Edit: 02/09/2017 02:34 am by TakeOff »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
IMHO Use separate launches to send a reusable lander, a lunar orbit space station with hanger for the lander and a SEP tug to deliver propellant plus other consumables. Then further landings just need to send the Orion with crew and a few supplies.

So, you're  saying it would take four SLS flights...  Worth noting that we don't have a reusable lander, or a Lunar orbit space station (with or without a hanger for the lander we don't have), or an SEP tug to deliver propellant, or the technology demonstrated for in-space refueling.  Not a problem, since we don't have SLS either, or Orion.

If we had some bacon, we could have bacon and eggs for breakfast... if we had some eggs.

We do not have eggs but we do have a hen house. Hens lay eggs. ☺

About four SLS flights would be needed to construct the infrastructure; additional landings need a single SLS flight and SEP tug trip. Each large lunar habitats is likely to need an SLS to get it to lunar orbit.

Reusable lander - currently we do not have a reusable manned lander but ULA has announced that they plan to convert their new ACES upper stage into the reusable propulsion module of a reusable lander called XEUS. A crew cabin will however need developing.
http://masten.aero/vehicles-2/xeus

The lunar orbit spacestation has a name the Deep Space Habitat. A couple of ground prototypes are being developed as part of NextSTEP-2 program. The hanger module would need developing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Space_Technologies_for_Exploration_Partnerships

SEP tug - the propulsion module of the ARRM spacecraft is a SEP tug. Build a second SEP tug and make its payload a fuel tank. (IMHO ARM is part of the SLS/Orion development but has its own line item.)

In-space refuelling - the Russians have refuelled the ISS. The NASA Docking System (NDS) has an enhancement supplying connectors for fuel and oxidiser.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Docking_System
A test mission to test rendezvous, docking and propellant transfer using enhanced NDS would only be a medium difficulty mission. The two spacecraft could be launched on a Falcon 9 or Atlas V.

The Block 1 SLS is due to fly Exploration Mission 1 within a couple of years, the hardware is currently being assembled. Doing a Moon mission with Block 1 SLS would be difficult but difficult and impossible are different words.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
So long as the NASA can do it all model is used, the results will be what they have been*.
We'll be stuck in LEO until we simply quit sending humans to space.

Time for a different model.

*(Definition: Insanity... doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.)
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428

*(Definition: Insanity... doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.)

Yep, like posting the same things over and over in thread like these.
« Last Edit: 02/13/2017 12:08 am by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428

We'll be stuck in LEO


A likely outcome until something other than chemical rockets come along

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Chemical is fine for Cislunar activities and LEO. And for some Mars mission scenarios, it works too. But some sort of significant 'leverage' is needed to accomplish true deep space missions without the logistics getting completely out of hand with 'Giantism' and massive costs. Propellant Depots, Solar Electric Propulsion and ISRU have all or in part been identified as ways to stop veritable oceans of chemical propellants being burned to send people and cargo around the solar system. A mixture of Propellant Depots, SEP and ISRU could enable a lot, without getting into expensive and politically volatile nuclear propulsion systems of various 'flavors'.

But we have to be pragmatic - until more leadership and technology development is in better supply; we can look forward to only more and more studies, designs and Powerpoints... :(
« Last Edit: 02/13/2017 01:27 am by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Tags:
 

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