Here is the mission poster. A big thankyou to Michel for getting this done. There are still a number of things that are not correct, but Michel has other projects to do and I didn't want to take up more of his time. I'll let the NSF reader pick all the errors out!
I like the lander, far better than Altar, just not a fan of the crasher stage but OK for a few exploration type missions.
It honestly looks like a 21st century re-imagining of Apollo, utilizing a crasher-stage but nonetheless. I don't know whether to say it's a good or bad strategy, but on the positive I will say it looks feasible at a glance while on the negative easily as wasteful as Apollo. All the same I wouldn't mind seeing this become a reality barring better ideas materializing.
I'd wish for some context on this to make a better call. For example: what kind of orbit will Orion and the lander initially brake into? We already know the Orion can just barely brake into high orbit (and all the weird variants of it); does this imply the crasher-stage, much like Altair's planned descent stage, will be doing much of the inbound work? A second example would be knowing whether or not if either half of the lander can be reused or given some long-term function.
... I'd like to see a version that's one-piece (sans crasher) and reusable.
Sad, but that is no bigger than Apollo. To get anything real done on the moon, they will need a lot of cargo. Block II of SLS should at least ditch the solids for two 5.5 Kerolox boosters using AR-1's at the very least. This alone would increase payload. Then add a 5th engine on the core with a J2X upper stage. Then we are talking real cargo and equipment. IF, big if, the AR-1 is developed, built, and tested. NASA should seriously consider this. They have already developed the J2X, and the extra plumbing for another engine shouldn't be that big a problem for them. They could also recover the engines, like Vulcan, on the AR-1's.
Quote from: spacenut on 08/03/2017 12:16 pmSad, but that is no bigger than Apollo. To get anything real done on the moon, they will need a lot of cargo. Block II of SLS should at least ditch the solids for two 5.5 Kerolox boosters using AR-1's at the very least. This alone would increase payload. Then add a 5th engine on the core with a J2X upper stage. Then we are talking real cargo and equipment. IF, big if, the AR-1 is developed, built, and tested. NASA should seriously consider this. They have already developed the J2X, and the extra plumbing for another engine shouldn't be that big a problem for them. They could also recover the engines, like Vulcan, on the AR-1's. A cargo only version could be made of the lander.By only sending the cargo lander and no crew ( Orion ) this could deliver a greater payload mass and volume to the Lunar surface.
Only real difference, other than layout, is landing legs and I was wondering if you could explain why canting and travel aren't necessary.
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 08/03/2017 07:07 amHere's a three view of the LM. Thanks again to Michel Lamontagne. Real impressive work, SP.The math doesn't change, though it's still surprising how similar your design is to the conclusions I and others have reached. For example; If the main tankage mass was excluded, your lander is only a couple hundred kg heavier than my Propulsion+Habitat mass, easily accounted for by your docking ring or third ascent engine. I also planned a 3.25m x 2.8m (L x W) hab compared to your 3.25m x 2.4m (?) when measurements exclude your protective suit cover and leaning viewport. Only real difference, other than layout, is landing legs and I was wondering if you could explain why canting and travel aren't necessary.
Here's a three view of the LM. Thanks again to Michel Lamontagne.
The legs have about 600mm of vertical travel. I expect some kind of self leveling system will be included. ... That being said I didn't actually calculate them, so I might be wrong.