Altair Alternatives: put all lander alternatives here, esp. single-stage landers

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 Next
Author Topic: Altair Alternatives: put all lander alternatives here, esp. single-stage landers  (Read 41245 times)
93143
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 2189


« Reply #300 on: 05/18/2012 06:47 PM »

1- Definitely want capacity to stage from EML 1 or 2. From (EML), all points on the Moon are equally accessible.
2- With a Gateway station, it can serve a lifeboat function, giving an automatic abort option at EML 1/2. Thus, no longer necessary to fly a free return trajectory to Moon.
Neither of those comments make a viable case for EML and don't address the significantly higher IMLEO for EML rendezvous ($$$) or transit time from surface during abort/emergency (life or death).

Do you have an inclination and altitude recommendation, and reason, for sizing a lunar lander?

Reusability.

A depot at L1 or L2 gives you global access, any time return, and you don't need to throw away the lander.  LLO is probably not a good place for a depot; even with a relatively stable frozen polar orbit, you don't get frequent launch windows unless the landing site is at a pole, and whether boiloff or orbit maintenance dominates, depot losses in LLO are likely to be substantially higher than at an L-point.
MP99
Armchair rocket scientist
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 4264
Location: UK


« Reply #301 on: 05/18/2012 07:06 PM »

Don't forget that Chandrayaan-1 overheated from heat from the Lunar surface, and had to be moved to a higher orbit.

A depot at EML will have to cope with a much lower heat load.

cheers, Martin
baldusi
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 3125
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina


« Reply #302 on: 05/18/2012 07:46 PM »

BTW, don't EML have permanent LOS to Earth?
93143
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 2189


« Reply #303 on: 05/18/2012 08:00 PM »

L1 does.  L2 itself doesn't, but a halo orbit could easily be wide enough.
MP99
Armchair rocket scientist
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 4264
Location: UK


« Reply #304 on: 05/21/2012 04:41 PM »

BTW, don't EML have permanent LOS to Earth?

Line-of-sight
   or
Loss-of-signal?

cheers, Martin
baldusi
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 3125
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina


« Reply #305 on: 05/21/2012 05:07 PM »

BTW, don't EML have permanent LOS to Earth?

Line-of-sight
   or
Loss-of-signal?

cheers, Martin
Line-Of-Sight. It does have it for GTO, but not to Earth. The apparent size of the Moon is twice the diameter of the Earth at SML2. So, at GTO, with just two satellites you could have permanent communication.
93143
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 2189


« Reply #306 on: 05/21/2012 07:27 PM »

Halo orbit.  I just finished saying that, didn't I?
baldusi
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 3125
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina


« Reply #307 on: 05/21/2012 08:24 PM »

Halo orbit.  I just finished saying that, didn't I?
He asked me what did I meant, it was not pointed to your answer. Looking into the Halo orbits page on Wikipedia, I'm surprised how "wide" they can get. My question then, would be how would a halo orbit allow for immediate opportunities to any landing (to and from). Because the nice thing about EML1/2 was that you could get anywhere on the surface of the Moon.
93143
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 2189


« Reply #308 on: 05/21/2012 10:37 PM »

Now that is a question I'm not an expert on.  It strikes me that it shouldn't be too bad, but if all else fails a base at L2 and a relay sat in a halo orbit should solve the problem nicely...

I thought the usual plan for an L-point gateway was to place the station in a halo orbit, rather than try to keep it stable at the L-point itself...
sdsds
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 3172
Location: Seattle


"With peace and hope for all mankind."


« Reply #309 on: 05/21/2012 11:50 PM »

I thought the usual plan for an L-point gateway was to place the station in a halo orbit, rather than try to keep it stable at the L-point itself...

I'm not an expert either but yes, most planners seem to be considering "orbits" around the L-points, rather than station-keeping at the L-points. I put orbit in quotes because these trajectories are unlike Keplerian orbits around gravitational masses. In particular, it is possible to be on a non-propulsive trajectory which coasts into one of these orbits. (The trajectories that do this make up the "stable manifold" of the orbit. Each time around, they get closer to the orbit itself, without propulsion.) Of course in real application some trajectory maintenance would be needed since small differences in initial conditions lead to large differences in final conditions.

Plans that involve a lander waiting in an L-point orbit for its crew to arrive need to recognize that the departure delta-v for a maneuver headed towards the Moon changes considerably at different points along the L-point orbit. And if the plan involves an ascender returning a crew to an Earth re-entry vehicle waiting in the L-point orbit, an "anytime return" requirement would impose a considerable delta-v (or delta-t) capability in the worst case, where the waiting vehicle happens to be at an unfortunate location along the L-point orbit.

(Important caveat: I have not yet computed these trajectories myself, and even once I have I won't trust my own results!  ;))
truth is life
Full Member
***
Offline

Posts: 212


« Reply #310 on: 06/29/2012 04:22 PM »

I have developed a concept for a lander to be staged out of the L-2 exploration gateway platform that's been bandied about a bit. The underlying idea is that it should be capable of use in an expendable expeditionary mode, with little support from the outpost, but relatively easy to extend to reusability incrementally, as the platform is expanded.

Therefore, I specified a DASH-type 1.5 stage lander, with a crasher stage, payload module (that is left behind on the Moon, and includes things like the landing gear), and ascent module. The crasher stage would be the usual hydrolox, the ascent stage would use storables. I budgeted 180 m/s of delta-V for the ascent/payload module combo after crasher ejection, so there should be no problem with that clearing the landing site. The ascent module would also be able to return itself to L-2. The crasher stage, at least in my model, is also specified to perform part of the TLI burn and the powered swing-by maneuvers, so it could easily be turned into an "uncrasher" stage and reused. Assuming that hypergolics could be dealt with, so could the ascent stage, with the only part that would need to be replaced being the payload module (sensibly enough).

Anyways, that's background. The question I found myself confronting was how to come up with reasonable estimates of the masses of the various components, for example the habitat on the ascent stage. I took it as a given that the desire would be a four-person, 7-day surface mission, and I can calculate easily enough how much the needed life support consumables for the resulting 13-day (lander) mission would weight under various assumptions, but I don't know how to estimate the mass of the habitat needed to support 4 people for 13 days in the first place--the structural, power, data, etc. components. Does anyone know of a reasonable system to use to estimate these sorts of dry masses, especially one that has easily accessible descriptive sources?
sdsds
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 3172
Location: Seattle


"With peace and hope for all mankind."


« Reply #311 on: 06/29/2012 08:45 PM »

The question I found myself confronting was how to come up with reasonable estimates of the masses of the various components, for example the habitat on the ascent stage. [...] Does anyone know of a reasonable system to use to estimate these sorts of dry masses, especially one that has easily accessible descriptive sources?

One quasi-engineering approach is to find a similar vehicle (or a similar set of components) that either exist or are fairly fully designed and use their masses as first-order estimates. So for your example, and relevant to this thread, how different is the habitable volume on your ascent stage from the habitable volume on the Altair design?
truth is life
Full Member
***
Offline

Posts: 212


« Reply #312 on: 06/29/2012 09:31 PM »


One quasi-engineering approach is to find a similar vehicle (or a similar set of components) that either exist or are fairly fully designed and use their masses as first-order estimates. So for your example, and relevant to this thread, how different is the habitable volume on your ascent stage from the habitable volume on the Altair design?

Well, that's more or less what I've been doing, but in a lo-fidelity sort of way which I wanted to improve upon. Right now? My ascent stage doesn't have a habitable volume, it has a mass, because I was focusing on getting the propulsion to close. 8 mT dry, about 33% bigger than the Altair ascent stage (fueled? the data sheet I found from JSC doesn't say); but, of course, this needs to do a lot more delta-V and can't offload as many life support services to the descent stage.

EDIT: Well, I have given the functional layout some thought, despite what I might have said above. In my mind, there are three functional (pressurized) areas, the habitat module on the ascent stage, a "pantry" on the payload stage, and an inflatable airlock attached to the "pantry".

The habitat module would contain all of the essential life support equipment, along with 12 person-days of life support consumables. It would serve as home to the crew during transit to and from the Moon, as well as on the Moon's surface. I imagine it as being an aluminum ISS module-type structure, although there's no reason I suppose why it couldn't be inflatable.

The "pantry" would contain the other 40 person-days of life support consumables along with any lunar surface equipment needing to be kept in a pressurized environment during L2-Moon transit (eg., the space suits, at least before use). It would serve as the storm shelter during transit from L2 to the Moon and on the Moon itself. Additionally, it might have some other surface-specific equipment, like a dust mitigation compartment. This could also be inflatable, although as before I was imagining it as hard-shelled.

The inflatable airlock would be an airlock. It would store the suits on the lunar surface, and possibly some other surface-specific equipment.

To achieve the goal of being as flexible as possible in the basic design, both the ascent stage and payload module would have spaceframes that would support the pressurized modules--the pressurized modules would contribute nothing structurally (so that it would be easy to build an all-cargo version), or in terms of other essential lander components (eg., avionics). The ascent stage would support four engines roughly the size of the AJ-10 or the LMDE in terms of thrust, and the necessary propellant and pressurization equipment in addition to the habitat. These would be located well above ground, like on the DASH concept, meaning that the lower (payload) module could have a very low ground clearance, enough to make the issue of ladders irrelevant.
sdsds
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 3172
Location: Seattle


"With peace and hope for all mankind."


« Reply #313 on: 12/15/2012 04:25 AM »

I propose a lunar landing and ascent approach using three propulsive stages.

In a simplistic model of the descent, a high thrust braking stage is jettisoned after bringing the lander to a point above and up-range of the surface destination. A lower thrust propulsion system could then be used for "hovering" descent of the lander.

Even if after separation both stages have some residual horizontal velocity, the timing and location of the separation would be arranged so the braking stage impacts short of the landing destination. If it began with zero downward velocity and were to fall for 60 seconds before impact, its initial height would have been:
 h = 0.5 * 1.622 * 3600 = 2920 meters. (Effectively 3 km.)

Its terminal velocity would be:
 v = 1.622 * 60 = 97.32 m/s. That's also the theoretical minimum delta-v the hovering descent system would need to provide to the lander. More realistically if the lander's descent took twice as long (120 sec) the delta-v requirement would be something close to 200 m/s. The same "hovering" propulsion system would be used to get the lander off the surface again, with perhaps another 200 m/s of delta-v getting it back up 3 km. At that point a third propulsive stage, once again with high thrust, would be fired to provide the lander with the delta-v to reach orbit.

The high thrust stages (for braking and return to orbit) are conceptually easy because they could for example use solid motors. Only the hovering propulsion needs fine control (e.g. throttling, vectoring). Did I do the math correctly for that? Does it really only require 400 m/s of delta-v?
KelvinZero
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 1599


« Reply #314 on: 12/15/2012 07:59 AM »

Transferred from golden spike thread...
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30567.msg992149#msg992149

One concern from this amateur, [DTAL] uses a lot of different rockets to land in such a way that if any of them fail you are in trouble, rather than in such a way that more engines means more redundancy.

I think what you want from more engines in this kind of situation is more "survivability." As an example the Apollo LM had two engines, each required to work correctly for a nominal mission. But the ascent engine could also have been used as the abort motor had the descent engine failed. The engines weren't redundant, but having two of them decreased the loss-of-crew risk.
In this case I meant the eagle but I had wondered the same about DTAL. Do you mean that as long as the ascent vehicle works DTAL is survivable?

Thats a good point. However, I would like us to get to the point where so long as you can land you can survive also (ie prepositioned supplies, base etc)

Wouldn't DTAL have the disadvantage that if the Ascent engines do not work, it cannot land either? There might be safety in the form of a base only a few hundred meters away but you can't land, at least you would have land on your engines and tumble onto your belly, possibly survivable.

I have been wondering about ISRU-refueled landers and their lack of abort to orbit... Would it be plausible to have an absolutely minimal "ejector seat-like" escape method? Perhaps it would have only half the delta-v required and abort either to orbit or complete the landing at the surface base. This could also be used if there was a failure during ascent.
Tags:
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 Next
 

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 2.0 Beta 3.1 Public | SMF © 2006–2008, Simple Machines LLC
All content © 2005-2011 NASASpaceFlight.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.078 seconds with 22 queries.