Author Topic: Space Exploration Vehicle Concept  (Read 55690 times)

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1004
  • Liked: 27
  • Northern New Mexico
Re: Space Exploration Vehicle Concept
« Reply #90 on: 12/05/2012 09:00 PM »
Nothing really solid (RE:landing the SEV), but it has been mentioned in a few places. The one on the right DOES look awfully like the Apollo LM cabin.
maybe a separate thread
"what would it take to land the SEV on the moon"

- could the rocket pack get the SEV back to LLO, or a separate ascent vehicle, is it better to have a short duration lander where the astronauts transfer to the SEV for a week, similar to the Boeing proposal. Cargo lander down mass for the SEV - many questions.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17923
  • Liked: 844
  • Minnesota
Re: Space Exploration Vehicle Concept
« Reply #91 on: 12/05/2012 09:02 PM »
Nothing really solid (RE:landing the SEV), but it has been mentioned in a few places. The one on the right DOES look awfully like the Apollo LM cabin.
maybe a separate thread
"what would it take to land the SEV on the moon"

- could the rocket pack get the SEV back to LLO, or a separate ascent vehicle, is it better to have a short duration lander where the astronauts transfer to the SEV for a week, similar to the Boeing proposal. Cargo lander down mass for the SEV - many questions.
It'd probably take just as much as it took for the Apollo LM.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17923
  • Liked: 844
  • Minnesota
Re: Space Exploration Vehicle Concept
« Reply #92 on: 12/05/2012 09:07 PM »
Nothing really solid (RE:landing the SEV), but it has been mentioned in a few places. The one on the right DOES look awfully like the Apollo LM cabin.

Which is the 1st clue to me that it is the "older" design. They started with what worked before and ended up with what's on the left by incorporating "lessons learned" from dealing with that design.

Of course YMMV :)
SEV actually started out as the pressurized rover. In fact, the very first page of this thread shows the evolution of the SEV, and nowhere does this design on the right show its face, which means it's surely a /new/ design. It looks good to me, actually. Small is beautiful, since it increases the chance of it actually being used. And being small, it's also more likely to be useful in any particular architecture. For about the same fabrication costs as one of the larger ones, you can make two engineering test articles, for instance. Also, the rounder shape is more efficient mass-wise.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline JasonAW3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 808
  • Liked: 53
  • Claremore, Ok.
Re: Space Exploration Vehicle Concept
« Reply #93 on: 12/05/2012 09:10 PM »
You know,

     If you stretched it out about 5 feet from behind the side hatches, (Putting the suits in their own clamshell enclosures on each side) setup a standard docking hatch on the far end, docked it with a hab module surrounded by a Human Rated Skycrane landing stage, that could work quite nicely.  Bring the six wheeled Rover platform uder it, lift and detach, and you have a lunar rover, and a basic lunar base module.

     When the mission is over, redock the front module, reload the flight software , refuel from the robotic tanker (from the L-2 fuel depot) that landed near the craft, and take off again.

     Tanker type automated landers would likely be similar in configuration to the Falcon 9 Grasshopper that SpaceX is experimenting with, but with only 2 to 3 main engines.  Comparitively, the tanker would only need a small fraction of the total fuel load to land in 1/6th Gee, and after offloading the majority of the fuel to the reusable lunar lander, only a fraction of the fuel to launch again and set up a spiral orbit to rendevous with the L-2 fuel and supply depot.  (Somehow, I keep wanting to call it Stucky's One)

     The lander would then take off and dock with the Orion based tug to return the craft to it's garage at L-2, where it can be checked out maintenanced and refurbished for the next lunar landing.

     Simply put, the current system of disposable stages and rockets is unbelivably wasteful and drives the per launch costs right through the roof.  The ONLY way space development can become economical is either developing reusable craft and stages or making the upper stages part of the payload packages themselves.  (Dry for wet habitat modules, etc).

     But I'm getting off topic.

     Not only does this multi-use module have much better viewing capibilities, I suspect it has vast untapped potentile for near space to deep space uses.

Jason
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9131
  • Liked: 381
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
Re: Space Exploration Vehicle Concept
« Reply #94 on: 12/05/2012 09:11 PM »
Chuck

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17923
  • Liked: 844
  • Minnesota
Re: Space Exploration Vehicle Concept
« Reply #95 on: 12/05/2012 09:12 PM »
...

Like I said - YMMV
Maybe you just /want/ the larger design to be the newer one? All good evidence points to the smaller one being new.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9131
  • Liked: 381
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
Re: Space Exploration Vehicle Concept
« Reply #96 on: 12/05/2012 09:13 PM »
...

Like I said - YMMV
Maybe you just /want/ the larger design to be the newer one? All good evidence points to the smaller one being new.

No, dont /want/ anything - I just hold a different opinion that yours :)
Chuck

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1004
  • Liked: 27
  • Northern New Mexico
Re: Space Exploration Vehicle Concept
« Reply #97 on: 12/05/2012 09:36 PM »
You know,

     If you stretched it out about 5 feet from behind the side hatches, (Putting the suits in their own clamshell enclosures on each side) setup a standard docking hatch on the far end, docked it with a hab module surrounded by a Human Rated Skycrane landing stage, that could work quite nicely.  Bring the six wheeled Rover platform uder it, lift and detach, and you have a lunar rover, and a basic lunar base module.

     When the mission is over, redock the front module, reload the flight software , refuel from the robotic tanker (from the L-2 fuel depot) that landed near the craft, and take off again.

     Tanker type automated landers would likely be similar in configuration to the Falcon 9 Grasshopper that SpaceX is experimenting with, but with only 2 to 3 main engines.  Comparitively, the tanker would only need a small fraction of the total fuel load to land in 1/6th Gee, and after offloading the majority of the fuel to the reusable lunar lander, only a fraction of the fuel to launch again and set up a spiral orbit to rendevous with the L-2 fuel and supply depot.  (Somehow, I keep wanting to call it Stucky's One)

     The lander would then take off and dock with the Orion based tug to return the craft to it's garage at L-2, where it can be checked out maintenanced and refurbished for the next lunar landing.

     Simply put, the current system of disposable stages and rockets is unbelivably wasteful and drives the per launch costs right through the roof.  The ONLY way space development can become economical is either developing reusable craft and stages or making the upper stages part of the payload packages themselves.  (Dry for wet habitat modules, etc).

     But I'm getting off topic.

     Not only does this multi-use module have much better viewing capibilities, I suspect it has vast untapped potentile for near space to deep space uses.

Jason
The existing skycrane would be about 25% of what would be required to land a SEV (unmanned) while the Apollo LM with the SEV in place of the ascent stage would work - not hard to see a technical solution and path forward to landing a SEV on the moon. Getting it back to orbit would require something like a dual Apollo ascent engine cluster (manned). Agian, no new technology here, but a development path required. A DTAL like approach would also work, with the SEV as the payload.  In my mind, is this cost effective?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17923
  • Liked: 844
  • Minnesota
Re: Space Exploration Vehicle Concept
« Reply #98 on: 12/05/2012 09:38 PM »
I think the new SEV may be significantly lighter than the fatter one. Closer to the Apollo LM ascent stage (which, when dry, was only 2mT).
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline manboy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1888
  • Liked: 43
  • United States
Re: Space Exploration Vehicle Concept
« Reply #99 on: 12/05/2012 09:52 PM »
Looks like another mock-up has been built.

Photos taken from reddit.
I wonder if the mock-up on the right is an older version that was brought back (for what?). The quality of the build does not look as good as the MMSEV on the left.
One on right looks more realistic. Like an Apollo Lunar Module reboot. Smaller, more efficient.

Image on the right has the hatch closed and access to the hatch area blockled off, while the image on the left has both the hatch and hatch access open. To me that indicates that the SEV mockup on the left is currently active and is likely the most current design.
Or it could be they're readying the design on the right.

Either way, I hope they get the design nailed down enough to start producing engineering test articles one of these years. Lighter the better, as long as you can fit 2 crew comfortably (ala Apollo) and 4 for long enough for transit to and from the surface (of the Moon, another moon, or even perhaps Mars).
i don't recall a "rocket pack" that was big enough to support a lunar landing, is there a citation\thread for this - if so way cool, I like the MMSEV concept. certainly the in-space version will be just fine for asteroid operations, but I question the moon lander mods.
There are no plans to use it as the basis for a lander.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17923
  • Liked: 844
  • Minnesota
Re: Space Exploration Vehicle Concept
« Reply #100 on: 12/05/2012 09:58 PM »
There are no /official/ plans, but I've heard some NASA engineers talking about it, and this presentation certainly talks all about it:
http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/SEV-L2-Lander-Presentation_1Oct2012.pdf

And JPL's ATHLETE lander proposal used a variant of SEV for a lander.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline manboy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1888
  • Liked: 43
  • United States
Re: Space Exploration Vehicle Concept
« Reply #101 on: 12/05/2012 10:32 PM »
I found some more pictures on flickr. The first two show a different window design is being tested and the third shows that it has been switched out.
« Last Edit: 12/05/2012 10:33 PM by manboy »
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Online Space Pete

  • NASASpaceflight ISS Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7177
  • Liked: 165
  • Mr. ISS
  • UK
Re: Space Exploration Vehicle Concept
« Reply #102 on: 12/05/2012 10:49 PM »
Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way - maybe there will be no "final" window design.

As we can see in those images, changing the window design involves "simply" bolting a new forward bulkhead in place (assuming no welding is needed), and probably mating some connectors. If that's true, then the window designs could be thought of as modular.

So maybe they will build the SEVs with different window designs depending on their mission (i.e. one design for in space ops, another for surface ops, etc).
Electronic Engineer by day, NASASpaceflight's ISS Editor by night | Read my NASASpaceflight articles here

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2364
  • Liked: 71
  • Cambridge, UK
Re: Space Exploration Vehicle Concept
« Reply #103 on: 12/05/2012 11:15 PM »
Came across these two photos of the second prototype - titled as follows:

[1] MMSEV: Evaluation of habitability and mobility during tests on air bearing floor
[2] Modular Power Systems: Integrated roll-out solar arrays and fuel cell with MMSEV

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1781
  • Liked: 15
  • USA
Re: Space Exploration Vehicle Concept
« Reply #104 on: 12/06/2012 02:24 AM »
Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way - maybe there will be no "final" window design.

As we can see in those images, changing the window design involves "simply" bolting a new forward bulkhead in place (assuming no welding is needed), and probably mating some connectors. If that's true, then the window designs could be thought of as modular.

So maybe they will build the SEVs with different window designs depending on their mission (i.e. one design for in space ops, another for surface ops, etc).
More than likely it's not just the windows in the front that will be changed out. The rest of the body could come in different shapes and sizes.
Mars and beyond, human exploration
The grass is always greener on the other side. When you stand on top of the hill you see both sides!

Tags: