Author Topic: Astrobotic Technology Annouces Lunar Mission on SpaceX Falcon 9  (Read 130130 times)

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Getting back on topic, this thread is about an Astrobotic mission supposedly launching in 2015.  They have to launch in 2015 to have any chance to win the GLXP, which is the whole point of the mission.  I think we can all agree SpaceX will not have any engine other than Draco and SuperDraco that will be able to restart to do a lunar insertion burn before the end of 2015, yes?  So Falcon 9 itself won't be putting the Astrobotic payload into lunar orbit.

Could a Falcon 9 just continuously burn it's second stage engine for a TLI burn?  Or restart it shortly after entering LEO?

Forgive me if this is a dumb question.  It's just that they are offering payload services to the Moon and seem quite confident in accepting money for the job.
I believe you are not quite clear on the terms. Falcon 9 would make a single burn of its upper stage, until the upperstage and payload are on TLI. For reasons of efficiency that's done as fast as possible on the opposite side of the Earth as is the Moon. After that, the whole stack will take a few days of coasting until they are close to the Moon. During those days, a couple of adjustment maneuvers might be required.
Once they reach the gravity field of the Moon, they are still going too fast to be captured by the Moons gravity. Depending on initial conditions, without some serious retropropulsion at that time you either crash the moon, get deviated to some Earth orbit or you return to Earth (the famous Free Return Trajectory that saved Apollo 13).
Having a stage that can do a burn four or five days after initial launch is not something easy, and certainly nothing that's usual since even the most complicated missions to Earth orbit are 9hrs top. Thus, the Falcon 9 upper stage would be probably dead by that time and the Astrobotic lander would have to do the retropropulsion by itself. Since the upper stage would be dead mass for the trajectory correction maneuvers, the logical thing would be that the payload separates from the upper stage as soon as it shuts down.

Hi Baldusi, I don't believe that is correct (emphasis mine).

You would do your TLI roughly when the Moon rises above horizon.

You need to set your apogee to where the Moon will be when you get there, not where it is at the time of the burn. Hence TLI burn is not done at spacecraft/Moon opposition, but rather at 90-120-ish degrees.
You're more right than me, of course. Well, I didn't wanted to go into specifics. What I tried to say in non technical terms was that for the Oberth effect efficiency you want a single powerful burn at perigee (i.e. on the opposite of where you want your apogee to be). Of course the Moon will move around while you reach it. What I never seem to get right is if the moon orbits in the same direction or the opposite of the Earth's rotation. From what I remember most TLI are done on a retrograde orbit to get the free return. Thus, the moon would actually catch on you?

Offline nadreck


You're more right than me, of course. Well, I didn't wanted to go into specifics. What I tried to say in non technical terms was that for the Oberth effect efficiency you want a single powerful burn at perigee (i.e. on the opposite of where you want your apogee to be). Of course the Moon will move around while you reach it. What I never seem to get right is if the moon orbits in the same direction or the opposite of the Earth's rotation. From what I remember most TLI are done on a retrograde orbit to get the free return. Thus, the moon would actually catch on you?

While this oversimplifies it, think that the difference between ending up in a prograde lunar orbit or a retrograde lunar orbit is simply the time it takes for the moon to move a little more than its own diameter along its orbital path.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline oiorionsbelt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1766
  • Liked: 1190
  • Likes Given: 2685
There are many strategies to get to Moon and land there, even recent orbiter probes have used a bunch of different trajectories. For example see LADEE trajectory, LRO and Artemis


or the LCROSS method :)

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
One super-scary way to reduce lander mass is lithobraking.

Basically, build a lander that looks a bit like the MSR landing pod - air-bags around a tetrahedral pod. Then have the TLI trajectory Moon-intercepting. A relatively simple solid-propellent retro-motor blasts off lots of the energy, then the probe deploys the landing bags and uses friction with the Moon's surface to slow to a stop. Then the airbags deflate and the way the pod opens ensures that the instrumentation is always the right side up, no matter what attitude it finally stopped rolling.

This also allows for U/S disposal because it will just crash into the lunar surface a few minutes and several dozen miles behind the lander.
« Last Edit: 12/11/2014 09:40 am by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline nadreck

It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
One super-scary way to reduce lander mass is lithobraking.

Basically, build a lander that looks a bit like the MSR landing pod - air-bags around a tetrahedral pod. Then have the TLI trajectory Moon-intercepting. A relatively simple solid-propellent retro-motor blasts off lots of the energy, then the probe deploys the landing bags and uses friction with the Moon's surface to slow to a stop. Then the airbags deflate and the way the pod opens ensures that the instrumentation is always the right side up, no matter what attitude it finally stopped rolling.

This also allows for U/S disposal because it will just crash into the lunar surface a few minutes and several dozen miles behind the lander.

With such minimal gravity and no atmosphere to provide air resistance, how big a bounce do you imagine that would have?
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline Zappa

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Canada
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
This news item today suggests a reschedule by as much as a year:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2014/12/11/astrobotics-lunar-landing-mission-date-may-change.html

They continue to tout themselves as the first commercial lunar landing, however there was another team who announced they are launching in the Summer.  Either they are postponing launch until 2016 and counting on the other team not launching and the Xprize deadline being moved back or they are announcing they are launching earlier in 2015, perhaps this Spring.  They are announcing the new launch date next week.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
yeah Barcelona moon team has an actual launch contract on CZ-2C in June 2015, on a Change'3-derived lander.
CGWIC stands a chance of "winning the commercial moon race".
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Galactic Penguin SST

yeah Barcelona moon team has an actual launch contract on CZ-2C in June 2015, on a Change'3-derived lander.
CGWIC stands a chance of "winning the commercial moon race".

IIRC they too have slipped the launch date some time ago - not sure if it's still in 2015.
Astronomy & spaceflight geek penguin. In a relationship w/ Space Shuttle Discovery. Current Priority: Chasing the Chinese Spaceflight Wonder Egg & A Certain Chinese Mars Rover

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
This news item today suggests a reschedule by as much as a year:

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2014/12/11/astrobotics-lunar-landing-mission-date-may-change.html

They continue to tout themselves as the first commercial lunar landing, however there was another team who announced they are launching in the Summer.  Either they are postponing launch until 2016 and counting on the other team not launching and the Xprize deadline being moved back or they are announcing they are launching earlier in 2015, perhaps this Spring.  They are announcing the new launch date next week.

They're definitely not going to announce an earlier launch.

First of all, the company was quoted as saying about the upcoming announcement that they will launch within the next two years.  If they were moving the launch date earlier, they wouldn't make a comment that suggests a later date.

Secondly, they've been saying all along that they're riding a SpaceX Falcon 9 launcher, but they have yet to show up on SpaceX's manifest.  Since SpaceX shows a full manifest for 2015 and much of 2016, if they really were launching in 2015, they would be on the manifest by now.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
With such minimal gravity and no atmosphere to provide air resistance, how big a bounce do you imagine that would have?

One-sixth of Earth isn't 'minimal' gravity. What matters is the loss of energy in the first bounce. So long as the lander comes out of the contact with significantly less than escape energy, then it doesn't matter much - especially for what is very much a 'shot into the dark' non-precision landing (as I characterise the Google Luna X-Prize).

The necessity of reduction of energy is why I edited in the retro-package to my description. However, I feel that a single-use expendable rocket pack would not violate the KISS requirement for such a mission.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
yeah Barcelona moon team has an actual launch contract on CZ-2C in June 2015, on a Change'3-derived lander.
CGWIC stands a chance of "winning the commercial moon race".

IIRC they too have slipped the launch date some time ago - not sure if it's still in 2015.

They talked about the slip to Jun 2015 in Sept 2013, and as of now everyone that tracks launch schedules still lists them there.

But yeah
27. (Varsi's Law) Schedules only move in one direction.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
yeah Barcelona moon team has an actual launch contract on CZ-2C in June 2015, on a Change'3-derived lander.
CGWIC stands a chance of "winning the commercial moon race".

IIRC they too have slipped the launch date some time ago - not sure if it's still in 2015.

They talked about the slip to Jun 2015 in Sept 2013, and as of now everyone that tracks launch schedules still lists them there.

But yeah
27. (Varsi's Law) Schedules only move in one direction.

The last update from Barcelona Moon Team, either on the Google Lunar X-Prize page or on their own web site, was 10 months ago.  They were giving regular updates before that.  I'd expect to start hearing more from a team as their launch approached, not 10 months of silence.  I think the silence makes it likely BMT aren't really going to launch in 2015 at all.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
bouncing doesn't make much sense on the Moon. Airbags only help to at most 30m/s, maybe less, so you already have to be VERY close. Also, all those airbags and petals mean a lot of mass overhead. 30m/s of extra propellant is a lot less. Better off just using the tried-and-true lander method. Kick stage to drop out of orbit, then thrusters for the rest.
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 groundbound

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
  • Liked: 405
  • Likes Given: 15
bouncing doesn't make much sense on the Moon. Airbags only help to at most 30m/s, maybe less, so you already have to be VERY close. Also, all those airbags and petals mean a lot of mass overhead. 30m/s of extra propellant is a lot less. Better off just using the tried-and-true lander method. Kick stage to drop out of orbit, then thrusters for the rest.

If you bounce enough times, sooner or later you'll encounter a mountain or crater wall at close to 90 degrees and then you'll lose a lot more than 30 m/s.  ;D

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
bouncing doesn't make much sense on the Moon. Airbags only help to at most 30m/s, maybe less, so you already have to be VERY close. Also, all those airbags and petals mean a lot of mass overhead. 30m/s of extra propellant is a lot less. Better off just using the tried-and-true lander method. Kick stage to drop out of orbit, then thrusters for the rest.

If you bounce enough times, sooner or later you'll encounter a mountain or crater wall at close to 90 degrees and then you'll lose a lot more than 30 m/s.  ;D

The point of the 30 m/s limit is that the acceleration on the first bounce will destroy your payload if your speed is much over 30 m/s.

Offline Vultur

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 184
bouncing doesn't make much sense on the Moon. Airbags only help to at most 30m/s, maybe less, so you already have to be VERY close. Also, all those airbags and petals mean a lot of mass overhead. 30m/s of extra propellant is a lot less. Better off just using the tried-and-true lander method. Kick stage to drop out of orbit, then thrusters for the rest.

If you bounce enough times, sooner or later you'll encounter a mountain or crater wall at close to 90 degrees and then you'll lose a lot more than 30 m/s.  ;D

The point of the 30 m/s limit is that the acceleration on the first bounce will destroy your payload if your speed is much over 30 m/s.

Is it really that low??? That's only about freeway speed... I would have thought those huge airbag systems on Pathfinder were a lot more powerful than that.

EDIT: I wonder if you could do a lot better if it was specifically designed to survive extreme deceleration... the HARP Project people managed to shoot electronics/sensors out of a naval gun, IIRC, and that's some pretty crazy g forces.
« Last Edit: 12/13/2014 08:49 pm by Vultur »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
bouncing doesn't make much sense on the Moon. Airbags only help to at most 30m/s, maybe less, so you already have to be VERY close. Also, all those airbags and petals mean a lot of mass overhead. 30m/s of extra propellant is a lot less. Better off just using the tried-and-true lander method. Kick stage to drop out of orbit, then thrusters for the rest.

If you bounce enough times, sooner or later you'll encounter a mountain or crater wall at close to 90 degrees and then you'll lose a lot more than 30 m/s.  ;D

The point of the 30 m/s limit is that the acceleration on the first bounce will destroy your payload if your speed is much over 30 m/s.

Is it really that low??? That's only about freeway speed... I would have thought those huge airbag systems on Pathfinder were a lot more powerful than that.

From the Wikipedia article on Mars Pathfinder:

Quote
They were designed and tested to accommodate grazing angle impacts as high as 28 m/s. However, as the airbags were designed for no more than about 15 m/s vertical impacts, three solid retrorockets were mounted above the lander in the backshell.

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
The landing method being discussed is very similar to the first landing Luna 9. On that probe rockets were used to slow the lander down when it got near the surface. Once it was close enough the lander was ejected from the carrier and it used airbags to slow down and come to a stop. It impacted at about 6 m/s, much slower than we are talking about here, and bounced a few times.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
The point of the 30 m/s limit is that the acceleration on the first bounce will destroy your payload if your speed is much over 30 m/s.

Is it really that low??? That's only about freeway speed... I would have thought those huge airbag systems on Pathfinder were a lot more powerful than that.

A long time ago, I compared of the masses of air-bag and rocket deceleration systems.  The analysis was rough, but it indicated that at speeds higher than a couple of tens of meters per second, a rocket system is likely to weigh less than an airbag system.

Quote
EDIT: I wonder if you could do a lot better if it was specifically designed to survive extreme deceleration... the HARP Project people managed to shoot electronics/sensors out of a naval gun, IIRC, and that's some pretty crazy g forces.

Well, the penetrator probes on Deep Space 2 were designed to survive impacts at about 200 m/s.  I vaguely recall reading about a lunar penetrator (Japanese, maybe?) that was designed to survive impact at about 300 m/s.  In either case, you've still got to kill of a lot of speed somehow.

Tags:
 

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