Author Topic: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.  (Read 121227 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #100 on: 05/31/2016 01:32 am »
The secondary radiation issue is an issue, but it's not necessarily a show-stopper for aluminum. You could just beat it down by using a bunch of water or polyolifin or something.
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

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #101 on: 05/31/2016 03:12 am »
However the design and capabilities of rigid pressure hulls is well understood, including secondary radiation issues.  Inflatables are not, and won't be for a long time.

I would think that the properties of these materials are well known too and allow precise calculations of constructions, particularly radiation issues, including secondary radiation.

Or is this a case of needing to test if it hurts, when you hit your thumb with a hammer every time you buy a new hammer?

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1750
  • Orange County, California
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 3156
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #102 on: 05/31/2016 05:33 pm »
Really fantastic presentation.  Industry finally pulling out some solid idea's.

The Mars mission isn't going to be like Apollo where all equipment is designed and produced in parallel.  It's going to be more piece meal in order to fit into existing budget.  And its doable.
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing - Thomas Jefferson

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2766
  • Liked: 780
  • Likes Given: 1131
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #103 on: 06/01/2016 12:08 am »
However the design and capabilities of rigid pressure hulls is well understood, including secondary radiation issues.  Inflatables are not, and won't be for a long time.

I would think that the properties of these materials are well known too and allow precise calculations of constructions, particularly radiation issues, including secondary radiation.

Or is this a case of needing to test if it hurts, when you hit your thumb with a hammer every time you buy a new hammer?

No it is not. Rigid pressure hulls are very well understood well tested with 55 years operational. Inflatable pressure hulls are far less known.

There is a lot of exaggerated claims associated with inflatables.  They may well have their uses, but they are not a panacea.
Apologies in advance for any lack of civility - it's unintended

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #104 on: 06/01/2016 05:41 am »
No it is not. Rigid pressure hulls are very well understood well tested with 55 years operational. Inflatable pressure hulls are far less known.

I don't disagree. I am sure there is much to learn about Inflatables before we could trust them for a Mars transfer or such. I emphasized the radiation part. I am sure that can be reliably determined by material properties.

There is a lot of exaggerated claims associated with inflatables.  They may well have their uses, but they are not a panacea.

I agree. They do allow for larger structures to launch in one piece though, that should be an advantage for large space stations.

Offline tea monster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 635
  • Across the Universe
    • My ArtStation Portfolio
  • Liked: 861
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #105 on: 06/22/2016 03:50 pm »
One consideration with rovers. You could send more low quality rovers rather than 3 Curiosity class vehicles. That way, the crew could drive them more aggressively. They could take risks such as exploring caves and other dangerous locals that you wouldn't dare send your more expensive robot into.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #106 on: 07/30/2016 07:37 pm »
We got some more detail on this Mars Architecture from FISO presentation by Steve Jolly & Steve Bailey on July 27. Links to the audio & slide presentations below.

audio link

slides link

In summary. The proposal is to do manned mission to the Martian Moons with a vehicle stack with about 11 SLS size payloads plus SEP development and ground systems for the Martian Moons. Big budget needed.

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2537
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #107 on: 07/30/2016 10:29 pm »
We got some more detail on this Mars Architecture from FISO presentation by Steve Jolly & Steve Bailey on July 27. Links to the audio & slide presentations below.

audio link

slides link

In summary. The proposal is to do manned mission to the Martian Moons with a vehicle stack with about 11 SLS size payloads plus SEP development and ground systems for the Martian Moons. Big budget needed.

I do like their concept of a "spider walker" as they call it - like a MMU with legs.

Considering the big budget problem, they need to focus on how to sell this effectively; the big 3 questions the slides mention: "Where did we come from?  Where are we going?  Are we alone?"  Few politicians are sold over by existential statements.  I'd suggest emphasizing 3 missions goals: explore the moons of Mars, retrieve robotic-delivered Mars samples, validate safety of spacecraft and Martian environment.  Those are the kind of solid goals NASA's getting pressed for.

Aside from worrying about budgeting, I have 2 slight concerns with this strategy: the second Orion and using cryogenic hydrogen. 

One Orion is enough dead weight on a mission, and to make it of better use the service module ought to be improved as might the heat shield if a direct return is utilized.  Two Orions dragged to Mars is crazy talk; one Orion maybe...if tweaked; more ideal if confined to Cislunar space. 

As for hydrogen, that's asking for a small miracle to store indefinitely in space.  I know many will advocate cryogenic store "is easier than you expect," but you're talking chilling down to 30 degrees away from absolute zero!  Liquid oxygen and methane would be enough of a stretch, and at least those 2 could use joined bulkheads because their ranges are compatible.  However, I will admit IF you can do the deed, hydrogen is as good as you can get for rocketry outside of going nuclear propulsion (electric propulsion guys, you're good for cargo but we all know you're too slow for crew).  Making a composite hydrogen tank for the X-33 was one of the reasons that space plane never took off; I just fear a similar issue would arise in a project involving extensive storage.

Lockheed's idea still sounds promising to me.  If they can combine this with MSR they could make even a one-shot visit to the Martian moons a worthwhile endeavor. 
« Last Edit: 07/30/2016 10:42 pm by redliox »
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2537
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #108 on: 07/30/2016 10:46 pm »
One consideration with rovers. You could send more low quality rovers rather than 3 Curiosity class vehicles. That way, the crew could drive them more aggressively. They could take risks such as exploring caves and other dangerous locals that you wouldn't dare send your more expensive robot into.

I sort of agree if you mean MER-sized rovers.  If they're going to take this tele-presence thing seriously, they ought to flat out combine MSR with human flight.  Humans control the robots, robots deliver samples to the humans, and the humans return them to Earth.  End of MSR story.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #109 on: 07/31/2016 06:14 am »
...
Lockheed's idea still sounds promising to me.  If they can combine this with MSR they could make even a one-shot visit to the Martian moons a worthwhile endeavor.
Did you listen to the full audio? Jolly & Bailey were talking about semi-permanent orbital Mars camp. A terrible idea IMO. Since the cost of this proposal will preclude any manned missions on the Martian surface for a very long time.

Too bad the proposal settles on the SLS as LEO spacelift to assemble the vehicle stack. With up to 3 SLS launches in a year. ::) No wonder there was no budget information in the presentations..

Maybe they should recast the proposal with 50 tonne components to take advantage of the soon to be available commercial heavy lift.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #110 on: 07/31/2016 07:19 am »
We got some more detail on this Mars Architecture from FISO presentation by Steve Jolly & Steve Bailey on July 27. Links to the audio & slide presentations below.

audio link

slides link

In summary. The proposal is to do manned mission to the Martian Moons with a vehicle stack with about 11 SLS size payloads plus SEP development and ground systems for the Martian Moons. Big budget needed.

I find this concept unconvincing.

He says "the spacecraft" weights 120t dry, plus 300t (?) of propellant. It is not clear to me which configuration that is. We know that there's 243t of propellant in the tank farms. The mass fraction of those tanks is likely low, due to the arrangement and ZBO. With mf=0.8 the tank farms alone are 300t. Overall the transfer vehicle in cis-lunar space must be 400t and more.

Orion plus service module without fuel is around 17t, so if you have two of them that is 34t, as much as the habitat itself. That's without the taxi propulsion stages. For comparison, the mass of the Phobos taxi in EMC is 13.5t, of which the crew module is probably around 5t.

Moreover, in this architecture neither the Taxis nor the return fuel are pre-deployed with SEP (which is silly since they actually use SEP for the other components).

I think it's a very inefficient architecture. The only good thing about it is that it uses SEP to spiral the parts from LEO to cis-lunar space (if I understood correctly).

Did you listen to the full audio? Jolly & Bailey were talking about semi-permanent orbital Mars camp. A terrible idea IMO. Since the cost of this proposal will preclude any manned missions on the Martian surface for a very long time.

But an orbital base camp is likely low cost. It's only this architecture which manages to make orbital Mars missions into "Battlestar Galacticas".
« Last Edit: 07/31/2016 07:53 am by Oli »

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2537
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #111 on: 07/31/2016 11:07 am »
I find this concept unconvincing.

It's in need of streamlining, at least in regards to dragging the Orions around.

Orion plus service module without fuel is around 17t, so if you have two of them that is 34t, as much as the habitat itself. That's without the taxi propulsion stages. For comparison, the mass of the Phobos taxi in EMC is 13.5t, of which the crew module is probably around 5t.

Moreover, in this architecture neither the Taxis nor the return fuel are pre-deployed with SEP (which is silly since they actually use SEP for the other components).

Exactly why I'm not fond of Orion use beyond Cislunar.  I know the architecture proposed by Langley used SEP for both cargo and crew (the later to a lesser extent).

I think it's a very inefficient architecture. The only good thing about it is that it uses SEP to spiral the parts from LEO to cis-lunar space (if I understood correctly).

Did you listen to the full audio? Jolly & Bailey were talking about semi-permanent orbital Mars camp. A terrible idea IMO. Since the cost of this proposal will preclude any manned missions on the Martian surface for a very long time.

But an orbital base camp is likely low cost. It's only this architecture which manages to make orbital Mars missions into "Battlestar Galacticas".

An orbital camp's greatest use is for communication, Phobos/Deimos exploration, and a staging point for returning to Earth.

Lockheed's idea is indeed hefty; ironically for exploring the moons they keep it light with the Orion and walkers.  I like the walkers as an alternative to the PEV.  Beyond that I would favor Langley's architecture more; the one thing both strategies need is to condense their vehicles down and leave Orion back at Earth.
« Last Edit: 07/31/2016 11:11 am by redliox »
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #112 on: 07/31/2016 02:04 pm »
Orion plus service module without fuel is around 17t, so if you have two of them that is 34t, as much as the habitat itself. That's without the taxi propulsion stages. For comparison, the mass of the Phobos taxi in EMC is 13.5t, of which the crew module is probably around 5t.

Moreover, in this architecture neither the Taxis nor the return fuel are pre-deployed with SEP (which is silly since they actually use SEP for the other components).

Exactly why I'm not fond of Orion use beyond Cislunar.  I know the architecture proposed by Langley used SEP for both cargo and crew (the later to a lesser extent).

To be fair, the EMC's Phobos taxi I mentioned above only supports the crew for a few days for the transfer to the Phobos hab. Orion can support exploration at Phobos/Deimos for 2-3 weeks. That said, I don't think 2-3 weeks is sufficient.

The slide attached shows Phobos exploration strategies. I think the mobile hab strategy is the most interesting for manned exploration. One can still use the hab in HMO for telerobotics (Phobos is not ideal for surface telerobotics).
« Last Edit: 07/31/2016 02:10 pm by Oli »

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #113 on: 07/31/2016 04:17 pm »
Orion plus service module without fuel is around 17t, so if you have two of them that is 34t, as much as the habitat itself. That's without the taxi propulsion stages. For comparison, the mass of the Phobos taxi in EMC is 13.5t, of which the crew module is probably around 5t.

Moreover, in this architecture neither the Taxis nor the return fuel are pre-deployed with SEP (which is silly since they actually use SEP for the other components).

Exactly why I'm not fond of Orion use beyond Cislunar.  I know the architecture proposed by Langley used SEP for both cargo and crew (the later to a lesser extent).

Good points, dragging along two Orions isn't efficient. However, it's not surprising that Lockheed has two Orions in their proposal since they make Orion.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #114 on: 07/31/2016 05:09 pm »
The in-space propulsion stage looks like an ACES or the EUS is upgraded with ACES tech. ACES will have long duration coast with low boiloff. Something that the SLS EUS being designed will not have.

Also if the assumed LV is changed to using just a Vulcan/ACES with distributed launch the 6 SLS flights at up to $1B each is replaced with 6 sets (1 + 2 tanker) of Vulcan ACES launches at ~$0.5B per set. A savings of $3B in launch costs for the program ($6B SLS, $3B Vulcan/ACES). Also Vulcan/ACES (12 per year) would have a higher launch rate of as little as 18 months for all the launches vs 3 years for SLS (2 per year) to do all the launches.

Added:
3 missions assuming SLS as LV for $26B over 3120 days.
5 missions assuming Vulcan/ACES for $27B over 3120 days.
« Last Edit: 07/31/2016 05:28 pm by oldAtlas_Eguy »

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1750
  • Orange County, California
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 3156
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #115 on: 07/31/2016 05:58 pm »
The in-space propulsion stage looks like an ACES or the EUS is upgraded with ACES tech. ACES will have long duration coast with low boiloff. Something that the SLS EUS being designed will not have.

Also if the assumed LV is changed to using just a Vulcan/ACES with distributed launch the 6 SLS flights at up to $1B each is replaced with 6 sets (1 + 2 tanker) of Vulcan ACES launches at ~$0.5B per set. A savings of $3B in launch costs for the program ($6B SLS, $3B Vulcan/ACES). Also Vulcan/ACES (12 per year) would have a higher launch rate of as little as 18 months for all the launches vs 3 years for SLS (2 per year) to do all the launches.

Added:
3 missions assuming SLS as LV for $26B over 3120 days.
5 missions assuming Vulcan/ACES for $27B over 3120 days.

SLS is not $1billion each, but $500 million.
« Last Edit: 07/31/2016 05:59 pm by Khadgars »
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing - Thomas Jefferson

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #116 on: 07/31/2016 09:27 pm »
The in-space propulsion stage looks like an ACES or the EUS is upgraded with ACES tech. ACES will have long duration coast with low boiloff. Something that the SLS EUS being designed will not have.

Also if the assumed LV is changed to using just a Vulcan/ACES with distributed launch the 6 SLS flights at up to $1B each is replaced with 6 sets (1 + 2 tanker) of Vulcan ACES launches at ~$0.5B per set. A savings of $3B in launch costs for the program ($6B SLS, $3B Vulcan/ACES). Also Vulcan/ACES (12 per year) would have a higher launch rate of as little as 18 months for all the launches vs 3 years for SLS (2 per year) to do all the launches.

Added:
3 missions assuming SLS as LV for $26B over 3120 days.
5 missions assuming Vulcan/ACES for $27B over 3120 days.

SLS is not $1billion each, but $500 million.

So you can launch 2 SLS missions per year at a total cost of $1 Billion? 
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #117 on: 08/01/2016 01:08 am »
The ESD Budget Availability Scenarios produced in 2011 indicate a cost of about $2.6 billion (in FY2025 dollars) for one 130-tonne SLS launch per year, and $3 billion for one 130-tonne and one 70-tonne launch per year.  To my knowledge, that's the only hard data we have on what SLS will cost to operate (and note that it's an increase over the annual budget during development), but it's not very hard.  A figure of $500 million has definitely been floated by NASA, but it seems that could only be a marginal cost, and it may be no more than a hope.

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1750
  • Orange County, California
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 3156
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #118 on: 08/01/2016 01:23 am »
The ESD Budget Availability Scenarios produced in 2011 indicate a cost of about $2.6 billion (in FY2025 dollars) for one 130-tonne SLS launch per year, and $3 billion for one 130-tonne and one 70-tonne launch per year.  To my knowledge, that's the only hard data we have on what SLS will cost to operate (and note that it's an increase over the annual budget during development), but it's not very hard.  A figure of $500 million has definitely been floated by NASA, but it seems that could only be a marginal cost, and it may be no more than a hope.

From the American Institute of Aeronautics 2012 Conference.

Quote
"We've estimated somewhere around the $500 million number is what an average cost per flight is," SLS deputy project manager Jody Singer, of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., said Tuesday during a presentation at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics’ SPACE 2012 conference in Pasadena, Calif."

The cost of SLS per flight has not quadrupled since this statement was made.
« Last Edit: 08/01/2016 01:28 am by Khadgars »
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing - Thomas Jefferson

Offline HIP2BSQRE

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #119 on: 08/01/2016 02:49 am »
And I would say to you what assumptions did NASA use to get to the number of $500 million?  The last time I looked NASA would have spent about $20b by about 2021 for how many flights?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1