Author Topic: Cislunar Transporter, what do we know?  (Read 30668 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17174
  • Liked: 7028
  • Likes Given: 3021
Re: Cislunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #100 on: 06/11/2023 12:46 pm »
Space Business: Cold Storage
Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are betting on unproven tech for NASA's return to the Moon
https://qz.com/emails/space-business/1850514330/space-business-cold-storage

Quote from: the article
The Cislunar Propellant Transporter will be a huge vehicle, some 34 meters long and launched in two parts by Blue Origin’s as-yet-to-fly New Glenn rocket. The idea is that once Blue’s lander reaches orbit around the Moon, it will remain there to shuttle astronauts down to the surface and back again. Afterward, it can be refueled and perform its next mission.

https://twitter.com/JeffVader10/status/1667113565193486336

« Last Edit: 06/11/2023 12:53 pm by yg1968 »

Online GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1741
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1924
  • Likes Given: 1277
Re: Cislunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #101 on: 06/11/2023 04:31 pm »
Over on reddit someone mentioned Lockheed's Jupiter space tug proposal for CRS2. As opposed to something Centaur V derived.

So I'm sitting here pondering the conops of Jupiter and this large two part tug and thinking... "why not both".

If this vehicle were built as a propulsion tug element with a robotic arm, just like Jupiter, then a Centaur V derived propulsion element could dock itself to a separate Centaur V derived storage tank.
Transport that out to NHRO, refuel the lander, and then either discard the tank or leave it in a parkimg orbit. Would save the round trip delta V penalty of that empty tank when taking the lander to LLO and then returning itself to NHRO.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_(spacecraft)

« Last Edit: 06/11/2023 04:35 pm by GWH »

Offline DrHeywoodFloyd

Re: Cislunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #102 on: 06/11/2023 09:46 pm »
Over on reddit someone mentioned Lockheed's Jupiter space tug proposal for CRS2. As opposed to something Centaur V derived.

So I'm sitting here pondering the conops of Jupiter and this large two part tug and thinking... "why not both".

If this vehicle were built as a propulsion tug element with a robotic arm, just like Jupiter, then a Centaur V derived propulsion element could dock itself to a separate Centaur V derived storage tank.
Transport that out to NHRO, refuel the lander, and then either discard the tank or leave it in a parkimg orbit. Would save the round trip delta V penalty of that empty tank when taking the lander to LLO and then returning itself to NHRO.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_(spacecraft)



Thank you... for some reason, in my chrome browser clicking on the link, it interprets it as "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_(spacecraft"...anyway manually fixed the link and it works....

Anyway, there is also this video:



I would posit this is our CT... with minor updates

PS: One "out there" hypothesis watching this "space tug" operate with the international space station... is one day we actually might see it operate with Orbital Reef.... Just a thought... but I do believe that. it will be the LEO depot and termination point for CT... we will see how this evolves...

Anyway here is more information about it...
https://www.space.com/28815-jupiter-exoliner-lockheed-martin-spacecraft-photos.html

https://www.space.com/28817-jupiter-system-space-station-cargo-exploration.html
« Last Edit: 06/11/2023 09:56 pm by DrHeywoodFloyd »

Online TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4311
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3233
  • Likes Given: 634
Re: Cislunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #103 on: 06/12/2023 04:41 am »
Over on reddit someone mentioned Lockheed's Jupiter space tug proposal for CRS2. As opposed to something Centaur V derived.

So I'm sitting here pondering the conops of Jupiter and this large two part tug and thinking... "why not both".

If this vehicle were built as a propulsion tug element with a robotic arm, just like Jupiter, then a Centaur V derived propulsion element could dock itself to a separate Centaur V derived storage tank.
Transport that out to NHRO, refuel the lander, and then either discard the tank or leave it in a parking orbit. Would save the round trip delta V penalty of that empty tank when taking the lander to LLO and then returning itself to NHRO.

Seems hard to adapt Jupiter to handling cryogens and to have 6000+m/s of delta-v to move around.

But I think you're barking up the right tree with the second tank.  This enables a whole bunch of things:

1) If you want to make a big depot, making it out of fairly dumb tanks is easier/cheaper than making it out of CTs.

2) If you have missions that really stretch the ability of the CT to get back to LEO, discarding the tank before return helps quite a bit.  (It also makes it easier for the CT to aerobrake, if that's what's required.)

3) There's nothing that says the second tank has to be hydrolox.  You can have a methalox variant.  You can have an MMH/NTO variant.  And you can have a pressurized variant, which would be a fine Gateway services competitor to DXL.

4) And, instead of a dumb cargo/prop tank, you can push a variety of human spacecraft here and there, eyeballs-out.

But I think the arm is counterproductive.  Just a slightly enhanced IDSS docking implementation will do fine, although it'll be necessary to flow hydrolox through the dumb tank into the CT tank--or dock a refueling tanker to the CT before it takes on some non-hydrolox payload.

It sure would be handy to use CT to send a tonne or two of storable prop to to GEO for satellite servicing.  But it costs about 8580m/s to go to GEO and back propulsively.    That requires about 70t of transit hydrolox.  If it's based on a Centaur V, that's a tank stretch that still fits in a New Glenn for launch, and can handle a 1-2t payload--plenty for satellite servicing.

This is probably dumb, because spending two New Glenn launches for a GEO service mission is kind of extravagant.  But the small payloads, and jobs those small payloads can do, are extremely flexible.  Given the choice between a well-understood bus that can do all the nitty-gritty maneuvering and a whole bunch of purpose-built gizmos that have to manage under their own power, maybe the extra NG launch starts looking pretty good.
« Last Edit: 06/12/2023 05:06 am by TheRadicalModerate »

Offline DrHeywoodFloyd

Re: Cislunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #104 on: 06/15/2023 11:34 pm »
I am guessing that this press release from NASA might relate to a my hypothesis that orbital Reef would be a LEO depot for transportation of people and cargo out to the Moon...lets see how this evolves in the next ten years....

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/seven-us-companies-collaborate-with-nasa-to-advance-space-capabilities

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2798
  • Liked: 1063
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Cislunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #105 on: 07/14/2023 06:54 am »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17174
  • Liked: 7028
  • Likes Given: 3021
Re: Cislunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #106 on: 07/15/2023 02:36 pm »
« Last Edit: 07/15/2023 04:19 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2798
  • Liked: 1063
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Cislunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #107 on: 07/16/2023 10:27 pm »
Well, some oddities there.

Shared thin octagon bus for tug and tanker, asymmetric sunshields, surface differences between the three tanks (far white tank on the tug seems to be for LH2 but the size is wrong?)(tug blue tank appears to have something on it's surface)(long tank seems off?)

Offline Robert_the_Doll

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1215
  • Likes Given: 435
Re: Cislunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #108 on: 07/17/2023 11:30 am »
Here is a higher resolution image of the cover. I would like to know if this is an official Blue Origin, Lockheed-Martin, etc. image as there are a lot of issues. The lander has only two BE-7s, centrally located, while we know it has three.


Offline ThatOldJanxSpirit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 920
  • Liked: 1424
  • Likes Given: 3403
Re: Cislunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #109 on: 07/17/2023 02:52 pm »
Here is a higher resolution image of the cover. I would like to know if this is an official Blue Origin, Lockheed-Martin, etc. image as there are a lot of issues. The lander has only two BE-7s, centrally located, while we know it has three.

It’s marked as a ‘Blue Origin concept image’ in the magazine.

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2798
  • Liked: 1063
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Cislunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #110 on: 07/18/2023 01:11 am »
Huh, so tanker and tug both appear to have the same solar panel and radiator sizes, beyond sharing the same bus body?

Online Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5417
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1786
  • Likes Given: 1287
Re: Cislunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #111 on: 07/18/2023 05:39 am »
Well, some oddities there.

Shared thin octagon bus for tug and tanker, asymmetric sunshields, surface differences between the three tanks (far white tank on the tug seems to be for LH2 but the size is wrong?)(tug blue tank appears to have something on it's surface)(long tank seems off?)
Wonder if the tug element holds all the oxygen for the stack plus an auxiliary Hydrogen tank. While the tanker element only holds Hydrogen. The tankage on both elements are constrained by the "limited" volume of the New Glenn payload fairing. So you send up tanker element with a large liquid Hydrogen tank up to orbit first to wait for the tug element that has limited Delta-V by itself with the auxiliary Hydrogen tank (white tank?). AIUI the volume of the oxygen on the Cislunar Transport stack is limited by how much Hydrogen in volume you can crammed into the stack.

Offline ThatOldJanxSpirit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 920
  • Liked: 1424
  • Likes Given: 3403
Re: Cislunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #112 on: 07/18/2023 06:51 am »
Huh, so tanker and tug both appear to have the same solar panel and radiator sizes, beyond sharing the same bus body?

The article notes common systems with the lander including the engines. LockMart is noted as providing ‘legacy hardware’ from Orion and its satellite division.

The transporter will include a solar powered ZBO system and can be used as a depot.

It looks to me that Blue is taking the development risk here.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17174
  • Liked: 7028
  • Likes Given: 3021
Re: Cislunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #113 on: 07/20/2023 08:09 pm »
This presentation has a bit more on the LM Transporter (see attached image):

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230010065

Quote
Human Landing System
Document ID  20230010065
Document Type  Presentation
Authors  Lisa Watson-Morgan
(Marshall Space Flight Center Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, United States)
Date Acquired  July 10, 2023

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Cislunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #114 on: 07/21/2023 03:15 am »
Huh, so tanker and tug both appear to have the same solar panel and radiator sizes, beyond sharing the same bus body?

The article notes common systems with the lander including the engines. LockMart is noted as providing ‘legacy hardware’ from Orion and its satellite division.

The transporter will include a solar powered ZBO system and can be used as a depot.

It looks to me that Blue is taking the development risk here.
Finally somebody is going to create ZBO fuel depot and tank. This is huge step forward in space travel if it happens.

Its not just Blue that benefit from it but also ULA Vulcan. A fully fuelled Centuar V in LEO can deliver some serious payloads to lunar orbit but also elsewhere in solar system. By my estimates 12km/s for 5mt probe.
Also capable of delivering Orion to LLO if need be.

Depot also creates a market for ISRU fuel whether from moon or asteriods.
« Last Edit: 07/21/2023 03:21 am by TrevorMonty »

Offline warp99

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 422
  • Likes Given: 44
Re: Cislunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #115 on: 07/29/2023 08:36 am »
Huh, so tanker and tug both appear to have the same solar panel and radiator sizes, beyond sharing the same bus body?
My take is that all three sets of propellant tanks are the same size and design differing only in the attachment struts and the type of insulation panels applied.  The difference is that the lander has petal like conformal radiators and solar panels to cope with sun angles at the Lunar south pole while the Transporter and Tanker have mast based panels as they can always adopt a nose to the sun orientation to suit their sun shields.  It is possible that the Lander nose cone can rotate so that the solar panels can stay oriented to the sun which is down on the horizon while the radiators remain in the shade.

The ZBO equipment will be the same for all three systems but packaged around the base of the LOX tank for the Transporter and Tanker while it is packaged on top of the Lander where the radiator and solar panels attach.  My take is that the LOX tank is toroidal for extra structural strength and to allow low heat transfer pass through of the LH2 pipes to the engines and refuelling ports.  However it may be that a double skinned downcomer is used instead for a passthough of an oval tank.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17174
  • Liked: 7028
  • Likes Given: 3021
Re: Cislunar Transporter, what do we know?
« Reply #116 on: 10/31/2023 10:53 pm »
https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/status/1719392648258068983

Attached are a few images of the cislunar transporter from these graphics:
« Last Edit: 11/01/2023 02:18 am by yg1968 »

Tags:
 

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