Okay, sorry about this being a graphics- and sound-heavy fansite but this is the only pictures I could find in a rush. Space: 1999 EagleYou see the basic horizontal lander concept here with some of its most obvious applications: pressurised crew/cargo carrier, unpressurised cargo carrier (including fuel transport) and mobile laboratory for surveys far from the outpost.I have also attached a PDF of the NASA proposals (as leaked to NASAWatch), which look remarkably similar. I usually refer to their idea as the 'Altair-X'.
I think I've found the horizontal lander http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/09/lockheed-martin-lunar-landers-revealed/
Ah, that explains the concept rather simply. Hmmm, wouldn't deceleration require that the vehicle be in a retrograde orientation? For that matter wouldn't landing require a tail-first burn and a rather abrupt attitude change? Sounds like something out of Doc E. E. Smith's Lensman.That's assuming the under-thrusters were rather anemic.
Sorry if this was answered already or somewhere else, but I'll post it again in case it wasn't.The hardware for the avionics for the J-130 is deployed on which part of the vehicle? The core? The capsule? Interstage?Same question for the J-246.Just wondering how the second stage of the J-246 maintains coordination with the avionics package on the J-130.
Quote from: dlapine on 07/27/2009 08:34 pmAh, that explains the concept rather simply. Hmmm, wouldn't deceleration require that the vehicle be in a retrograde orientation? For that matter wouldn't landing require a tail-first burn and a rather abrupt attitude change? Sounds like something out of Doc E. E. Smith's Lensman.That's assuming the under-thrusters were rather anemic.The best way to decelerator such a lander is belly first while in orbit and then rotate the lander’s tilt and the swiveling the decent engines as you approach landing, I used that technique in orbiter and it woks well.
Quote from: dlapine on 07/27/2009 08:21 pmSorry if this was answered already or somewhere else, but I'll post it again in case it wasn't.The hardware for the avionics for the J-130 is deployed on which part of the vehicle? The core? The capsule? Interstage?Same question for the J-246.Just wondering how the second stage of the J-246 maintains coordination with the avionics package on the J-130.There is a common "Instrumentation Unit" ring which is always fitted just below the Payload Fairing.That way, the same hardware unit can be mounted on top of either the Jupiter Core Stage or the Jupiter Upper Stage and can control all the stages below it.Essentially its the same approach as Saturn.Ross.
My work (?) here is done.So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish.
This is what DIRECT is trying to propose: "Everyone Remain Where You Are" instead of "All Change Please".But still, lets take advantage of the fact that a fair number (15-20%) of current Shuttle workforce are almost at retirement age. Lets allow these good people to retire from NASA (with their dignity intact) and lets save a bit of money in the process by simply not back-filling most of their positions. Over the next 5 years, we simply accept the natural ~3-4% retirement "attrition rate" and trim the total number of staff that way in order to save money.Now, don't be under any illusion that this is a "simple" solution -- it isn't. Frankly, the details are a complete *&^*% to work out and it will NOT be a painless process for everyone. But, generally speaking, it *IS* a viable approach.Ross.
...It really boils down to this: Any mission currently considering a launcher in the cost range of Delta-IV Heavy, could fly on a Jupiter-130 instead with fewer weight & size restrictions. That *IS* of interest to many people within the science community -- more than a few have contacted us to say so!Now, the number of missions considering such a cost is very low -- typically only the flagship missions can afford to even consider it. But they *DO* exist.We think there might be two, perhaps three, a decade. But our current cost profile increases SMD's top-line budget to approximately twice its current level and that would allow for quite a few more small, some extra medium and one or two new large-scale missions to be funded.One of the missions we really would like to see is a series of Hubble-like large space telescopes supporting 8.2m diameter mirrors. There are some fairly good arguments to be made for developing a fairly sizable 'batch' of such telescopes all at the same time and using them in parallel to look at lots of different parts of the sky at the same time. There's also the (admittedly remote) possibility that DoD might be interested in a very similar technology too and *might* consider sharing some of the costs for developing the new platform too. But we'll just have to see.Ross.
Quote from: kraisee on 07/27/2009 07:51 pmThe critical things, right now, seem to be determining just how big the lander can actually be, and how stable it will be when trying to land on rough, uneven, terrain when its tanks are almost dry. Those are turning into real challenges at present. But they can be solved and there are plenty of options still available.Ross.My *personal* favorite option is to go toward a horizontal lander design. It solves a LOT of problems, not the least of which is a tall, thin lander with empty tanks trying to set down on uneven ground without tipping over. Couple that with both the crew and any cargo that accompanies them, or the cargo on a cargo flight, are all close to the ground, not many meters up and nearly inaccessable.
The critical things, right now, seem to be determining just how big the lander can actually be, and how stable it will be when trying to land on rough, uneven, terrain when its tanks are almost dry. Those are turning into real challenges at present. But they can be solved and there are plenty of options still available.Ross.
Quote from: kraisee on 07/27/2009 06:13 pm...It really boils down to this: Any mission currently considering a launcher in the cost range of Delta-IV Heavy, could fly on a Jupiter-130 instead with fewer weight & size restrictions. That *IS* of interest to many people within the science community -- more than a few have contacted us to say so!Now, the number of missions considering such a cost is very low -- typically only the flagship missions can afford to even consider it. But they *DO* exist.We think there might be two, perhaps three, a decade. But our current cost profile increases SMD's top-line budget to approximately twice its current level and that would allow for quite a few more small, some extra medium and one or two new large-scale missions to be funded.One of the missions we really would like to see is a series of Hubble-like large space telescopes supporting 8.2m diameter mirrors. There are some fairly good arguments to be made for developing a fairly sizable 'batch' of such telescopes all at the same time and using them in parallel to look at lots of different parts of the sky at the same time. There's also the (admittedly remote) possibility that DoD might be interested in a very similar technology too and *might* consider sharing some of the costs for developing the new platform too. But we'll just have to see.Ross.You just highlighted one of the reasons against DIRECT/Ares IV: The incredibly small number of foreseeable science missions such a vehicle would cater to. Almost all currently planned missions can fit in available heavy launch systems and as technology progresses, even more will fit.The purpose of a super-heavy launch system is to add capability to what won't be shrinking as technology progresses - humans. If two or three science missions come along per decade (like Hubble) that don't fit in available vehicles, they could easily buy space on a launch of a vehicle specifically designed for human infrastructure like the Ares V.PS - I completely agree with increasing the number and size of orbiting telescopes, but don't think DIRECT/Ares IV is nessisary to accomplish this. Low-cost (relative term) heavy launch vehicles, like Falcon9, have the possibility of putting up large numbers of conventional telescopes. James Webb will give us a great view fairly soon and if a massive telescope is desired - Current technology limits its size not by weight or primary mirror, but the diameter of the secondary mirror. Available heavy launch vehicles could send a telescope a couple dozen meters across to the ISS.
How much do you think 1 Ares V flight is going to cost???
1. Low-cost (relative term) heavy launch vehicles, like Falcon9, have the possibility of putting up large numbers of conventional telescopes2. Available heavy launch vehicles could send a telescope a couple dozen meters across to the ISS.
Quote from: HIP2BSQRE on 07/28/2009 12:50 amHow much do you think 1 Ares V flight is going to cost???CxP's own internal estimate is $1.4 billion for each Ares-V.Ross.
That sounds a little extreme- where did you get that figure from? I've heard figures around $500-700 million variable per Ares V.
I'd just like to make a couple of suggestions for the DIRECT guys
1. One of the advantages of the Ares I/V approach is that it lands a large mass on the moon in a single launch.
2. NASA will claim (justifiably I think) that a lot of money and time has been spend on the Ares I upper stage, J-2X and the 5 segment solid and individually they seem to work.
I just thing you guys should do some calculations for how a 8.4 meter core would work with a Ares I upper stage with a J-2X and how much mass you can land on the moon in a single launch.
I am not qualified to judge whether an Ares I US with a 8.4 m core will work or if maximum mass landed per flight gives the most economical moonbase. I just think you should have the numbers ready.
Also please look at the LOR-LOR or EML-1/2 rendezvous situations. I understand that a lot of performance is lost if there are separate TLI's for Orion and the LSAM but it just seems to me that it is inviting trouble to expect two successful launches within a limited time period to do a lunar mission. Also you need two launch pads.
Just a few suggestions. Admire your hard work.
