Author Topic: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid  (Read 57238 times)

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5364
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2679
  • Likes Given: 3089
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #80 on: 11/06/2019 06:39 pm »
As for the Air Force tankers.   Boeing's tankers would not be made in Alabama.  Airbus would make the tankers in Mobile.  Same with SLS parts and engines that are made in Alabama.  SpaceX is not made in Alabama other than the stainless steel rolls for Starship. 

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #81 on: 11/06/2019 06:43 pm »
How does lander handle boiloff at gateway while waiting months for crew mission

For hydrogen it would be a big deal, but lox and methane are sometimes referred to as "space-storeable."

The Block 1B and single launch lander deals with that problem. You can stack the Block 1B on ML-2 and then store it in one of the other VAB bays while the Orion carrying Block 1 is stacked on ML-1. You could even launch crew first so the lander departs shortly after arrival in lunar orbit. It probably makes sense to launch the crew first so that the lander has more flexibility in instituting an Orion rescue mission if need be.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7387
  • Liked: 2894
  • Likes Given: 1503
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #82 on: 11/06/2019 08:52 pm »
You can stack the Block 1B on ML-2 and then store it in one of the other VAB bays while the Orion carrying Block 1 is stacked on ML-1. You could even launch crew first so the lander departs shortly after arrival in lunar orbit. It probably makes sense to launch the crew first so that the lander has more flexibility in instituting an Orion rescue mission if need be.

But the minimum interval between SLS launches is 120 days.  Am I missing something?

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #83 on: 11/06/2019 09:33 pm »
You can stack the Block 1B on ML-2 and then store it in one of the other VAB bays while the Orion carrying Block 1 is stacked on ML-1. You could even launch crew first so the lander departs shortly after arrival in lunar orbit. It probably makes sense to launch the crew first so that the lander has more flexibility in instituting an Orion rescue mission if need be.

But the minimum interval between SLS launches is 120 days.  Am I missing something?

Shuttle did turn arounds a lot faster than that (frequently in the ~1 month range) and had the capability to rescue one shuttle with a damaged heat shield with another launched only a few days apart. The key enabler was multiple mobile launchers so multiple vehicles could be stacked at the same time.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2019 09:34 pm by ncb1397 »

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #84 on: 11/06/2019 09:47 pm »
You can stack the Block 1B on ML-2 and then store it in one of the other VAB bays while the Orion carrying Block 1 is stacked on ML-1. You could even launch crew first so the lander departs shortly after arrival in lunar orbit. It probably makes sense to launch the crew first so that the lander has more flexibility in instituting an Orion rescue mission if need be.

But the minimum interval between SLS launches is 120 days.  Am I missing something?

I'm pretty sure the 120 days estimate assumes there's only one ML
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #85 on: 11/08/2019 09:25 pm »
Quote
Check out this new view of our Human Lander System docked with Gateway. The integrated lander’s flexible, reliable design will safely take astronauts down to the Moon’s surface. The Lander and Gateway combination is essential to sustained lunar exploration and to go to Mars.
https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1192908333478502406
« Last Edit: 11/08/2019 09:26 pm by ncb1397 »

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1221
  • Likes Given: 3546
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #86 on: 11/15/2019 12:26 am »
I found what appears to be a presentation going over the precursor to the current lander design:

https://imgur.com/a/N6jgfBo

An ECLSS capacity for a two-week surface stay is going to be a big selling point, IMO. Doubt the national team will be able to match that. They'll probably be constrained to a one week surface stay.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5361
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2242
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #87 on: 11/15/2019 12:53 am »
I would think that being able to stay for a full Lunar day would be the gold standard for future human Lunar missions. Staying a whole lunar night as well after that would be very interesting. Could the Lander cope with that by being upgraded; or would future expeditions require a separate, 'hardened' surface Habitat? Doing EVA's during Lunar midday would be thermally challenging - but so would lunar midnight! It can get pretty darn cold there. The light levels from even a half-lit Earth should be sufficient to light a Lunar landscape though.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1221
  • Likes Given: 3546
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #88 on: 11/15/2019 01:31 am »
I would think that being able to stay for a full Lunar day would be the gold standard for future human Lunar missions. Staying a whole lunar night as well after that would be very interesting. Could the Lander cope with that by being upgraded; or would future expeditions require a separate, 'hardened' surface Habitat? Doing EVA's during Lunar midday would be thermally challenging - but so would lunar midnight! It can get pretty darn cold there. The light levels from even a half-lit Earth should be sufficient to light a Lunar landscape though.
I'd imagine the main constraint would be life support. That's certainly the impression I get from reading the HLS solicitation, at least.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7387
  • Liked: 2894
  • Likes Given: 1503
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #89 on: 11/15/2019 01:20 pm »
Is there any indication that any part of Boeing's lander would be reusable?

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Istanbul Turkey and Santa Fe TEXAS USA
  • Liked: 588
  • Likes Given: 2094
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #90 on: 11/15/2019 01:23 pm »
I found what appears to be a presentation going over the precursor to the current lander design:

https://imgur.com/a/N6jgfBo

An ECLSS capacity for a two-week surface stay is going to be a big selling point, IMO. Doubt the national team will be able to match that. They'll probably be constrained to a one week surface stay.

the lander that Bezos talked about is capable of lunar night operation, it uses fuel cells

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #91 on: 11/15/2019 05:35 pm »
Is there any indication that any part of Boeing's lander would be reusable?

Possibly the ascent module:
Quote
Boeing’s lander would be capable of carrying a two-person crew to the lunar surface in 2024, meeting the requirements set in NASA’s solicitation for a Human Landing System. Future landers could include reusable ascent modules and cryogenic engines, McGrath said.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/11/09/boeing-proposes-sls-launched-lunar-lander/

You would presumably just launch tanks mounted on top of the descent module while some infrastructure like the arm aids the transfer of propellant. The fact that it appears there is a habitat inside the descent module would suggest possible re-use of the descent module for longer term pressurized volume(once you deploy power infrastructure that maintains power during lunar night). Beyond that, if you could refuel the descent module from local resources, it would be able to ferry back up to gateway (or you just use the ascent module both ways once you get to that point).
« Last Edit: 11/15/2019 05:41 pm by ncb1397 »

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Istanbul Turkey and Santa Fe TEXAS USA
  • Liked: 588
  • Likes Given: 2094
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #92 on: 11/15/2019 05:52 pm »
Is there any indication that any part of Boeing's lander would be reusable?

Possibly the ascent module:
Quote
Boeing’s lander would be capable of carrying a two-person crew to the lunar surface in 2024, meeting the requirements set in NASA’s solicitation for a Human Landing System. Future landers could include reusable ascent modules and cryogenic engines, McGrath said.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/11/09/boeing-proposes-sls-launched-lunar-lander/

You would presumably just launch tanks mounted on top of the descent module while some infrastructure like the arm aids the transfer of propellant. The fact that it appears there is a habitat inside the descent module would suggest possible re-use of the descent module for longer term pressurized volume(once you deploy power infrastructure that maintains power during lunar night). Beyond that, if you could refuel the descent module from local resources, it would be able to ferry back up to gateway (or you just use the ascent module both ways once you get to that point).

its a guess and not related to any other information but I suspect little of it is reusable if anything is. 

Boeing is projecting a architecture that requires at least two SLS launches for the program.  Both vehicles can be opreated independent of a gateway station...which if there is a Boeing plan, cannot be built...ie there is no money for it and there would be no SLS's to launch elements of it

another guess is that Boeing does not believe that a reusable vehicle can be built in that short a time...and without a gateway there is no place to park it or reassemble it

It probably would be the cheapest :) of the two options.  it would take two SLS and both Orion and whatever the lander is named...so probably 3 to 4 billion a year.  The gateway would have the lander cost, the SLS cost, the gateway cost and the cost to resupply the gateway.   the gateway will probably cost around 20 billion to design and build and launch.

and there would be 1 a year

I dont support either BTW

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5361
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2242
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #93 on: 11/15/2019 09:11 pm »
One of the major reasons for the Gateway's existence will be to make up for the Orion's relatively miserable delta-v and basically, lack of a decent propellant load :(
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2505
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 2206
  • Likes Given: 1312
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #94 on: 11/15/2019 09:46 pm »
One of the major reasons for the Gateway's existence will be to make up for the Orion's relatively miserable delta-v and basically, lack of a decent propellant load :(
And nobody is asking what it would take to stretch the service module a meter or so to where it could carry enough propellant.  I understand it would need about a 56% increase in fuel load to handle injection into LLO and return to Earth.  With the EUS, SLS should have no problem launching the heavier load into TLI. 

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9263
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10728
  • Likes Given: 12335
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #95 on: 11/15/2019 10:05 pm »
One of the major reasons for the Gateway's existence will be to make up for the Orion's relatively miserable delta-v and basically, lack of a decent propellant load :(
And nobody is asking what it would take to stretch the service module a meter or so to where it could carry enough propellant.  I understand it would need about a 56% increase in fuel load to handle injection into LLO and return to Earth.  With the EUS, SLS should have no problem launching the heavier load into TLI.

Even though it's been assumed the Orion would be required to reach the Moon, and it had been proposed that the Orion could be used beyond the Moon (i.e. asteroid mission), in reality the Artemis program is the first real program that the Orion is slated to support. And that program has only seriously been talked about for about a year, so there has been no time to make changes to the ALSO behind schedule Orion MPCV.

Plus, the Orion Service Module is a contribution from the European Space Agency (ESA) as part of what it contributes to the ISS program, and if NASA asked for modifications then it's likely that NASA, not ESA, would have to cough up the money for that. And to recap, Congress has not yet funded the Artemis program that must use the Orion, so funding (along with schedule) is not likely to favor such a modification.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5361
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2242
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #96 on: 11/15/2019 11:21 pm »
You're quite right. In principle, 'stretching' the Orion Service Module to increase it's propellant load would be 'simple' to do. Widening would be a lot more complex and would basically be a complete redesign. Stretching the SM by 1 or 1.5 meters (I'm not sure) should give between 3 to 4 metric tons more propellants. A real engineer would have to crunch those numbers. As Eric said; the EUS should be able to handle the weight no problem.

But a stretched SM would mean that the whole Orion spacecraft would have to be rebalanced, tested etc, which would take money and time an already late program can't afford, so...

But could a 'two stage' solution be worked out? By that - I mean what if Orion used 2x 'stacked' Service Modules? The second SM could be simplified with no crew consumables and no solar arrays: it could just have the 9 ton propellant load and batteries to last a few days to get the CM & SM 'Stack' to low lunar orbit where that first SM could be jettisoned after L.O.I?

Actually; it occurs to me that the two Service Modules would not have to be stacked - the second SM could be carried by the EUS as a co-manifested payload. After TLI, the Orion could do a transposition and docking maneuver and dock with a docking system-equipped SM, making it a propulsion Tug. When arriving at the Moon and doing L.O.I, the Orion then jettisons the Tug and goes to meet a waiting Lunar Lander. No Gateway required. Or substitute a propellant depot if we want to have an eventual reusable Crew Lander.
« Last Edit: 11/15/2019 11:22 pm by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2505
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 2206
  • Likes Given: 1312
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #97 on: 11/16/2019 01:05 am »
You're quite right. In principle, 'stretching' the Orion Service Module to increase it's propellant load would be 'simple' to do. Widening would be a lot more complex and would basically be a complete redesign. Stretching the SM by 1 or 1.5 meters (I'm not sure) should give between 3 to 4 metric tons more propellants. A real engineer would have to crunch those numbers. As Eric said; the EUS should be able to handle the weight no problem.

But a stretched SM would mean that the whole Orion spacecraft would have to be rebalanced, tested etc, which would take money and time an already late program can't afford, so...

But could a 'two stage' solution be worked out? By that - I mean what if Orion used 2x 'stacked' Service Modules? The second SM could be simplified with no crew consumables and no solar arrays: it could just have the 9 ton propellant load and batteries to last a few days to get the CM & SM 'Stack' to low lunar orbit where that first SM could be jettisoned after L.O.I?

Actually; it occurs to me that the two Service Modules would not have to be stacked - the second SM could be carried by the EUS as a co-manifested payload. After TLI, the Orion could do a transposition and docking maneuver and dock with a docking system-equipped SM, making it a propulsion Tug. When arriving at the Moon and doing L.O.I, the Orion then jettisons the Tug and goes to meet a waiting Lunar Lander. No Gateway required. Or substitute a propellant depot if we want to have an eventual reusable Crew Lander.
How about using the tug in Blue Origin's lunar lander proposal from NGIS?  Would that have enough delta V to do the trick?  Having more missions for the same design should reduce the per mission cost.

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1221
  • Likes Given: 3546
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #98 on: 11/16/2019 02:43 am »
Both vehicles can be opreated independent of a gateway station...which if there is a Boeing plan, cannot be built..
Baseless speculation.
« Last Edit: 11/16/2019 02:50 am by jadebenn »

Offline TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5120
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3751
  • Likes Given: 701
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #99 on: 11/16/2019 10:14 pm »
Before proceeding to a 2-SLS architecture, let's look at a single Block 1B launch with a co-manifested AE/DE.

The Block 1B co-manifesting... limit? guideline?... is 10 tonnes.  If that's the case, then a 2-stage AE/DE combo that flies from NRHO is almost impossible.  Even with a hydrolox DE and a pumped-methalox AE, I get:

AE (Isp=360, delta-v=2810 m/s):
All inert mass (dry, crew, equipment, consumables): 2.5 t to surface, 2.0 t back to NRHO
Methalox mass (assuming we leave 0.5 t on the surface): 2.4 t

DE (Isp=450, delta-v=2855 m/s with 4.9 t AE):
Dry mass: 0.4 t (SMF=8.0%)
Hydrolox mass: 4.9 t
Total co-manifested mass: 10.2 t (Note:  0.2 t are crew, transferred from Orion in NRHO.)

This is a tiny AE, somewhat smaller than the LM ascent stage.  Hydrolox has to last for at least 5 days, likely 7.  Methalox has to last for 7 days on the lunar surface in daylight.  It's unlikely that it can fulfill the 7-day mission requirement, and it's certainly not a viable basis for a sustainable architecture. 

So now we're down to two SLS launches per mission, no doubt just as Boeing wants.

The moment you launch a separate Block 1B SLS to handle the lander, you limit yourself to storables, because the second SLS will still be under construction when you launch the first one.  Figure 9 months sitting in NRHO.  I doubt you can maintain enough helium that long for pressure-fed engines, so let's look at pumped MMH/NTO for both stages.  I'm assuming a 38 t limit for the stack to get it to fit on the Block 1B cargo with fairings and PAFs and whatnot:

AE (Isp=345, delta-v=2810)
All inert mass: 6.6 t to LS, 6.1 t back to NRHO
MMH/NTO prop: 7.9 t

DE (Isp=345, delta-v=2855 with AE wet mass of 14.5 t)
Inert mass: 1.9 t (SMF=8.0%)
Prop mass: 21.7 t
Total co-manifested mass:38.1 t  (again, crew boards in NRHO)

Finally, if you have one Block 1B, you likely have two, so a last possible configuration (which doesn't appear to be what Boeing is planning) is a storable DAE launched on the cargo flight, and a methalox TE co-manifested with the Orion.  If we discard the TE in LLO (and why wouldn't we?  after all, just the launches for this mission cost at least $5B...) that gives us quite a luxurious DAE:

DAE (Isp=345, delta-v LLO to LS=2110, LS to NRHO=2810)
Inert mass: 7.7 t to LLO-LS, 7.2 t LS-NRHO
MMH/NTO Prop: 30.3 t
DAE launch mass: 38.0 t

TE (Isp=360, delta-v NRHO to LLO=745 with 38 t DAE)
Inert mass: 0.8 t (SMF=8.0%)
Methalox prop: 9.1 t
Total co-manifested mass: 9.9 t

Tags: Boeing NASA SLS HLS lander 
 

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