-
Space Exploration Vehicle Concept
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 22 Apr, 2011 20:30
-
-
#1
by
Robotbeat
on 22 Apr, 2011 20:33
-
-
#2
by
Robotbeat
on 22 Apr, 2011 20:52
-
Not sure if this belongs in Orion, but evolution of the Space Exploration Vehicle:
http://twitter.com/#!/NASA_EDGE
Cool!
I like!
I like the idea of a common vehicle that can be used for exploring an asteroid or as a pressurized rover or for servicing. Then again, the requirements are so very different that it probably doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. Still looks awesome, though!!!
EDIT: Stick it on an ATHLETE-type rover, and then it can climb up rocky hills.
I know, I know... Legos...
-
#3
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 22 Apr, 2011 21:04
-
I like the idea of a common vehicle that can be used for exploring an asteroid or as a pressurized rover or for servicing. Then again, the requirements are so very different that it probably doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. Still looks awesome, though!!!
I wouldn't say that, the biggest difference between an asteroid and the moon is the gravity well, and that is solved with the Mobility Chassis. Only thing that the SEV would need for an asteroid would be thrusters but even then not that many if Orion is close by.
Also notice the design has changed to have a clam shell that covers the suitports rather than open like the LER.
-
#4
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 22 Apr, 2011 21:17
-
-
#5
by
Space Pete
on 22 Apr, 2011 23:42
-
Nice concepts!
I know NASA want to take a SEV on a test-flight to the ISS. I concur!
-
#6
by
robertross
on 22 Apr, 2011 23:49
-
Nice concepts!
I know NASA want to take a SEV on a test-flight to the ISS. I concur!
hehe. me too!
Not sure I'm all for the multiple
hatch port idea - seems like more things to go wrong, along with added cost & mass. Maybe a secondary hatch for cargo replenishment, along with a utilities connection interface for other consumables.
-
#7
by
pathfinder_01
on 23 Apr, 2011 01:04
-
Nice concepts!
I know NASA want to take a SEV on a test-flight to the ISS. I concur!
hehe. me too!
Not sure I'm all for the multiple hatch idea - seems like more things to go wrong, along with added cost & mass. Maybe a secondary hatch for cargo replenishment, along with a utilities connection interface for other consumables.
Nah, not that many hatchs. It has three docking ports of which only two are for the crew(third could be used to dock something that does not need crew access) or give flexability about it's storage). It has suit ports and 1 small object airlock.
I would suspect that having an back up docking port would be a good idea in case one does not work. I wonder could it be evoled into a lunar or mars lander?
-
#8
by
Rocket Science
on 23 Apr, 2011 01:14
-
"Open the pod bay door HAL"...."I'm sorry Dave"...lol
-
#9
by
robertross
on 23 Apr, 2011 01:27
-
Nice concepts!
I know NASA want to take a SEV on a test-flight to the ISS. I concur!
hehe. me too!
Not sure I'm all for the multiple hatch idea - seems like more things to go wrong, along with added cost & mass. Maybe a secondary hatch for cargo replenishment, along with a utilities connection interface for other consumables.
Nah, not that many hatchs. It has three docking ports of which only two are for the crew(third could be used to dock something that does not need crew access) or give flexability about it's storage). It has suit ports and 1 small object airlock.
I would suspect that having an back up docking port would be a good idea in case one does not work. I wonder could it be evoled into a lunar or mars lander?
Sorry, I should have said docking ports (will amend), but I still think it's one too many.
-
#10
by
manboy
on 26 Apr, 2011 00:06
-
This diagram doesn't seem to be arranged like either a family tree or a timeline, so its kind of hard to follow.
It looks like they increased the commonality between the two vehicles (planetary and in-space SEV), which is a smart move. But I'm a little disappointed to see the rectangular docking port removed.
Not sure why they changed the windows, looks to now have a more restricted field of view. Maybe the move to flat pieces was done to simplify manufacturing process.
In the new design I can't see the suit port but in may just be behind our point of view.
I like the idea of a common vehicle that can be used for exploring an asteroid or as a pressurized rover or for servicing. Then again, the requirements are so very different that it probably doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. Still looks awesome, though!!!
Also notice the design has changed to have a clam shell that covers the suitports rather than open like the LER.
I've seen the Lunar Electric Rover with a suit port cover as far back as D-Rats 2009.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nasadesertrats/3891249294/in/photostreamAnother Image
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/464826main_SEV_Concept_FactSheet.pdf
If the image posted on twitter is accurate than this PDF is outdated.
-
#11
by
mike robel
on 26 Apr, 2011 00:17
-
Anyone seen three-views of the SEV?
-
#12
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 26 Apr, 2011 00:29
-
It looks like they increased the commonality between the two vehicles (planetary and in-space SEV), which is a smart move. But I'm a little disappointed to see the rectangular docking port removed.
Looks like they replace it with iLIDS, which is a practical matter with all of the work that has been done on it, especially if you are concentrating on in space work first.
Not sure why they changed the windows, looks to now have a more restricted field of view. Maybe the move to flat pieces was done to simplify manufacturing process.
suspect it was changed to use existing engineering work, aka modifying Cupola Window technology for the SEV to save time/development/money.
In the new design I can't see the suit port but in may just be behind our point of view
I think the suitport bay is closed, but perhaps it was dropped in favor of the traditional airlock design since they are mainly focused on in space?
If the image posted on twitter is accurate than this PDF is outdated.
Indeed that would be true, but we have seen so little of the design even some outdated photos are informative.
-
#13
by
manboy
on 26 Apr, 2011 00:35
-
I think the suitport bay is closed, but perhaps it was dropped in favor of the traditional airlock design since they are mainly focused on in space?
I hope not, the suit ports are a really good idea (dust mitigation, lower loss of gas, allows to quickly begin and end EVAs).
-
#14
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 09 May, 2011 22:35
-
Engineers at Johnson Space Center (JSC) are developing an Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) design for the Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV). The SEV will aid to expand the human exploration envelope for Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GEO), Near Earth Object (NEO), or planetary missions by using pressurized surface exploration vehicles. The SEV, formerly known as the Lunar Electric Rover (LER), will be an evolutionary design starting as a ground test prototype here technologies for various systems will be tested and evolve into a flight vehicle.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100037960_2010040862.pdf
-
#15
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 09 May, 2011 22:40
-
Safe human exploration in space missions requires careful management of limited resources such as breathable air and stored electrical energy. Daily activities for astronauts must be carefully planned with respect to such resources, and usage must be monitored as activities proceed to ensure that they can be completed while maintaining safe resource margins. Such planning and monitoring can be complex because they depend on models of resource usage, the activities being planned, and uncertainties. This paper describes a system and the technology behind it - for energy management of the NASA-Johnson Space Center’s Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicles (SEV), that provides, in an onboard advisory mode, situational awareness to astronauts and real-time guidance to mission operators.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20100039593&hterms=Space+Exploration+Vehicle&qs=Ntx%3Dmode%2520matchallany%26Ntk%3DAll%26Ns%3DLoaded-Date|1%26N%3D0%26Ntt%3D%2522Space%2520Exploration%2520Vehicle%2522
-
#16
by
Patchouli
on 10 May, 2011 03:47
-
I like the idea of somewhat common hull for several missions as it could really save a lot of money and speed up development by years.
It's like some of the stuff you see in scifi's like 2001 and Space 1999.
-
#17
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 13 Jun, 2011 21:48
-
-
#18
by
Robotbeat
on 13 Jun, 2011 22:24
-
Chassis mockup image:
http://twitpic.com/5b4tiv
AWESOME!
Mockups are better than just powerpoints! Must mean they're getting serious about this concept.
The more awesome exploration spacecraft like this, the better!!!!
-
#19
by
stealthyplains
on 13 Jun, 2011 22:47
-
oh man, this is amazing, I hadn't seen the MMSEV designs until now. looks just great. I can't wait till this thing flies
-
#20
by
Space Pete
on 13 Jun, 2011 23:01
-
Chassis mockup image:
Excellent! SEVs are so cool. I know NASA wants to fly one to ISS prior to 2020, complete with suit port - I hope they do!
-
#21
by
Bill White
on 13 Jun, 2011 23:09
-
I agree these things are beyond cool. Suit ports are an awesome idea and suit ports protected by clam shells are even better.
So, what level of funding does the SEV project currently have?
-
#22
by
Rocket Science
on 13 Jun, 2011 23:21
-
Looks like a cool place to start for a Lunar lander, heavy windows aside...
-
#23
by
robertross
on 14 Jun, 2011 00:19
-
Chassis mockup image:
http://twitpic.com/5b4tiv
Wicked. Now just make the nose a little longer...a rear chassis...cargo carrier...and you have the vehicle for Space 1999!
(looks a bit like it)
-
#24
by
Namechange User
on 14 Jun, 2011 00:24
-
Looks like a cool place to start for a Lunar lander, heavy windows aside...
There are several of these on the floor of Bld 9, where this pic was taken.
The basic concept is this vehicle is the "core" of other possible vehicles, think JSF.
-
#25
by
Rocket Science
on 14 Jun, 2011 00:49
-
Looks like a cool place to start for a Lunar lander, heavy windows aside...
There are several of these on the floor of Bld 9, where this pic was taken.
The basic concept is this vehicle is the "core" of other possible vehicles, think JSF.
Thanks for the info. There is something about full-size mock-ups that stimulates the mind much more than power points or VR.
Regards
Robert
-
#26
by
Robotbeat
on 14 Jun, 2011 03:53
-
Looks like a cool place to start for a Lunar lander, heavy windows aside...
There are several of these on the floor of Bld 9, where this pic was taken.
The basic concept is this vehicle is the "core" of other possible vehicles, think JSF.
That's REALLY cool!
-
#27
by
Robotbeat
on 14 Jun, 2011 17:10
-
Top Gear did a show featuring one of those variants, the Lunar Electric Rover:
-
#28
by
Malderi
on 14 Jun, 2011 22:15
-
Those overlarge windows will be gone the second this design goes into real DDT&E...
-
#29
by
Robotbeat
on 14 Jun, 2011 22:16
-
Those overlarge windows will be gone the second this design goes into real DDT&E...
The ones shown in the video are already gone, I believe.
-
#30
by
Lobo
on 14 Jun, 2011 22:25
-
-
#31
by
grakenverb
on 14 Jun, 2011 23:02
-
Unfortunately, I think that these things have about as much chance as actually flying in space as the Space:1999 "Eagle" did. They certainly look right, though.
-
#32
by
manboy
on 15 Jun, 2011 14:02
-
-
#33
by
clongton
on 10 Oct, 2011 11:54
-
Bump, for it's potential relationship to the MMSEV.
-
#34
by
manboy
on 10 Oct, 2011 17:01
-
Bump, for it's potential relationship to the MMSEV.
They're the same thing.
-
#35
by
A_M_Swallow
on 10 Oct, 2011 23:42
-
Bump, for it's potential relationship to the MMSEV.
In the case of the flying version we speculate as to what thruster will be used and which fuel.
Since the MMSEV is being designed in the same building as Project Morpheus I will guess the Morpheus engine burning methane.
-
#36
by
Jim
on 10 Oct, 2011 23:49
-
Huh? They are not related and proximity to each other has no bearing.
Do you have any other silly conclusions?
-
#37
by
manboy
on 16 Oct, 2011 13:28
-
-
#38
by
Jorge
on 16 Oct, 2011 18:41
-
Small amount of new info
"Testing of different window configurations in the Reconfigurable Orbital Cockpit (ROC) facility followed by a CAD design of the recommended design."
True. Went by the ROC last Wednesday and saw it.
-
#39
by
manboy
on 17 Oct, 2011 05:08
-
Small amount of new info
"Testing of different window configurations in the Reconfigurable Orbital Cockpit (ROC) facility followed by a CAD design of the recommended design."
True. Went by the ROC last Wednesday and saw it.
Do you have any idea when they're going to start doing field tests with it like they were doing with the old mock-up?
-
#40
by
Jorge
on 17 Oct, 2011 05:12
-
Small amount of new info
"Testing of different window configurations in the Reconfigurable Orbital Cockpit (ROC) facility followed by a CAD design of the recommended design."
True. Went by the ROC last Wednesday and saw it.
Do you have any idea when they're going to start doing field tests with it like they were doing with the old mock-up?
What do you mean by "field"?
The ROC mockup is foam-core. It's not going anywhere outside the simulator. But that's all you need for window evaluations.
-
#41
by
manboy
on 17 Oct, 2011 08:32
-
Small amount of new info
"Testing of different window configurations in the Reconfigurable Orbital Cockpit (ROC) facility followed by a CAD design of the recommended design."
True. Went by the ROC last Wednesday and saw it.
Do you have any idea when they're going to start doing field tests with it like they were doing with the old mock-up?
What do you mean by "field"?
The ROC mockup is foam-core. It's not going anywhere outside the simulator. But that's all you need for window evaluations.
Looks like I incorrectly assumed that it was made of something harder.
-
#42
by
Bubbinski
on 18 Oct, 2011 02:00
-
I hadn't seen this thread until today. This SEV looks like it could be used as the basis for an in-space exploration ship or in-space satellite repair craft.
Quick thought: Launch SEV and a repair platform/rocket stage aboard SLS. Fly a fuel depot aboard a commercial rocket (or a bigger one aboard SLS), then a commercial crew vehicle (or Orion) with astronauts aboard to rendezvous with the fuel depot/SEV/repair platform-rocket stage. Fly the SEV/repair platform to Hubble and service it. Fly back to the fuel depot and Orion/commercial crew vehicle, then astronauts land back home.
And since the fuel depot/SEV would be left behind in a 28 degree orbit it would be usable for future missions to, say, the Lagrange points or the Moon, or other places.
Edited to add: couldn't SEV also be the basis of a lunar lander? And would it be practical to build the SEV lunar lander, launch it to a fuel depot in low earth orbit, then launch Orion and the earth departure stage to it?
-
#43
by
Robotbeat
on 18 Oct, 2011 02:29
-
I hadn't seen this thread until today. This SEV looks like it could be used as the basis for an in-space exploration ship or in-space satellite repair craft.
Quick thought: Launch SEV and a repair platform/rocket stage aboard SLS. Fly a fuel depot aboard a commercial rocket (or a bigger one aboard SLS), then a commercial crew vehicle (or Orion) with astronauts aboard to rendezvous with the fuel depot/SEV/repair platform-rocket stage. Fly the SEV/repair platform to Hubble and service it. Fly back to the fuel depot and Orion/commercial crew vehicle, then astronauts land back home.
And since the fuel depot/SEV would be left behind in a 28 degree orbit it would be usable for future missions to, say, the Lagrange points or the Moon, or other places.
The SEV is pretty tiny. You wouldn't need SLS for that mission.
The SEV would be much too small for the basis of a deep space hab, though you're right that those working on it have envisioned using it for satellite repair (etc). (Though I'm not sure the economics make sense for that particular use.)
Work on stuff like SEV, though, is EXACTLY what NASA HSF should be doing. Shame they're only at the level of funding that allows powerpoints and mockups. It's also supposed to form the basis of a pressurized lunar rover. The earliest use, though, would probably be a test at ISS.
I wonder if it could function as a tug? (or if that'd really be necessary?) A small craft like that seems to be beneficial in some circumstances... Like, it'd act as a suitlock module at a space station, it perhaps could also be depressurized (later repressurized) like the LEM or Apollo command module and act as a sort of backup airlock. Could maybe allow EVA support (though it'd probably need to be equipped with cold gas thrusters for safety of the EVA participants) or ability to conduct repairs of far-flung parts of a space station (or exploration stack). Its dual docking ports could allow it to act as a tug, towing elements far away from the ISS (or exploration stack or successor station) keep-out sphere close enough to be grappled by an arm (or perhaps just dock itself with its other docking port to the station, allowing transfer of pressurized cargo or consumables like fuel, water, etc, through optional NDS connectors that haven't been finalized yet...).
Just a bunch of crazy ideas. But interesting, anyway.
Anyone have any idea what sort of delta-v SEV would be capable of in free-flight, or is it too powerpoint for that to really make any sense to answer at this point?
Also, it seems like making SEV refuelable makes the most sense for its different missions... If SEV is going back and forth from a deep space hab to an asteroid, then it'd be more mass-efficient to store most of the fuel at the deep space stack than on the SEV.
-
#44
by
Bubbinski
on 18 Oct, 2011 04:09
-
Now that I look at it a little bit more, yeah, it is tiny for an in-space exploration ship. Maybe it could be the control module though?
Quick thought: Have a SEV command/control/observation module docked to a Tranquility based hab module with docking ports, and an earth departure stage refuelable in space. Oh, and dock other SEV's for asteroid exploration, satellite repair, or lunar landings as needed (or a 1-man "hopper"). Use Orion to get crews home. And the SEV could be tested out on ISS first.
-
#45
by
Jorge
on 18 Oct, 2011 05:13
-
Small amount of new info
"Testing of different window configurations in the Reconfigurable Orbital Cockpit (ROC) facility followed by a CAD design of the recommended design."
True. Went by the ROC last Wednesday and saw it.
Do you have any idea when they're going to start doing field tests with it like they were doing with the old mock-up?
What do you mean by "field"?
The ROC mockup is foam-core. It's not going anywhere outside the simulator. But that's all you need for window evaluations.
Looks like I incorrectly assumed that it was made of something harder.
The ROC mockup was used to generate a CAD model that will be used to build a more sturdy mockup for other types of testing.
-
#46
by
manboy
on 18 Oct, 2011 10:59
-
Also, it seems like making SEV refuelable makes the most sense for its different missions... If SEV is going back and forth from a deep space hab to an asteroid, then it'd be more mass-efficient to store most of the fuel at the deep space stack than on the SEV.
I'm pretty sure the SEV is intended to be left in orbit around asteroid. While the hab module and the MPCV return to Earth.
Small amount of new info
"Testing of different window configurations in the Reconfigurable Orbital Cockpit (ROC) facility followed by a CAD design of the recommended design."
True. Went by the ROC last Wednesday and saw it.
Do you have any idea when they're going to start doing field tests with it like they were doing with the old mock-up?
What do you mean by "field"?
The ROC mockup is foam-core. It's not going anywhere outside the simulator. But that's all you need for window evaluations.
Looks like I incorrectly assumed that it was made of something harder.
The ROC mockup was used to generate a CAD model that will be used to build a more sturdy mockup for other types of testing.
Well I look forward to it.
-
#47
by
RanulfC
on 18 Oct, 2011 19:12
-
The SEV is pretty tiny.
But getting right down to it it has such HUGE potential.
- Space-Tug control module
- Lunar/Planetary lander command module
- Extended EVA/Operations pod command module
The SEV is looking-like/ending-up being a great start on a generic-modular spacecraft
Work on stuff like SEV, though, is EXACTLY what NASA HSF should be doing. Shame they're only at the level of funding that allows powerpoints and mockups. It's also supposed to form the basis of a pressurized lunar rover. The earliest use, though, would probably be a test at ISS.
I wonder if it could function as a tug? (or if that'd really be necessary?) A small craft like that seems to be beneficial in some circumstances...
If you look at the "aft" end of the cabin mock-up and CAD there is as a "bump" that could well be a "door" to the "rest" of the vehicle
Anyone have any idea what sort of delta-v SEV would be capable of in free-flight, or is it too powerpoint for that to really make any sense to answer at this point?
Probably to "early" overall but if you think of it as being modular enough to "attach" to other sections the answer becomes something like, "How much do you need?"
Randy
-
#48
by
Cherokee43v6
on 21 Oct, 2011 17:30
-
-
#49
by
Space Pete
on 06 Dec, 2011 15:07
-
Conducting sound tests on the MMSEV sled to prepare for next week's test. (Attachment 1.)
Astronaut Mike Gernhardt & geologist Brent Garry will live in the MMSEV for 3 days & 2 nights.
Suit ports on the aft of the MMSEV. The sled is moving it across the air bearing floor. (Attachment 2.)
https://www.facebook.com/NASA.DRATS
-
#50
by
BrightLight
on 06 Dec, 2011 15:40
-
Conducting sound tests on the MMSEV sled to prepare for next week's test. (Attachment 1.)
Astronaut Mike Gernhardt & geologist Brent Garry will live in the MMSEV for 3 days & 2 nights.
Suit ports on the aft of the MMSEV. The sled is moving it across the air bearing floor. (Attachment 2.)
https://www.facebook.com/NASA.DRATS
Way cool! - great post. Can we get a look at the inside? Is it made from plywood?
-
#51
by
clongton
on 07 Dec, 2011 01:19
-
Astronaut Mike Gernhardt & geologist Brent Garry will live in the MMSEV for 3 days & 2 nights.
They're going to be really cramped. That thing is designed for zero-g habitation.
-
#52
by
manboy
on 07 Dec, 2011 03:16
-
Astronaut Mike Gernhardt & geologist Brent Garry will live in the MMSEV for 3 days & 2 nights.
They're going to be really cramped. That thing is designed for zero-g habitation.
And lunar gravity.
-
#53
by
manboy
on 15 Dec, 2011 13:32
-
-
#54
by
manboy
on 15 Dec, 2011 16:21
-
-
#55
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 15 Dec, 2011 17:59
-
Oddly enough (and it ages me pretty well), whenever I look at that thing, I can hear this oddly toneless voice announcing: "I'm sorry Dave but I can't do that."
-
#56
by
clongton
on 15 Dec, 2011 23:04
-
Oddly enough (and it ages me pretty well), whenever I look at that thing, I can hear this oddly toneless voice announcing: "I'm sorry Dave but I can't do that."
-
#57
by
strangequark
on 16 Dec, 2011 02:27
-
Oddly enough (and it ages me pretty well), whenever I look at that thing, I can hear this oddly toneless voice announcing: "I'm sorry Dave but I can't do that."
Nonsense! Being reminded of such a timeless piece of dramatic art ages you no more than being reminded of Hamlet. Though admittedly, I recall somewhat fewer spaceships in that work.
-
#58
by
Namechange User
on 16 Dec, 2011 02:40
-
Personally, I just wish we would build the damn thing and get on with it instead of remarking how it reminds us of 40+ year old movies.
-
#59
by
Robotbeat
on 29 Jan, 2012 06:08
-
Any news on this? How much would it cost to actually build this thing? What are the dimensions and volume, etc?
It sounds to me like it might be kind of expensive for an ISS flight, at least as much as Cygnus at a VERY VERY minimum, since it needs to meet all the visiting vehicle requirements, plus it needs to operate as a totally separate crewed vehicle complete with suitlocks and windows and arms. Sounds like roughly a billion dollar project to get to just the ISS stage (though I hope they can do it for much less, I don't see how they can given the requirements).
-
#60
by
JimOman
on 01 Feb, 2012 02:05
-
Any news on this? How much would it cost to actually build this thing? What are the dimensions and volume, etc?
It sounds to me like it might be kind of expensive for an ISS flight, at least as much as Cygnus at a VERY VERY minimum, since it needs to meet all the visiting vehicle requirements, plus it needs to operate as a totally separate crewed vehicle complete with suitlocks and windows and arms. Sounds like roughly a billion dollar project to get to just the ISS stage (though I hope they can do it for much less, I don't see how they can given the requirements).
Honestly, I think it would only end up at the ISS for a shake down before being sent out with Orion. Sending it to the ISS alone, ans to stay there, really serves no purpose long-term. You would also have to have another vehicle to deorbit it as well after it's testing at ISS is done. That seems like a waste to me.
-
#61
by
RocketmanUS
on 01 Feb, 2012 03:15
-
PDF did show the length and height.
But what is it's width? ( without the wheel base and with the wheel base )
-
#62
by
Robotbeat
on 01 Feb, 2012 03:45
-
It sounds to me like it might be kind of expensive for an ISS flight, at least as much as Cygnus at a VERY VERY minimum, since it needs to meet all the visiting vehicle requirements, plus it needs to operate as a totally separate crewed vehicle complete with suitlocks and windows and arms.
Wouldn't it meet the visiting vehicle requirements anyway, considering what it's being designed to do?
Oh yes, don't get me wrong. The ISS visiting vehicle requirements are almost certainly a subset of its other requirements (a transfer vehicle or gateway is just like a smaller space station).
I'm just trying to get a rough idea of how expensive and difficult it's likely to be to develop it (it has got to be harder than Cygnus, though it obviously doesn't need its own custom launch vehicle like Cygnus is getting). I really am hoping it is developed and flown. It seems like it could serve lots of purposes. It could even be used to study a near-Earth asteroid while at ISS. Yes, you heard me right:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/sbag/meetings/jan2011/presentations/day1/d1_1400_Patterson_Brophy.pdf (starting at page 40)
-
#63
by
manboy
on 01 Feb, 2012 04:56
-
It sounds to me like it might be kind of expensive for an ISS flight, at least as much as Cygnus at a VERY VERY minimum, since it needs to meet all the visiting vehicle requirements, plus it needs to operate as a totally separate crewed vehicle complete with suitlocks and windows and arms.
Wouldn't it meet the visiting vehicle requirements anyway, considering what it's being designed to do?
Oh yes, don't get me wrong. The ISS visiting vehicle requirements are almost certainly a subset of its other requirements (a transfer vehicle or gateway is just like a smaller space station).
I'm just trying to get a rough idea of how expensive and difficult it's likely to be to develop it (it has got to be harder than Cygnus, though it obviously doesn't need its own custom launch vehicle like Cygnus is getting). I really am hoping it is developed and flown. It seems like it could serve lots of purposes. It could even be used to study a near-Earth asteroid while at ISS. Yes, you heard me right:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/sbag/meetings/jan2011/presentations/day1/d1_1400_Patterson_Brophy.pdf (starting at page 40)
Not to go off topic but it would be kind of cool to have that 10,000 kg NEA attached to ISS, although it probably wouldn't be worth the debris it might give off.
-
#64
by
RocketmanUS
on 17 Mar, 2012 03:07
-
-
#65
by
RocketmanUS
on 17 Mar, 2012 18:21
-
Each has 12 tires. Do each tire have it's own electric motor or do a pair of them share a motor?
-
#66
by
robertross
on 17 Mar, 2012 21:21
-
-
#67
by
RocketmanUS
on 18 Mar, 2012 23:37
-
On Mars how much electrical power is needed to travel 10km at a speed of 10kmp ( that is with two crew and full payload on a level surface, no hills )?
What is the voltage draw and max amperage draw on the electric motors?
-
#68
by
Robotbeat
on 19 Mar, 2012 00:47
-
On Mars how much electrical power is needed to travel 10km at a speed of 10kmp ( that is with two crew and full payload on a level surface, no hills )?
What is the voltage draw and max amperage draw on the electric motors?
Now, that still depends on a lot of other variables, like the specifics of the vehicle (i.e. rolling resistance, bushing friction, etc) and the actual composition of the terrain (i.e. how firm it is... ideally it'd be concrete or asphalt).
-
#69
by
RocketmanUS
on 19 Mar, 2012 01:02
-
On Mars how much electrical power is needed to travel 10km at a speed of 10kmp ( that is with two crew and full payload on a level surface, no hills )?
What is the voltage draw and max amperage draw on the electric motors?
Now, that still depends on a lot of other variables, like the specifics of the vehicle (i.e. rolling resistance, bushing friction, etc) and the actual composition of the terrain (i.e. how firm it is... ideally it'd be concrete or asphalt).
Go with the average terrain on Mars that it would most likely be on.
So how far would it go on one charge, with a given sized battery pack?
What type of batteries might they use?
-
#70
by
BrightLight
on 14 May, 2012 20:39
-
-
#71
by
mike robel
on 15 May, 2012 11:37
-
Sadly you have to be a member or pay 31 bucks for that report. :<
-
#72
by
manboy
on 16 Jul, 2012 04:57
-
-
#73
by
A_M_Swallow
on 17 Jul, 2012 00:58
-
Rockets may not be Lego blocks but the SEV could be a piece of Meccano.
-
#74
by
manboy
on 21 Aug, 2012 00:35
-
Suitport cover now built into the mock-up. More tests are being performed.
-
#75
by
BrightLight
on 21 Aug, 2012 02:43
-
From the looks of the top image, it appears there is a second starboard "hatch" as well. Is this a unpressurized sun/dust cover, additional unpressurized storage (tools, etc.) what is its function?
-
#76
by
manboy
on 21 Aug, 2012 03:13
-
From the looks of the top image, it appears there is a second starboard "hatch" as well. Is this a unpressurized sun/dust cover, additional unpressurized storage (tools, etc.) what is its function?
The starboard isn't visible in that picture so do you mean port? That hatch is part of the suit port cover.
-
#77
by
BrightLight
on 22 Aug, 2012 21:36
-
Image off of DRATS Facebook page
acquired August 16
MMSEV with projected asteroid simulation.
-
#78
by
Halidon
on 23 Aug, 2012 19:11
-
Is it the lens or are those benches really reclined? If SEV is to be used only in freefall/microgravity, wouldn't a standing position be better?
-
#79
by
Robotbeat
on 23 Aug, 2012 19:14
-
Is it the lens or are those benches really reclined? If SEV is to be used only in freefall/microgravity, wouldn't a standing position be better?
SEV may be used on the Moon (or Mars) as well. Besides, they still have to test it on Earth.
-
#80
by
BrightLight
on 24 Aug, 2012 20:31
-
-
#81
by
BrightLight
on 04 Sep, 2012 21:44
-
some nice simulation/animation images of the SSMV at an asteroid.
-
#82
by
manboy
on 02 Dec, 2012 18:36
-
Looks like another mock-up has been built.
Photos taken from
reddit.
-
#83
by
BrightLight
on 05 Dec, 2012 18:57
-
Looks like another mock-up has been built.
Photos taken from reddit.
I wonder if the mock-up on the right is an older version that was brought back (for what?). The quality of the build does not look as good as the MMSEV on the left.
-
#84
by
Robotbeat
on 05 Dec, 2012 19:22
-
Looks like another mock-up has been built.
Photos taken from reddit.
I wonder if the mock-up on the right is an older version that was brought back (for what?). The quality of the build does not look as good as the MMSEV on the left.
One on right looks more realistic. Like an Apollo Lunar Module reboot. Smaller, more efficient.
-
#85
by
clongton
on 05 Dec, 2012 20:01
-
Looks like another mock-up has been built.
Photos taken from reddit.
I wonder if the mock-up on the right is an older version that was brought back (for what?). The quality of the build does not look as good as the MMSEV on the left.
One on right looks more realistic. Like an Apollo Lunar Module reboot. Smaller, more efficient.
Image on the right has the hatch closed and access to the hatch area blockled off, while the image on the left has both the hatch and hatch access open. To me that indicates that the SEV mockup on the left is currently active and is likely the most current design.
-
#86
by
Robotbeat
on 05 Dec, 2012 20:05
-
Looks like another mock-up has been built.
Photos taken from reddit.
I wonder if the mock-up on the right is an older version that was brought back (for what?). The quality of the build does not look as good as the MMSEV on the left.
One on right looks more realistic. Like an Apollo Lunar Module reboot. Smaller, more efficient.
Image on the right has the hatch closed and access to the hatch area blockled off, while the image on the left has both the hatch and hatch access open. To me that indicates that the SEV mockup on the left is currently active and is likely the most current design.
Or it could be they're readying the design on the right.
Either way, I hope they get the design nailed down enough to start producing engineering test articles one of these years. Lighter the better, as long as you can fit 2 crew comfortably (ala Apollo) and 4 for long enough for transit to and from the surface (of the Moon, another moon, or even perhaps Mars).
-
#87
by
BrightLight
on 05 Dec, 2012 20:45
-
Looks like another mock-up has been built.
Photos taken from reddit.
I wonder if the mock-up on the right is an older version that was brought back (for what?). The quality of the build does not look as good as the MMSEV on the left.
One on right looks more realistic. Like an Apollo Lunar Module reboot. Smaller, more efficient.
Image on the right has the hatch closed and access to the hatch area blockled off, while the image on the left has both the hatch and hatch access open. To me that indicates that the SEV mockup on the left is currently active and is likely the most current design.
Or it could be they're readying the design on the right.
Either way, I hope they get the design nailed down enough to start producing engineering test articles one of these years. Lighter the better, as long as you can fit 2 crew comfortably (ala Apollo) and 4 for long enough for transit to and from the surface (of the Moon, another moon, or even perhaps Mars).
i don't recall a "rocket pack" that was big enough to support a lunar landing, is there a citation\thread for this - if so way cool, I like the MMSEV concept. certainly the in-space version will be just fine for asteroid operations, but I question the moon lander mods.
-
#88
by
Robotbeat
on 05 Dec, 2012 20:52
-
Nothing really solid (RE:landing the SEV), but it has been mentioned in a few places. The one on the right DOES look awfully like the Apollo LM cabin.
-
#89
by
clongton
on 05 Dec, 2012 20:59
-
Nothing really solid (RE:landing the SEV), but it has been mentioned in a few places. The one on the right DOES look awfully like the Apollo LM cabin.
Which is the 1st clue to me that it is the "older" design. They started with what worked before and ended up with what's on the left by incorporating "lessons learned" from dealing with that design.
Of course YMMV
-
#90
by
BrightLight
on 05 Dec, 2012 21:00
-
Nothing really solid (RE:landing the SEV), but it has been mentioned in a few places. The one on the right DOES look awfully like the Apollo LM cabin.
maybe a separate thread
"what would it take to land the SEV on the moon"
- could the rocket pack get the SEV back to LLO, or a separate ascent vehicle, is it better to have a short duration lander where the astronauts transfer to the SEV for a week, similar to the Boeing proposal. Cargo lander down mass for the SEV - many questions.
-
#91
by
Robotbeat
on 05 Dec, 2012 21:02
-
Nothing really solid (RE:landing the SEV), but it has been mentioned in a few places. The one on the right DOES look awfully like the Apollo LM cabin.
maybe a separate thread
"what would it take to land the SEV on the moon"
- could the rocket pack get the SEV back to LLO, or a separate ascent vehicle, is it better to have a short duration lander where the astronauts transfer to the SEV for a week, similar to the Boeing proposal. Cargo lander down mass for the SEV - many questions.
It'd probably take just as much as it took for the Apollo LM.
-
#92
by
Robotbeat
on 05 Dec, 2012 21:07
-
Nothing really solid (RE:landing the SEV), but it has been mentioned in a few places. The one on the right DOES look awfully like the Apollo LM cabin.
Which is the 1st clue to me that it is the "older" design. They started with what worked before and ended up with what's on the left by incorporating "lessons learned" from dealing with that design.
Of course YMMV
SEV actually started out as the pressurized rover. In fact, the very first page of this thread shows the evolution of the SEV, and nowhere does this design on the right show its face, which means it's surely a /new/ design. It looks good to me, actually. Small is beautiful, since it increases the chance of it actually being used. And being small, it's also more likely to be useful in any particular architecture. For about the same fabrication costs as one of the larger ones, you can make two engineering test articles, for instance. Also, the rounder shape is more efficient mass-wise.
-
#93
by
JasonAW3
on 05 Dec, 2012 21:10
-
You know,
If you stretched it out about 5 feet from behind the side hatches, (Putting the suits in their own clamshell enclosures on each side) setup a standard docking hatch on the far end, docked it with a hab module surrounded by a Human Rated Skycrane landing stage, that could work quite nicely. Bring the six wheeled Rover platform uder it, lift and detach, and you have a lunar rover, and a basic lunar base module.
When the mission is over, redock the front module, reload the flight software , refuel from the robotic tanker (from the L-2 fuel depot) that landed near the craft, and take off again.
Tanker type automated landers would likely be similar in configuration to the Falcon 9 Grasshopper that SpaceX is experimenting with, but with only 2 to 3 main engines. Comparitively, the tanker would only need a small fraction of the total fuel load to land in 1/6th Gee, and after offloading the majority of the fuel to the reusable lunar lander, only a fraction of the fuel to launch again and set up a spiral orbit to rendevous with the L-2 fuel and supply depot. (Somehow, I keep wanting to call it Stucky's One)
The lander would then take off and dock with the Orion based tug to return the craft to it's garage at L-2, where it can be checked out maintenanced and refurbished for the next lunar landing.
Simply put, the current system of disposable stages and rockets is unbelivably wasteful and drives the per launch costs right through the roof. The ONLY way space development can become economical is either developing reusable craft and stages or making the upper stages part of the payload packages themselves. (Dry for wet habitat modules, etc).
But I'm getting off topic.
Not only does this multi-use module have much better viewing capibilities, I suspect it has vast untapped potentile for near space to deep space uses.
Jason
-
#94
by
clongton
on 05 Dec, 2012 21:11
-
-
#95
by
Robotbeat
on 05 Dec, 2012 21:12
-
...
Like I said - YMMV
Maybe you just /want/ the larger design to be the newer one? All good evidence points to the smaller one being new.
-
#96
by
clongton
on 05 Dec, 2012 21:13
-
...
Like I said - YMMV
Maybe you just /want/ the larger design to be the newer one? All good evidence points to the smaller one being new.
No, dont /want/ anything - I just hold a different opinion that yours
-
#97
by
BrightLight
on 05 Dec, 2012 21:36
-
You know,
If you stretched it out about 5 feet from behind the side hatches, (Putting the suits in their own clamshell enclosures on each side) setup a standard docking hatch on the far end, docked it with a hab module surrounded by a Human Rated Skycrane landing stage, that could work quite nicely. Bring the six wheeled Rover platform uder it, lift and detach, and you have a lunar rover, and a basic lunar base module.
When the mission is over, redock the front module, reload the flight software , refuel from the robotic tanker (from the L-2 fuel depot) that landed near the craft, and take off again.
Tanker type automated landers would likely be similar in configuration to the Falcon 9 Grasshopper that SpaceX is experimenting with, but with only 2 to 3 main engines. Comparitively, the tanker would only need a small fraction of the total fuel load to land in 1/6th Gee, and after offloading the majority of the fuel to the reusable lunar lander, only a fraction of the fuel to launch again and set up a spiral orbit to rendevous with the L-2 fuel and supply depot. (Somehow, I keep wanting to call it Stucky's One)
The lander would then take off and dock with the Orion based tug to return the craft to it's garage at L-2, where it can be checked out maintenanced and refurbished for the next lunar landing.
Simply put, the current system of disposable stages and rockets is unbelivably wasteful and drives the per launch costs right through the roof. The ONLY way space development can become economical is either developing reusable craft and stages or making the upper stages part of the payload packages themselves. (Dry for wet habitat modules, etc).
But I'm getting off topic.
Not only does this multi-use module have much better viewing capibilities, I suspect it has vast untapped potentile for near space to deep space uses.
Jason
The existing skycrane would be about 25% of what would be required to land a SEV (unmanned) while the Apollo LM with the SEV in place of the ascent stage would work - not hard to see a technical solution and path forward to landing a SEV on the moon. Getting it back to orbit would require something like a dual Apollo ascent engine cluster (manned). Agian, no new technology here, but a development path required. A DTAL like approach would also work, with the SEV as the payload. In my mind, is this cost effective?
-
#98
by
Robotbeat
on 05 Dec, 2012 21:38
-
I think the new SEV may be significantly lighter than the fatter one. Closer to the Apollo LM ascent stage (which, when dry, was only 2mT).
-
#99
by
manboy
on 05 Dec, 2012 21:52
-
Looks like another mock-up has been built.
Photos taken from reddit.
I wonder if the mock-up on the right is an older version that was brought back (for what?). The quality of the build does not look as good as the MMSEV on the left.
One on right looks more realistic. Like an Apollo Lunar Module reboot. Smaller, more efficient.
Image on the right has the hatch closed and access to the hatch area blockled off, while the image on the left has both the hatch and hatch access open. To me that indicates that the SEV mockup on the left is currently active and is likely the most current design.
Or it could be they're readying the design on the right.
Either way, I hope they get the design nailed down enough to start producing engineering test articles one of these years. Lighter the better, as long as you can fit 2 crew comfortably (ala Apollo) and 4 for long enough for transit to and from the surface (of the Moon, another moon, or even perhaps Mars).
i don't recall a "rocket pack" that was big enough to support a lunar landing, is there a citation\thread for this - if so way cool, I like the MMSEV concept. certainly the in-space version will be just fine for asteroid operations, but I question the moon lander mods.
There are no plans to use it as the basis for a lander.
-
#100
by
Robotbeat
on 05 Dec, 2012 21:58
-
-
#101
by
manboy
on 05 Dec, 2012 22:32
-
I found some more pictures on flickr. The first two show a different window design is being tested and the third shows that it has been switched out.
-
#102
by
Space Pete
on 05 Dec, 2012 22:49
-
Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way - maybe there will be no "final" window design.
As we can see in those images, changing the window design involves "simply" bolting a new forward bulkhead in place (assuming no welding is needed), and probably mating some connectors. If that's true, then the window designs could be thought of as modular.
So maybe they will build the SEVs with different window designs depending on their mission (i.e. one design for in space ops, another for surface ops, etc).
-
#103
by
AnalogMan
on 05 Dec, 2012 23:15
-
Came across these two photos of the second prototype - titled as follows:
[1] MMSEV: Evaluation of habitability and mobility during tests on air bearing floor
[2] Modular Power Systems: Integrated roll-out solar arrays and fuel cell with MMSEV
-
#104
by
RocketmanUS
on 06 Dec, 2012 02:24
-
Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way - maybe there will be no "final" window design.
As we can see in those images, changing the window design involves "simply" bolting a new forward bulkhead in place (assuming no welding is needed), and probably mating some connectors. If that's true, then the window designs could be thought of as modular.
So maybe they will build the SEVs with different window designs depending on their mission (i.e. one design for in space ops, another for surface ops, etc).
More than likely it's not just the windows in the front that will be changed out. The rest of the body could come in different shapes and sizes.
-
#105
by
A_M_Swallow
on 06 Dec, 2012 04:55
-
-
#106
by
Jim
on 06 Dec, 2012 13:11
-
ULA are getting Masten Space Systems to add Katana rocket engines to the side of a CENTAUR to produce the XEUS demonstration lander. Its intended cargo appears to be a manned SEV.
http://masten-space.com/2012/05/21/katana-first-fire
ULA is not involved. They only provided the tank. Also, it is has nothing to do with SEV project. Videos are not evidence.
-
#107
by
A_M_Swallow
on 06 Dec, 2012 22:12
-
ULA is not involved. They only provided the tank. Also, it is has nothing to do with SEV project. Videos are not evidence.
The moderators do not like the two of us arguing. I will just say that there is a lot of contradiction in what you just said.
-
#108
by
Jim
on 07 Dec, 2012 03:04
-
ULA is not involved. They only provided the tank. Also, it is has nothing to do with SEV project. Videos are not evidence.
The moderators do not like the two of us arguing. I will just say that there is a lot of contradiction in what you just said.
Then stop posting incorrect statements.
-
#109
by
A_M_Swallow
on 08 Dec, 2012 05:16
-
ULA is not involved. They only provided the tank. Also, it is has nothing to do with SEV project. Videos are not evidence.
The moderators do not like the two of us arguing. I will just say that there is a lot of contradiction in what you just said.
Then stop posting incorrect statements.
I did not lie.
-
#110
by
RocketmanUS
on 04 Jan, 2013 06:24
-
Does the SEV ( rover version ) use the life support system from the space suits or does it have it's own system for life support based on the life support system used on the space suits that are used for the suit ports?
-
#111
by
pathfinder_01
on 04 Jan, 2013 06:56
-
Does the SEV ( rover version ) use the life support system from the space suits or does it have it's own system for life support based on the life support system used on the space suits that are used for the suit ports?
It would likely have it's own lifesupport sytems and those systems would probably not be based on the kind used in space suit. A space suit has power, mass, and volume limitations that don't apply to something larger. The systems would likely be based on what is in Orion or perhaps the Deep space hab(but Orion would probably be the likely source). Space suits generally have very limited lifesupport like 8 hours or so.
-
#112
by
Robotbeat
on 06 Jan, 2013 19:21
-
Came across these two photos of the second prototype - titled as follows:
[1] MMSEV: Evaluation of habitability and mobility during tests on air bearing floor
[2] Modular Power Systems: Integrated roll-out solar arrays and fuel cell with MMSEV
Does anyone have more information on the roll-out solar array concept? Looks interesting.
-
#113
by
Robotbeat
on 07 Jan, 2013 00:50
-
-
#114
by
Herb Schaltegger
on 07 Jan, 2013 14:40
-
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120016969_2012018967.pdf
"Environmental Controls and Life Support System (ECLSS) Design for a
Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV)"
That has GOT to be one of the most content-empty abstracts I've ever seen, even for something out of a NASA regional center/contractor make-work project.
The people who are planning a this concept need to stop wasting their time with idealized notional plans and bury their heads on the PDR and CDR FMEA documents for the Space Station Freedom/ISS ECLSS, and then compare those to the almost 20 years since then worth of operational data. THAT'S how you're going to do real design work for the next long-duration spacecraft ECLSS.
-
#115
by
apace
on 07 Jan, 2013 15:24
-
That has GOT to be one of the most content-empty abstracts I've ever seen, even for something out of a NASA regional center/contractor make-work project.
They know, that their project never fly in their lifetime... so, what you expect from them?
-
#116
by
Robotbeat
on 08 Jan, 2013 01:44
-
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120016969_2012018967.pdf
"Environmental Controls and Life Support System (ECLSS) Design for a
Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV)"
That has GOT to be one of the most content-empty abstracts I've ever seen, even for something out of a NASA regional center/contractor make-work project.
The people who are planning a this concept need to stop wasting their time with idealized notional plans and bury their heads on the PDR and CDR FMEA documents for the Space Station Freedom/ISS ECLSS, and then compare those to the almost 20 years since then worth of operational data. THAT'S how you're going to do real design work for the next long-duration spacecraft ECLSS.
Sorry, I didn't realize that was just an abstract! Yeah, the quality of material on NTRS isn't guaranteed. This doesn't look to be anything real.
-
#117
by
A_M_Swallow
on 08 Jan, 2013 04:26
-
-
#118
by
ChileVerde
on 08 Jan, 2013 13:34
-
Someone appears to be designing the MMSEV and DSH ECLSS to work together. The Deep Space Habitat (DSH) would act as a mother ship that resupplies the SEV. I suspect that a Moon base would have to do the same to the rover MMSEV.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120008179_2012008351.pdf
Title = Deep Space Habitat ECLSS Design Concept
This is an extremely interesting document, as it goes beyond just the ECLSS and describes an asteroid mission and DSH that NASA, as of 2011, presumably thought were realistic enough to serve as a DRM for the ECLSS. As such, it provides a guide for other components that will have to be procured at some point, such as a cargo fairing, SEP vehicle, CPS, and SEV.
It also drops a hint about radiation protection, the subject of another thread:
Deck 2 houses the individual crew quarters and has the least amount of services from the ECLSS. There has been considerable discussion regarding locating stored water in this area to provide radiation shielding for the crew. As the ECLSS intends to launch 450 kg of water, this is a possible location for this water, although the exact means of storage (smaller water bags or larger tanks) have not yet been determined.
-
#119
by
Jim
on 08 Jan, 2013 14:57
-
it is a study and not anything going forward.
-
#120
by
ChileVerde
on 08 Jan, 2013 15:43
-
it is a study and not anything going forward.
Not to get political, but it's not clear that anything at all is going forward except for SLS/Orion. The ECLSS study, I'd think, was based on a mission and hardware that at the time (2011) were thought not to be entirely fanciful. That's not to say that it will actually happen, of course.
-
#121
by
clongton
on 08 Jan, 2013 22:49
-
That has GOT to be one of the most content-empty abstracts I've ever seen, even for something out of a NASA regional center/contractor make-work project.
The people who are planning a this concept need to stop wasting their time with idealized notional plans and bury their heads on the PDR and CDR FMEA documents for the Space Station Freedom/ISS ECLSS, and then compare those to the almost 20 years since then worth of operational data. THAT'S how you're going to do real design work for the next long-duration spacecraft ECLSS.
Sorry Herb but that's not the NASA way. The NASA way is to launch a 2 year study to create a list of everything they already have that would work well, make sure everything on that list gets thrown out, dismantled or destroyed and then start all over again from scratch.
What ever happened to "If it ain't broke then don't fix it"?
Nobody at NASA has ever heard of that. Its blasphemy! Use old stuff? Never! Somebody designed it that doesn't work here? No no no no! Can't do that - under any circumstances.
If you want something done efficiently then give it to a commercial contractor that has no NASA ties.
If you don't give a rat's ass how much it costs or how long it takes then NASA's your guy. They WILL do a good job - that's a fact. But only the US Treasury will be able to cover the cost.
-
#122
by
mike robel
on 19 Apr, 2013 02:49
-
Does anyone have the soft copies of the links to pdfs they could either post or email to me? thanks!
-
#123
by
JohnFornaro
on 19 Apr, 2013 13:58
-
Sorry Herb but that's not the NASA way. The NASA way is to launch a 2 year study to create a list of everything they already have that would work well, make sure everything on that list gets thrown out, dismantled or destroyed and then start all over again from scratch.
Gosh, Chuck. Ain't that a bit harsh? Like this guy below sez:
Cite?
And since there is the stated need for NASA to only build one-off missions...
Cite?
-
#124
by
clongton
on 20 Apr, 2013 00:40
-
Sorry Herb but that's not the NASA way. The NASA way is to launch a 2 year study to create a list of everything they already have that would work well, make sure everything on that list gets thrown out, dismantled or destroyed and then start all over again from scratch.
Gosh, Chuck. Ain't that a bit harsh?
Harsh? Yes
True? Also Yes
-
#125
by
HappyMartian
on 20 Apr, 2013 05:03
-
Sorry Herb but that's not the NASA way. The NASA way is to launch a 2 year study to create a list of everything they already have that would work well, make sure everything on that list gets thrown out, dismantled or destroyed and then start all over again from scratch.
Gosh, Chuck. Ain't that a bit harsh?
Harsh? Yes
True? Also Yes
'The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress' and may cause politicians, bean counters, and NASA Administrators to gain some respect for 'If it ain't broke, don't reinvent it'.
As for me, I'm looking for a LEM.
-
#126
by
clongton
on 20 Apr, 2013 19:27
-
Sorry Herb but that's not the NASA way. The NASA way is to launch a 2 year study to create a list of everything they already have that would work well, make sure everything on that list gets thrown out, dismantled or destroyed and then start all over again from scratch.
Gosh, Chuck. Ain't that a bit harsh?
Harsh? Yes
True? Also Yes
'The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress' and may cause politicians, bean counters, and NASA Administrators to gain some respect for 'If it ain't broke, don't reinvent it'.
As for me, I'm looking for a LEM.
That book was a REALLY good read by the way
-
#127
by
kkattula
on 20 Apr, 2013 21:29
-
That book was a REALLY good by the way
Yep. Been a while, think I might read it again.
-
#128
by
JohnFornaro
on 21 Apr, 2013 01:02
-
I addressed the solution to the "harsh mistress" in my first post. That advice was not taken. Heck, I was fifteen or so when I read it, sixteen by the time they landed for the first time, seventeen by the time I gave my advice. At the time, to me, I always thougt that an off planet base had been promised by my government. Inspire the children and all that. You know. Government of, by, and for the sheople, yada yada.
Grammar edit.
-
#129
by
gattispilot
on 07 Oct, 2013 13:59
-
-
#130
by
BrightLight
on 07 Oct, 2013 14:28
-
-
#131
by
gattispilot
on 07 Oct, 2013 14:36
-
Thanks. I have seen it before. It looks like there might be 2 body styles. One in space and then the rover one. I know the LER is different.
-
#132
by
manboy
on 27 Oct, 2013 06:32
-
New window configuration (bottom left). Image taken by Ross Taylor on 22 Oct. 2013.
-
#133
by
A_M_Swallow
on 27 Oct, 2013 15:26
-
It looks like the docking ports on the side stick out more on the new design.
-
#134
by
manboy
on 05 Dec, 2013 10:23
-
Here's a better view of it.
Image taken on October 25th, 2013 by Paul Ausman.
-
#135
by
obi-wan
on 10 Feb, 2014 06:31
-
Here's a photo I took in Building 9 back in June - the MMSEV window structure at the time was a fiberglass layup in progress.
-
#136
by
BrightLight
on 14 May, 2015 15:14
-
-
#137
by
manboy
on 07 Aug, 2015 22:14
-
The SEV mock-up looks pretty much the same as of August 6th 2015.
-
#138
by
Prober
on 17 Aug, 2015 18:33
-
-
#139
by
BrightLight
on 19 Nov, 2015 17:03
-
A recent paper on modular exploration vehicles and habitats was published by A.S. Howe of JPL, attached is the document and one of the concepts for a modular lander.
-
#140
by
Mark S
on 19 Nov, 2015 18:44
-
A recent paper on modular exploration vehicles and habitats was published by A.S. Howe of JPL, attached is the document and one of the concepts for a modular lander.
That thing's really gonna move when they light up those four side-slung SSMEs.
-
#141
by
BrightLight
on 19 Nov, 2015 19:11
-
A recent paper on modular exploration vehicles and habitats was published by A.S. Howe of JPL, attached is the document and one of the concepts for a modular lander.
That thing's really gonna move when they light up those four side-slung SSMEs.
I don't recall seeing anything about using SSME's, however there is a Evolvable Mars Campaign (EMC) lander team looking at engine options. Google Evolvable Mars Campaign and Technology Development by Jason Crusan, Director, Advanced Exploration Systems Division, Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate November 4, 2015
-
#142
by
redliox
on 19 Nov, 2015 19:24
-
A recent paper on modular exploration vehicles and habitats was published by A.S. Howe of JPL, attached is the document and one of the concepts for a modular lander.
There's also mention of 'habitank' concepts in it, which essentially reuses fuel tanks for empty habitats after. If there's a simple way to do it that would be a lovely way to deliver useful hardware to either Mars or Luna.
-
#143
by
NovaSilisko
on 19 Nov, 2015 19:25
-
A recent paper on modular exploration vehicles and habitats was published by A.S. Howe of JPL, attached is the document and one of the concepts for a modular lander.
That thing's really gonna move when they light up those four side-slung SSMEs.
I don't recall seeing anything about using SSME's
(he was joking due to the engines' large size and ribbed construction)
-
#144
by
Zed_Noir
on 19 Nov, 2015 20:30
-
That thing's really gonna move when they light up those four side-slung SSMEs.
I don't recall seeing anything about using SSME's
(he was joking due to the engines' large size and ribbed construction)
Kinda like the nozzle bell on the Apollo service module in size.
-
#145
by
NovaSilisko
on 19 Nov, 2015 20:34
-
That thing's really gonna move when they light up those four side-slung SSMEs.
I don't recall seeing anything about using SSME's
(he was joking due to the engines' large size and ribbed construction)
Kinda like the nozzle bell on the Apollo service module in size.
Yeah, or the Apollo descent engine with its extended nozzle, which mostly ended up being hidden inside the descent stage structure.
I'd be concerned about debris kicked up by that design, though. With Apollo you had the whole descent stage shielding you in addition to the fact the whole thing was slightly elevated. This, though, is right against the ground, and looks like you might need some sort of shielding to protect against flying pebbles.
-
#146
by
the_other_Doug
on 20 Nov, 2015 02:19
-
That thing's really gonna move when they light up those four side-slung SSMEs.
I don't recall seeing anything about using SSME's
(he was joking due to the engines' large size and ribbed construction)
Kinda like the nozzle bell on the Apollo service module in size.
Yeah, or the Apollo descent engine with its extended nozzle, which mostly ended up being hidden inside the descent stage structure.
I'd be concerned about debris kicked up by that design, though. With Apollo you had the whole descent stage shielding you in addition to the fact the whole thing was slightly elevated. This, though, is right against the ground, and looks like you might need some sort of shielding to protect against flying pebbles.
Also, keep in mind the characteristics of plume impingement. With one big engine, the plume hits the surface and all the particles it picks up and ejects go out radially, along with the plume. Apollo proved that this dust sheet stayed low to the ground in the airless environment, as well, especially near the lander. So, a single engine doesn't tend to kick dust or pebbles right back up into the lander.
However, the plumes from four big engines will develop a chaotic upflow where they impinge upon each other as each is deflected radially while the lander approaches the surface. Granted, the chaotic upflow won't be moving nearly as fast as the exit velocity of the gasses coming out of the nozzles, but I bet it will toss a lot of dust and pebbles at potentially dangerous velocities up into the underside of the lander.
If you look at the final moments of the descent video from Chang'e 3, you can see several semi-static features developing in the surface impingement where, it appears to me, the relatively low-thrust descent thrusters were interacting. With higher-thrust engines, I bet those features turn into upflow regions.
It's not a show-stopper, but if you want to make the landers re-usable, and/or use the same engines to lift back off the surface that you used to land with, you're going to have to run a lot of very complex simulations to determine how much, and where, you'll need to provide shielding on your lander and in and around your engine structures to protect from potentially supersonic dust particles and pebbles fountaining up into the bottom of your lander. I mean, how many rocket engines work really good after they're sandblasted?
-
#147
by
A_M_Swallow
on 21 Nov, 2015 22:33
-
Yeah, or the Apollo descent engine with its extended nozzle, which mostly ended up being hidden inside the descent stage structure.
I'd be concerned about debris kicked up by that design, though. With Apollo you had the whole descent stage shielding you in addition to the fact the whole thing was slightly elevated. This, though, is right against the ground, and looks like you might need some sort of shielding to protect against flying pebbles.
Can many of the debris problems be avoided by keeping the engines at least 15 feet off the ground? This also simplifies launch problems due to not having a frame trench on the Moon and Mars.
-
#148
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 30 Dec, 2015 14:12
-
My idea is a U-shaped thrust structure/truss with the rover driving out of the middle and backing back into 'the slot' for its return flight up. The rover could be replaced in the truss with a cargo hopper or a pressurised hab for a multi-cargo launch mission.
Engines would be LM-derived hypergolic mounted on the truss that point outwards at a slight angle to stop too much debris being deflected back towards the rover. The truss would also mount the RCS and landing sensors thus minimising the redundant weight carried by the Rover.
The docking adapter would be a 'kiss' front-mounted unit on the front of the Rover for either docking with an Orion or Dragon or hard-mating with a landed hab.
-
#149
by
Oli
on 17 Feb, 2016 03:38
-
It's a shame NASA isn't developing the MMSEV instead of Orion. So many potential applications: Asteroids, Phobos Taxi, Lunar Lander etc. It could also serve as a LEO-L2 Taxi if refueled at L2 since its relatively lightweight.
-
#150
by
A_M_Swallow
on 17 Feb, 2016 05:56
-
It's a shame NASA isn't developing the MMSEV instead of Orion. So many potential applications: Asteroids, Phobos Taxi, Lunar Lander etc. It could also serve as a LEO-L2 Taxi if refueled at L2 since its relatively lightweight.
Could a modified Centaur get a MMSEV massing 4-5 tons from LEO to EML-2?
That is a delta-v of about 3.43 km/s. Then be refuelled for the return trip.
The return fuel could be sent to the EML-2 depot on a SEP tug.
-
#151
by
Oli
on 17 Feb, 2016 08:22
-
It's a shame NASA isn't developing the MMSEV instead of Orion. So many potential applications: Asteroids, Phobos Taxi, Lunar Lander etc. It could also serve as a LEO-L2 Taxi if refueled at L2 since its relatively lightweight.
Could a modified Centaur get a MMSEV massing 4-5 tons from LEO to EML-2?
That is a delta-v of about 3.43 km/s. Then be refuelled for the return trip.
The return fuel could be sent to the EML-2 depot on a SEP tug.
With Centaur-like mass fraction a 7.4t hydrolox stage could boost a 5t payload to 3.5km/s.
A ~15t hypergolic pressure-fed stage will do as well though. You probably want something very reliable for the job.
I know, I know... Legos...
