From Space Station to Moon Base – Bigelow expands on inflatable ambitions

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The BA 330 has a central core able to withstand a 2g bending moment during its launch. being able to survive a .5g bending environment during a Lunar landing will be well within that environment.  Plus if the thrust is balance at the four outside edges of the BA330  it could be done easily. Its one of those inovations in that you don't need a fancy lander to land on the Moon.

[A_M_Swallow]

The BA 330 has a central core able to withstand a 2g bending moment during its launch. being able to survive a .5g bending environment during a Lunar landing will be well within that environment.  Plus if the thrust is balance at the four outside edges of the BA330  it could be done easily. Its one of those inovations in that you don't need a fancy lander to land on the Moon.

You then need a way of attaching the 4 engines to the BA-330 and some very large fuel tanks.
For a lunar lander Isp 321 and LLO to surface delta-V 1.87 km/s
exp(1870/(321*9.81))-1 = 0.811

Allowing 5 tonne for tanks and engines the module will need about 20 tonne of fuel.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The BA 330 has a central core able to withstand a 2g bending moment during its launch. being able to survive a .5g bending environment during a Lunar landing will be well within that environment.  Plus if the thrust is balance at the four outside edges of the BA330  it could be done easily. Its one of those inovations in that you don't need a fancy lander to land on the Moon.

You then need a way of attaching the 4 engines to the BA-330 and some very large fuel tanks.
For a lunar lander Isp 321 and LLO to surface delta-V 1.87 km/s
exp(1870/(321*9.81))-1 = 0.811

Allowing 5 tonne for tanks and engines the module will need about 20 tonne of fuel.

Yes. From the standpoint of logistics to get one BA330 and its associated propulsion module to EML1 it will take: Launch of BA330 by FH into high LEO orbit, launch of propulsion module by FH that then docks with BA330, and launch of 2 more each on a seperate FH of heavier prop load propulsion modules to boost to EML1. Cost of launch to get one BA330+prop module on Lunar surface ~$80M *4 = $320M. For a complete outpost that would be *3 again or ~$1B in just launch costs.

[ChefPat]

Yes. From the standpoint of logistics to get one BA330 and its associated propulsion module to EML1 it will take: Launch of BA330 by FH into high LEO orbit

Just how high an LEO can an FH get a BA-330 to?
Wiki (I know, I know) puts a BA-330 at 20,000 kilo's or 43,000 lb's.

[newpylong]

The BA 330 has a central core able to withstand a 2g bending moment during its launch. being able to survive a .5g bending environment during a Lunar landing will be well within that environment.  Plus if the thrust is balance at the four outside edges of the BA330  it could be done easily. Its one of those inovations in that you don't need a fancy lander to land on the Moon.

You then need a way of attaching the 4 engines to the BA-330 and some very large fuel tanks.
For a lunar lander Isp 321 and LLO to surface delta-V 1.87 km/s
exp(1870/(321*9.81))-1 = 0.811

Allowing 5 tonne for tanks and engines the module will need about 20 tonne of fuel.

Yes. From the standpoint of logistics to get one BA330 and its associated propulsion module to EML1 it will take: Launch of BA330 by FH into high LEO orbit, launch of propulsion module by FH that then docks with BA330, and launch of 2 more each on a seperate FH of heavier prop load propulsion modules to boost to EML1. Cost of launch to get one BA330+prop module on Lunar surface ~$80M *4 = $320M. For a complete outpost that would be *3 again or ~$1B in just launch costs.

Or use SLS and cut down on the number of launches and complexity of orbital rendezvous, but with increased cost.

[RanulfC]

Not sure if this was pointed out before but I'm wondering if anyone realizes there is quite a unique opportunity here to be had...

Given the layout of the Bigelow modules it is very apparent that in addition to everything else, a single module would be perfectly suited to a bio-powered, low-cost Lunar Rover as well...

Steering might be an issue but as long as you're going in a pretty straight line...

Randy

[MP99]

Not sure if this was pointed out before but I'm wondering if anyone realizes there is quite a unique opportunity here to be had...

Given the layout of the Bigelow modules it is very apparent that in addition to everything else, a single module would be perfectly suited to a bio-powered, low-cost Lunar Rover as well...

Steering might be an issue but as long as you're going in a pretty straight line...

Randy

Zorb? LOL.

Cheers, Martin

[A_M_Swallow]

The BA 330 has a central core able to withstand a 2g bending moment during its launch. being able to survive a .5g bending environment during a Lunar landing will be well within that environment.  Plus if the thrust is balance at the four outside edges of the BA330  it could be done easily. Its one of those inovations in that you don't need a fancy lander to land on the Moon.

You then need a way of attaching the 4 engines to the BA-330 and some very large fuel tanks.
For a lunar lander Isp 321 and LLO to surface delta-V 1.87 km/s
exp(1870/(321*9.81))-1 = 0.811

Allowing 5 tonne for tanks and engines the module will need about 20 tonne of fuel.

Yes. From the standpoint of logistics to get one BA330 and its associated propulsion module to EML1 it will take: Launch of BA330 by FH into high LEO orbit, launch of propulsion module by FH that then docks with BA330, and launch of 2 more each on a seperate FH of heavier prop load propulsion modules to boost to EML1. Cost of launch to get one BA330+prop module on Lunar surface ~$80M *4 = $320M. For a complete outpost that would be *3 again or ~$1B in just launch costs.

Or use SLS and cut down on the number of launches and complexity of orbital rendezvous, but with increased cost.

Payload on SLS V. FH is 70 mT V. 53 mT which is not very significant.

The SLS only becomes worth considering when it has an upper stage.

edit ; corrected 60 to 70 metric tons

[JohnFornaro]

I'm afraid to read the article.  Is it really that good?  'Cause this is a subject near and dear to my heart.

[Eric Hedman]

Excellent article guys. Really excellent. Thanks.

The fact they will actually be building and testing to scale in the lake beds is quite exciting. Imagine 2 Olympus modules based on the moon.

Someone better get started on that lander...

I wonder how you could get a few of those down to the surface of mars.
Could we scale up the sky-crane method?

If I understand correctly according to JPL the sky-crane is at its maximum size.  Increasing the landing mass would require significantly larger parachutes which do not scale up in the supersonic environment in which they are used.  From what I have read it would need a parachute the size of the Rose Bowl to slow a manned capsule down.  That is why wind tunnel test have been done on supersonic retropropulsion at Langley.  The youtube video is

I'm no expert, but it looks like from these tests that firing a rocket engine into the direction of flight at supersonic speeds creates some very unstable flows around a space capsule.  Writing the control software for this kind of a descent seems like quite a challenge.

[Archibald]

The BA 330 has a central core able to withstand a 2g bending moment during its launch. being able to survive a .5g bending environment during a Lunar landing will be well within that environment.  Plus if the thrust is balance at the four outside edges of the BA330  it could be done easily. Its one of those inovations in that you don't need a fancy lander to land on the Moon.

You then need a way of attaching the 4 engines to the BA-330 and some very large fuel tanks.
For a lunar lander Isp 321 and LLO to surface delta-V 1.87 km/s
exp(1870/(321*9.81))-1 = 0.811

Allowing 5 tonne for tanks and engines the module will need about 20 tonne of fuel.

With each module weighing 23 metric tons, each module will weight 20+5+23 = 48 tons, now multiply that by three and the whole thing weight 144 tons. Impressive !
If Bigelow manage to land that big thing on the Moon and film the landing, the video will be something to be seen. How amazing that would be - imagine that thing landing, its landing rockets throwing dust everywhere, touchdown, boom.
The 2 km/s to go from LLO to surface are not trivial. The Moon is big, it has a deep gravity well, so there's a price to pay. Unless, of course, a rotovator is used to gently drop the BA-330 on the surface - without rocket engines and propellants.

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}
The 2 km/s to go from LLO to surface are not trivial. The Moon is big, it has a deep gravity well, so there's a price to pay. Unless, of course, a rotovator is used to gently drop the BA-330 on the surface - without rocket engines and propellants.

Pity we do not have any rotovators, so going that path will add about 50 years to the development time.

[newpylong]

Payload on SLS V. FH is 60 mT V. 53 mT which is not very significant.

The SLS only becomes worth considering when it has an upper stage.

SLS is 60 metric tons? That's news to people I think...

[Lobo]

Payload on SLS V. FH is 70 mT V. 53 mT which is not very significant.

The SLS only becomes worth considering when it has an upper stage.

edit ; corrected 60 to 70 metric tons

Despite the NASA official performance, SLS Block 1 will very likely be over 90mt, perhaps close to 100mt. 
The ESAS study looked at this exact LV.  LV 26/27.  LV 27 was cargo only and got almost 97mt to a 28.5 deg. LEO without an upper stage.
LV 26 had Orion on it, and got just over 91mt to LEO of crew and cargo.
Both LV's had over 100mt of "lift capability", but 97 and 91 were their net payloads. 

So I just don't see how SLS Block 1 gets only 70mt to LEO, unless they build it out of concrete or something.

70mt is the "official" performance because that's what NAA2010 requires the first Block of SLS to be.  So that's what they are saying.

It's quite in excess of what a single FH can do.

[Patchouli]

Payload on SLS V. FH is 70 mT V. 53 mT which is not very significant.

The SLS only becomes worth considering when it has an upper stage.

edit ; corrected 60 to 70 metric tons

Despite the NASA official performance, SLS Block 1 will very likely be over 90mt, perhaps close to 100mt. 
The ESAS study looked at this exact LV.  LV 26/27.  LV 27 was cargo only and got almost 97mt to a 28.5 deg. LEO without an upper stage.
LV 26 had Orion on it, and got just over 91mt to LEO of crew and cargo.
Both LV's had over 100mt of "lift capability", but 97 and 91 were their net payloads. 

So I just don't see how SLS Block 1 gets only 70mt to LEO, unless they build it out of concrete or something.

70mt is the "official" performance because that's what NAA2010 requires the first Block of SLS to be.  So that's what they are saying.

It's quite in excess of what a single FH can do.

The 70mt number might be for a 51 degree orbit which is harder to reach then a 28 degree orbit.

[newpylong]

Payload on SLS V. FH is 70 mT V. 53 mT which is not very significant.

The SLS only becomes worth considering when it has an upper stage.

edit ; corrected 60 to 70 metric tons

Despite the NASA official performance, SLS Block 1 will very likely be over 90mt, perhaps close to 100mt. 
The ESAS study looked at this exact LV.  LV 26/27.  LV 27 was cargo only and got almost 97mt to a 28.5 deg. LEO without an upper stage.
LV 26 had Orion on it, and got just over 91mt to LEO of crew and cargo.
Both LV's had over 100mt of "lift capability", but 97 and 91 were their net payloads. 

So I just don't see how SLS Block 1 gets only 70mt to LEO, unless they build it out of concrete or something.

70mt is the "official" performance because that's what NAA2010 requires the first Block of SLS to be.  So that's what they are saying.

It's quite in excess of what a single FH can do.

My thoughts as well. Even the 17 metric ton difference is significant to begin with. That is almost as much as the heaviest booster anyone has right now.

[Lobo]

Payload on SLS V. FH is 70 mT V. 53 mT which is not very significant.

The SLS only becomes worth considering when it has an upper stage.

edit ; corrected 60 to 70 metric tons

Despite the NASA official performance, SLS Block 1 will very likely be over 90mt, perhaps close to 100mt. 
The ESAS study looked at this exact LV.  LV 26/27.  LV 27 was cargo only and got almost 97mt to a 28.5 deg. LEO without an upper stage.
LV 26 had Orion on it, and got just over 91mt to LEO of crew and cargo.
Both LV's had over 100mt of "lift capability", but 97 and 91 were their net payloads. 

So I just don't see how SLS Block 1 gets only 70mt to LEO, unless they build it out of concrete or something.

70mt is the "official" performance because that's what NAA2010 requires the first Block of SLS to be.  So that's what they are saying.

It's quite in excess of what a single FH can do.

The 70mt number might be for a 51 degree orbit which is harder to reach then a 28 degree orbit.

First, that would be the ISS's inclination, and SLS isn't going to the ISS, so why would they be publishing that performance?

Secondly, it's a moot point because those are LV 26/27's performance to 28.5 deg inclination as I said.

They published the performance to the 51 deg. inclination in the ESAS report for LV 26/27 as well, as I suppose back in 2005, they thought there might be need for heavy lift cargo to the ISS.

LV 26 (crew and cargo) is 100.3mt total, and 85.3mt Net payload to 51.6 deg inclination.

LV27 (cargo) is 106.8mt total, and 90.8mt Net payload to 51.6 deg. inclination.

Again, that's without any sort of upper stage.  Just with 5-seg SRB with 4 SSME's on a stretched core.  Just like SLS Block 1 without the ICPS. 

LV 27.3, which was chosen for Ares V, had the 5th SSME on the core, and the upper stage.  It was 148.3mt total and 126mt Net payload to 28.5 deg. inclination.  They did not evaluate it's performance to 51.6 deg inclination.

I can't imagine the calculated performance of LV 26/27, which is now SLS BLock 1, would have changed very much from 2005 until now.
It's on page 420 of the ESAS final report if you want to check it.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Lets first see whether the SLS ever makes it past the paper stage.

[yg1968]

Here is a blog/editorial which directly references this article:
http://spaceksc.blogspot.ca/2013/06/that-was-then-this-is-now.html