Author Topic: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.  (Read 72879 times)

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6214
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2356
  • Likes Given: 790
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #240 on: 09/29/2017 09:54 PM »
I didn't get a chance to do a hot take yesterday, but here are a few thoughts:

1- I'm ambivalent about LOX/LH2 on Mars. The one thing you know for sure you have on Mars is CO2, so I've always leaned LOX/Methane. LOX/LH2 does have some benefits, but also several drawbacks. I think LOX/LH2 is a lot clearer of a winner on the Moon.

2- I do like the fact that they're pushing a multi-use SSTO RLV lander. That means if you can get a good ISRU source (asteroids, Ph/D, Mars itself), you can use the lander more frequently. Though at 80tons of prop a shot, that's a lot of prop per round trip.

3- It would be good to have a cargo version and a tanker version of this too. If you can find a good water ISRU source, I could see having tankers fly up to the MBC to drop off prop whenever the tanks fill up. And having a cargo version drop off materials that allowed you to do longer stays would be really helpful.

4- Related to #3, 10 day sorties are just too short. I get the benefit of doing a lot of sorties, but finding a way to make them be a month or two would be a lot more interesting.

5- Like with SpaceX, I hate having a design that has the crew and cargo having to elevator down from several stories up.

6- In a world where BFR/ITS are far from a sure thing, this is probably one of the most innovative ideas I've seen out of the big space companies. It's far from perfect, and also even farther from a sure thing than even BFR/ITS since it relies on NASA money to happen, but when the big guys start coming up with ideas that are at least heading in the right direction, I think we should encourage that.

~Jon

Online TrevorMonty

Lame. Keeps the crew in orbit, where you have the greatest risk of radiation and microgravity effects.

I'm actually a fan of the multi-sortie model, at least until you've truly found the right place for setting up a base and ISRU facilities and such. But I agree that finding a way to make the sorties last longer would make a lot more sense. If they're going to be at Mars for 18 months, I'd want to see a much higher fraction of that time be on the surface doing exploration. Plus I'd want to see at least two landers and at least two teams so that you could have rescue options in case something goes wrong with a surface team.

~Jon
There is option to have 2nd lander in orbit for rescues.


At 6km it can do LEO to moon or moon to LEO or complete round trip from DSG-Moon-DSG.

SpaceX BFR could make this lander more affordable if EM is willing to sell low cost fuel in LEO.
« Last Edit: 09/29/2017 10:48 PM by TrevorMonty »

Offline tea monster

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Across the Universe
  • Liked: 172
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #242 on: 09/30/2017 07:14 AM »
I was imagining a purpose-built ascent stage that would be conformal with the shape of the bottom of the lander. Very much like the ship in  Patrick Stiennon's 'The Rocket Company'.

Online ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1184
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #243 on: 09/30/2017 11:01 PM »
Nothing wrong with hydrolox, high ISP, ISRU fuel productuon is simpler than methane, decades of experience using it in space. If using IVF technology then boiloff provides power and lifesupport while on surface.
Deep cryo makes storage longer than a few hours a pain... You need an umbrella the size of a tennis court. Hydrolox also requires more water. More dry mass.

You would have to check my numbers as a punched them out pretty fast. But a 15 meter long cylinder with a diameter of 5 meters(hemispheres on each end) would carry about 25,554 kg of liquid hydrogen. That much hydrogen would require 3208 kwh of energy just for the heat of vaporization(based on .904 KJ/mol listed on wikipedia). At Mars, assuming 600 w/m^2 solar irradiance and a reflective surface that reflects 90% of visible light(which is ~40% of solar irradiance), it would take 17 days for the container to boil off if starting at the boiling point(assuming the cylinder has attitude control to point at the sun...reducing incident solar radiation). So, I think the idea that more than a few hours is a pain is not accurate unless manufacturing a round mirror is difficult.

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8543
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 362
  • Likes Given: 158
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #244 on: 10/01/2017 12:09 AM »
Nothing wrong with hydrolox, high ISP, ISRU fuel productuon is simpler than methane, decades of experience using it in space. If using IVF technology then boiloff provides power and lifesupport while on surface.
Deep cryo makes storage longer than a few hours a pain... You need an umbrella the size of a tennis court. Hydrolox also requires more water. More dry mass.

You would have to check my numbers as a punched them out pretty fast. But a 15 meter long cylinder with a diameter of 5 meters(hemispheres on each end) would carry about 25,554 kg of liquid hydrogen. That much hydrogen would require 3208 kwh of energy just for the heat of vaporization(based on .904 KJ/mol listed on wikipedia). At Mars, assuming 600 w/m^2 solar irradiance and a reflective surface that reflects 90% of visible light(which is ~40% of solar irradiance), it would take 17 days for the container to boil off if starting at the boiling point(assuming the cylinder has attitude control to point at the sun...reducing incident solar radiation). So, I think the idea that more than a few hours is a pain is not accurate unless manufacturing a round mirror is difficult.

17 days is just about usable on the Moon but Mars trips can last 500 days. Consequently active cooling is required for hydrogen. The cooling system will need to handle 1366 W/mē power near the Earth

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 382
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #245 on: 10/01/2017 12:44 AM »

A good question is what would launch it? From titusou's estimated dimensions at 10.5m across the fins it couldn't fit in any planned fairing. This would require a 15m fairing.  To fit in a 10m fairing it would need to be less than 7m across the fins.

I guess they would need to fly it without a fairing, where the aerodynamic shape would be a big asset.

It shouldn't need a fairing but the booster may need fins though the 6 BE-4/AR-1 engines on Vulcan Heavy or 7 BE-4's on New Glenn should have enough control authority.



17 days is just about usable on the Moon but Mars trips can last 500 days. Consequently active cooling is required for hydrogen. The cooling system will need to handle 1366 W/mē power near the Earth

A cheap solution in both cost and mass to reduce the cooling needs could be a simple solar shade.
« Last Edit: 10/01/2017 12:47 AM by Patchouli »

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1230
  • Likes Given: 2374
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #246 on: 10/01/2017 02:40 AM »
That lander is a very sexy spacecraft.

Sadly, all of this depends on Washington suddenly deciding that we should go to Mars, which I don't see happening.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/space/photo/mbc/MBC_Updates_IAC_2017.pdf
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2567
  • Canada
  • Liked: 401
  • Likes Given: 600
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #247 on: 10/01/2017 03:42 AM »

A good question is what would launch it? From titusou's estimated dimensions at 10.5m across the fins it couldn't fit in any planned fairing. This would require a 15m fairing.  To fit in a 10m fairing it would need to be less than 7m across the fins.

I guess they would need to fly it without a fairing, where the aerodynamic shape would be a big asset.

It shouldn't need a fairing but the booster may need fins though the 6 BE-4/AR-1 engines on Vulcan Heavy or 7 BE-4's on New Glenn should have enough control authority.

That lander is a very sexy spacecraft.

Sadly, all of this depends on Washington suddenly deciding that we should go to Mars, which I don't see happening.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/space/photo/mbc/MBC_Updates_IAC_2017.pdf

Well it appears the launch vehicle for the propellant-less MADV (Mars Ascent/Descent Vehicle) is the SLS Block-1B without a PLF or secondary payloads to go directly to high Mars parking orbit with a SEP cruise stage to rendezvous with the Mars Base Camp vehicle stack to take on propellants and other stuff. According to the PDF in @MATTBLAK's post.

This is one very expensive Mars Lander to developed and operated. As well as the rest of the components of the LockMart Mars Base Camp proposal.

The thought of gold plated Xmas tree ornaments comes to mind.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1230
  • Likes Given: 2374
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #248 on: 10/01/2017 03:58 AM »
Does look cool though... Though I consider the design and concept a bit of an also-ran in light of recent conceptual announcements. No matter whether it's Boeing, LockMart or SpaceX - I predict with no prescience whatsoever that all these concepts are going to cost more and take longer than planned :(
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Nathan2go

  • Member
  • Posts: 81
  • United States
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #249 on: 10/01/2017 07:27 PM »
Yep, the lander is very sexy.  But the whole program looks complicated and unaffordable.  It allows step by step progression from Orion, and builds on ISS methodologies, but that is not enough to make it affordable.  It's basically more "flags and footprints".

Robots are great for exploration.  The best reason to send people is to build a permanent base/city.

The orbital "Basecamp" idea is an inappropriate metaphor.  Once the first base is on the surface of Mars (really once the first supply cache is there), going to the surface base will be much safer and cheaper than going to an orbital "basecamp".  The surface base has access to free CO2, and hopefully cheap water; it's easy to get downto the base using aero-braking, and easy to get out using ISRU fuel production.  A failed orbit rendvous would be fatal to basecamp missions.  Surface vehicles can have infinite range using solar or nuclear power. So Lockheed-Martin's graphic showing Mars surface to be a higher energy distance from Earth than Mars orbit are very misleading.

Zubrin once said that once we put a base on Mars, then Mars becomes the 2nd safest place in the solar system.  We need to build a base first, then worry about exploring the Marian moons, and/or getting back to Earth.
« Last Edit: 10/01/2017 07:28 PM by Nathan2go »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2567
  • Canada
  • Liked: 401
  • Likes Given: 600
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #250 on: 10/02/2017 12:04 AM »
Does look cool though... Though I consider the design and concept a bit of an also-ran in light of recent conceptual announcements. No matter whether it's Boeing, LockMart or SpaceX - I predict with no prescience whatsoever that all these concepts are going to cost more and take longer than planned :(

Yes I agree, the lander is very cool & sexy. Also a money pit and scheduling black hole, since they have to developed the lander and it's technologies from scratch. I am guessing at least the cost to develop the Orion.  :(


Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 382
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #251 on: 10/02/2017 02:12 AM »

Well it appears the launch vehicle for the propellant-less MADV (Mars Ascent/Descent Vehicle) is the SLS Block-1B without a PLF or secondary payloads to go directly to high Mars parking orbit with a SEP cruise stage to rendezvous with the Mars Base Camp vehicle stack to take on propellants and other stuff. According to the PDF in @MATTBLAK's post.

This is one very expensive Mars Lander to developed and operated. As well as the rest of the components of the LockMart Mars Base Camp proposal.

The thought of gold plated Xmas tree ornaments comes to mind.


Why launch it without propellant when it can act as it's own upper stage?
« Last Edit: 10/02/2017 02:14 AM by Patchouli »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2567
  • Canada
  • Liked: 401
  • Likes Given: 600
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #252 on: 10/02/2017 03:28 AM »

Well it appears the launch vehicle for the propellant-less MADV (Mars Ascent/Descent Vehicle) is the SLS Block-1B without a PLF or secondary payloads to go directly to high Mars parking orbit with a SEP cruise stage to rendezvous with the Mars Base Camp vehicle stack to take on propellants and other stuff. According to the PDF in @MATTBLAK's post.
.....


Why launch it without propellant when it can act as it's own upper stage?

From reading the LockMart PDF. My speculation is that the SEP cruise stage is incomparable with firing of the notional RL-10 engines. I am guessing the SEP cruise stage is already attached to the MADV before launch.

Plus elsewhere in the LockMart PDF stated that about 100 tonnes of water is required ti produce the propellants needed for one MADV lander. Since the SLS block-1B could only lift about 105 tonnes to LEO. The MADV lander with propellant is too heavy to get to LEO. (According to @jim, you can not partially load a propellant tank)
« Last Edit: 10/07/2017 06:09 AM by Zed_Noir »

Online ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1184
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #253 on: 10/02/2017 05:32 PM »
Nothing wrong with hydrolox, high ISP, ISRU fuel productuon is simpler than methane, decades of experience using it in space. If using IVF technology then boiloff provides power and lifesupport while on surface.
Deep cryo makes storage longer than a few hours a pain... You need an umbrella the size of a tennis court. Hydrolox also requires more water. More dry mass.

You would have to check my numbers as a punched them out pretty fast. But a 15 meter long cylinder with a diameter of 5 meters(hemispheres on each end) would carry about 25,554 kg of liquid hydrogen. That much hydrogen would require 3208 kwh of energy just for the heat of vaporization(based on .904 KJ/mol listed on wikipedia). At Mars, assuming 600 w/m^2 solar irradiance and a reflective surface that reflects 90% of visible light(which is ~40% of solar irradiance), it would take 17 days for the container to boil off if starting at the boiling point(assuming the cylinder has attitude control to point at the sun...reducing incident solar radiation). So, I think the idea that more than a few hours is a pain is not accurate unless manufacturing a round mirror is difficult.

17 days is just about usable on the Moon but Mars trips can last 500 days. Consequently active cooling is required for hydrogen. The cooling system will need to handle 1366 W/mē power near the Earth

My proposed thermal management scheme  is also absurdly primitive. The actual thermal load(w/m^2) on the JWST primary mirror must be in the single digits to reach 50 K.

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 515
  • USA
  • Liked: 213
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #254 on: 10/02/2017 06:32 PM »
(According to @jim, you can not partially load a propellant tank)

Thats an interesting assertion, considering its been done before. Generally for hypergolic stages and spacecraft, but I know at least one Blok-D was lost because it was meant to be under-fueled and the fueling team followed the wrong instructions, causing it to be too heavy. And wasn't underfilling EUS planned/under consideration for some types of SLS missions, until advanced boosters and RS-25E come online?

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4829
  • Liked: 2716
  • Likes Given: 1446
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #255 on: 10/02/2017 07:14 PM »
(According to @jim, you can not partially load a propellant tank)

Thats an interesting assertion, considering its been done before. Generally for hypergolic stages and spacecraft, but I know at least one Blok-D was lost because it was meant to be under-fueled and the fueling team followed the wrong instructions, causing it to be too heavy. And wasn't underfilling EUS planned/under consideration for some types of SLS missions, until advanced boosters and RS-25E come online?

Every fuel tank is partially fueled at some point in flight.

And didn't Saturn 1B launch the Apollo CSM partially fueled, because it couldn't launch it fully fueled to LEO?

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5598
  • Liked: 1142
  • Likes Given: 684
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #256 on: 10/02/2017 10:13 PM »
IIRC, the principle issue is partial loading of cryogens.  With non-cryogens, like the CSM's propellants, you just meter in the amount of propellant you want, assuming the partial load won't cause a slosh problem at some part of the ascent.  But if the propellant is boiling off as you load it, then metering alone doesn't tell you how much is in the tanks.

Maybe it's less of a problem for sub-cooled cryogens.
« Last Edit: 10/02/2017 10:15 PM by Proponent »

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 382
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #257 on: 10/02/2017 10:34 PM »

From reading the LockMart PDF. My speculation is that the SEP cruise stage is incomparable with firing of the notional RL-10 engines. I am guessing the SEP cruise stage is already attached to the MADV before launch.

Plus elsewhere in the LockMart PDF stated that about 100 tonnes of water is required ti produce the propellants needed for ine MADV lander. Since the SLS block-1B could only lift about 105 tonnes to LEO. The MADV lander with propellant is too heavy to get to LEO. (According to @jim, you can not partially load a propellant tank)

I was talking about it replacing the EUS and acting a it's own upper stage.
The SLS EUS is about 135tons so you should not to run into mass problems until you try and stick over 240tons on the core stage.
There should be enough delta V left over for TMI though probably not enough for any kind of Mars capture other than aerocapture.
The latter might be why they feel they need a SEP tug.


« Last Edit: 10/02/2017 10:35 PM by Patchouli »

Online ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1184
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #258 on: 10/06/2017 07:12 PM »

5- Like with SpaceX, I hate having a design that has the crew and cargo having to elevator down from several stories up.


Crew, not the big cargo.

From the published PDF in this thread:

Quote
The center section of the aft end, located between the six main engines, is a retractable equipment lift that lowers to give the crew access to the rovers and other equipment for surface science operations.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/space/photo/mbc/MBC_Updates_IAC_2017.pdf

If you look at page 2 of said PDF, you can see the cylindrical equipment lift that rests below the hydrogen tank and lowers to the ground.

But a cargo version would probably use externally mounted cargo anyways. From LMO, you still get about 30 mT down if you expend 4 km/s to do a propulsive landing(probably can't do hot re-entry with external cargo). On the Moon, you get about 85 mT down with self-ferry back up and 130 mT down one way. Deals with the main problem with this design which is payload volume.


Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 382
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #259 on: 10/06/2017 07:47 PM »
30Mt is enough for basic exploration and 85 Mt is is enough for a full scale base.
I wonder could you use a sky crane style system and lower large cargo down or use it like an uncrasher stage and the payload uses it's own engines for finial decent and landing?

There still would be the limitation of avoiding exhaust plume of the engines though in the latter it might be able to be used as a pusher.

Still ironic to see two vehicles that vaguely resemble the shuttle being proposed as a the best way to land on mars.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2017 07:50 PM by Patchouli »

Tags: