Author Topic: Lockheed Martin proposes a mega-lunar lander: 62 tons and an elevator  (Read 10844 times)

Offline GWH

You do know that these chemicals are manufactured on earth in industrial quantities, while methane isn't?
For the reasons that water isn't harvested in the form of ice locket in frozen soil, its perfectly available for most applications in the form of natural gas.

Quote
That means the manufacturing is well understood.
In regards to ISRU, one question that rarely comes up is whether or not manufacturing of a chemical is an understandable process. Rather it's available quantities of the chemical components and the complexity of the process.
So what's the value in making that process more complicated?
Rather than say it's a total dead end, I should have said "It's a more complicated path that no one seems to be interested in pursuing vs. the handful talking about the market propellants directly derived from water ice today."

Quote
Just don't fire the thing near earth. Mars is already hazardous due to perchorates. Venus is full of sulfuric acid. The moon dust is hazardous, while the lunar water deposits contains chemical poisons. If you really are this worried about this, you should be freaking out about nitrogen oxides from cars - of which some of it is naturally NTO.

 :o Ummm.... maybe concerns about launch failures in launching from Earth? Seeing as how the entire plan outlined in the paper is reliant on Earth sourced propellant. You can hand wave away those concerns all you want, but it can pretty well be guaranteed to come up as an issue.
« Last Edit: 10/10/2018 01:31 AM by GWH »

Online Joseph Peterson

  • Member
  • Posts: 97
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 982
Few things would be worse than plans for another hypergolic fueled lander.  >:(

...

It has no commonality with propellants of any modern western rocket in use or on the drawing board (meaning any use of excess propellant is a no go).

If you limit yourself to launch vehicles and ignore Orion, Dragon, Cygnus, Starliner, Gateway, deep space probes, commercial satellites, space telescopes, or basically everything but launch vehicles that uses chemical propulsion, sure.
If ZBLAN can't pay for commercial stations, we'll just have to keep looking until we find other products that can combine to support humans earning a living in space.

Online brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 489
  • USA
  • Liked: 192
  • Likes Given: 15
None of that is relevant to the excess propellant issue

Online Joseph Peterson

  • Member
  • Posts: 97
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 982
None of that is relevant to the excess propellant issue

Was this a reply to me?

If so, how is virtually every spacecraft using the same storable propellant type not relevant to the hypothetical excess hypergolic propellant issue?
If ZBLAN can't pay for commercial stations, we'll just have to keep looking until we find other products that can combine to support humans earning a living in space.

Tags: