Author Topic: Lockheed Martin proposes a mega-lunar lander: 62 tons and an elevator  (Read 20256 times)

Online MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4511
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1258
  • Likes Given: 2447
MXP-351 has an Isp of 322 seconds.

It should be possible to design a reusable man rated cargo lander. When used as a manned lander instead of cargo it could land and ascend a cabin module. A cabin module may be similar in size and mass to the Dragon 2 or CST-100. The cabin module would need life support including power and an oxygen gas tank but not the propulsion system or heat shield. The payload interface will need defining.

Astronauts will demand fly-by-wire. Their radar could display the guidance radar built into the lander module. The lander can think it is being radio controlled.
In this thread there were various ideas for 'lightweight' Landers discussed; reusable and otherwise.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42363.0;all
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Online RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2628
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 1419
  • Likes Given: 1057
The last time I checked, "in excess of 5000 m/s" is greater than "5 km/s".  Therefore, according to LM's own whitepaper, this LM lander proposal is not capable of operating from Gateway.

Nitpicking. It's a whitepaper, not a detailed design document, so you can expect a little rounding here and there.

Online Joseph Peterson

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 80
  • Likes Given: 1285
The last time I checked, "in excess of 5000 m/s" is greater than "5 km/s".  Therefore, according to LM's own whitepaper, this LM lander proposal is not capable of operating from Gateway.

Nitpicking. It's a whitepaper, not a detailed design document, so you can expect a little rounding here and there.

A 60% propellant mass shortfall is not a little rounding error.  This is a significant amount, and most definitely not a nitpick.

Me using 60% instead of 59.2% is a little rounding error.  Then again, I didn't increase dry mass, and the safety margin is lower than I'd prefer, so 60% is most likely low.
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 ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1255
  • Liked: 526
  • Likes Given: 5
5.25 - 5.5 km/s is probably a better number to use. Those numbers are based on restricting to 12 hour NRHO-LLO transfers which doesn't really apply to this vehicle BTW. .5 - .75 km/s of safety margin isn't something easily afforded in a single stage vehicle. Your safety margin is a space station nearby potentially with a 2nd lander as part of a "fleet" and the fact that for ascent to NRHO, a significant portion of the trip is not a sub orbital ballistic trajectory intersecting the moon's surface (unlike ascent to LLO). It is possible that LM is counting on a lower perilune/apolune after DSG construction and during sorties to the surface that allows for easier access to surface (in the 2.4 km/s one way range). 
« Last Edit: 10/26/2018 06:14 am by ncb1397 »

Online Joseph Peterson

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 80
  • Likes Given: 1285
5.25 - 5.5 km/s is probably a better number to use. .5 - .75 km/s of safety margin isn't something easily afforded in a single stage vehicle. Your safety margin is a space station nearby potentially with a 2nd lander as part of a "fleet" and the fact that for ascent to NRHO, a significant portion of the trip is not a sub orbital ballistic trajectory intersecting the moon's surface (unlike ascent to LLO). It is possible that LM is counting on a lower perilune/apolune after DSG construction and during sorties to the surface that allows for easier access to surface (in the 2.4 km/s one way range).

My understanding is that 5.25-5.5 km/s is the Δv needed for NRHO without any margins. 

Based on the proposal it appears to me that the intent is to land at dawn and leave at dusk.  This would be smart because it allows a lander design that doesn't have to deal with the temperature swings between day and night.  It does leave the lander sitting in daylight temperatures for up to two weeks though, so boil off has to be accounted for.  At a boil off rate of 1% per day we're looking at somewhere in the range of 2.2 tonnes during a 14 day(Earth) stay for a Δv shortfall of ~500 m/s(assuming 5.5 km/s is the Δv needed without margin.  I include this in margin for estimating purposes, taking the total requirement to ~6 km/s.

While surface boil off alone appears to be sufficient to justify a 6 km/s figure for basic estimates, we still need to account for boil off during transit, RCS, any hydrolox used for electricity generation(I don't see any obvious solar panels), plus anything I don't yet know I should include.  If I am doing something wrong by adding an apparently insufficient 500-750 m/s margin to cover these, please tell me what it is so I stop making the mistake.

Given the scale of current PPE concepts, I must question whether DSG could transit from an orbit Orion can reach to an orbit this LM lander proposal can reach and back again before Orion has to return home.  If the combined mass of DSG, Orion, cargo craft, and the lander can be moved into an orbit where the lander only requires 2.4 km/s(once again, assuming this does not include the margins described above) a 5 km/s lander is still a few hundred m/s short.

Edit: Added cargo craft in the last paragraph and deleted superfluous wording
« Last Edit: 10/27/2018 03:27 am by Joseph Peterson »
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 MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4511
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1258
  • Likes Given: 2447
Since lunar water will probably end up being less pervasive than we think (just a feeling: not a scientific claim) I think that the supplies of water should eventually be used for human activities on the surface, not for eventual, large scale rocket propellants. Splitting relatively vast quantities of water into cryogenic rocket propellant will be energy and mechanically intensive to do. Most of the mass of propellants we have seen is the liquid oxygen - that's why I've often been a fan of the 'LUNOX' concept which would mine and 'bake' the oxygen-plentiful ores direct from the lunar regolith. The use of methane, propane or other hydrocarbons bought from Earth could be landed as fuel only; with the large, heavy oxidizer tanks empty. Heck: and we know that LOX will burn fine with mono-methyl hydrazine which we also know has excellent storability and very low boil off.

I say keep the lunar water for human drinking, washing and maybe even for making cryogens for fuel cells during the long lunar nights. Night time power systems could be a combo of batteries and fuel cells. Yes; you gotta make the cryogens for the fuel cells - but nothing like the quantities needed for rocket engine fuel tanks. And how would hydrocarbon fuel be made for the rockets? Sequester and process the human CO2 produced and also capture and process hydrocarbon biofuel from human waste. Yes - it would take a while, but when human numbers get up high enough, this could become a self-sustaining process, that would be worthy of it's own thread.
« Last Edit: 10/29/2018 09:06 am by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8571
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 165
If you are extracting hydrogen the starting chemical does not have to be water, just something with hydrogen in it.

Fuel cells can make electricity but so can sterling convertors. Sterling convertors can be powered by burning other compounds. The Kilopower (KRUSTY) project is producing space rated heat pipes, stirling convertors and cooling systems suitable for ground use.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11082
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8067
  • Likes Given: 6270
I say keep the lunar water for human drinking, washing and maybe even for making cryogens for fuel cells during the long lunar nights. 
Professor De la Paz would strongly agree with you. But that was just a story.

This might a bit off thread but I think we'll be OK. We will eventually have the ability to move vast quantities of materials to anywhere we want so lunar water supplies could be replenished with cometary impacts.... yeah that's hundreds of years out but it's the way to bet.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3213
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1661
  • Likes Given: 1973
I say keep the lunar water for human drinking, washing and maybe even for making cryogens for fuel cells during the long lunar nights. 
Professor De la Paz would strongly agree with you. But that was just a story.

This might a bit off thread but I think we'll be OK. We will eventually have the ability to move vast quantities of materials to anywhere we want so lunar water supplies could be replenished with cometary impacts.... yeah that's hundreds of years out but it's the way to bet.
This does assume that lunar water proves out as easy to extract enough that concerns over the expense of using it don't outweigh costs of importing.

It seems reasonable to imagine that lunar water will be hard enough to extract in bulk that it's not worth it for rocket fuel in the near term, with machinery in the two ton range. (this would of course wreck much of the premise of the above lander).

Gross depletion of plentiful available resources is however another thing.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11082
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8067
  • Likes Given: 6270
This does assume that lunar water proves out as easy to extract enough that concerns over the expense of using it don't outweigh costs of importing.

It seems reasonable to imagine that lunar water will be hard enough to extract in bulk that it's not worth it for rocket fuel in the near term, with machinery in the two ton range. (this would of course wreck much of the premise of the above lander).

Gross depletion of plentiful available resources is however another thing.
Yep. We need ground truth to determine if there really is ice in those permanently shadowed craters or not. That answer changes a lot of other plans and assumptions.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online Slarty1080

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
  • UK
  • Liked: 265
  • Likes Given: 102
Looks like a strange beast to me – but I wish them well. Either LM are trying to play to what they think NASA wants based on NASA’s need to make use of SLS or they’re trying to “out Musk” Musk.
If it’s the former the game could go on for years until SpaceX get the BFR operational at which point it’s a dead duck.
If it’s the later than all I can say is good luck with that! It would be like the Space equivalent of this
The first words spoken on Mars: "Humans have been wondering if there was any life on the planet Mars for many decades … well ... there is now!"

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3213
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1661
  • Likes Given: 1973
Looks like a strange beast to me – but I wish them well. Either LM are trying to play to what they think NASA wants based on NASA’s need to make use of SLS or they’re trying to “out Musk” Musk.
If it’s the former the game could go on for years until SpaceX get the BFR operational at which point it’s a dead duck.
If it’s the later than all I can say is good luck with that! It would be like the Space equivalent of this

It is very clearly aimed at being a several billion dollar vehicle launched on a billion dollar rocket, with a nod to commercial only in providing propellant.
Predicated on there being LOPG in progress and costing upwards of some 30 billion by the time it lands on the moon.

It is to BFR what taking your private helicopter from your superyacht  on a four hour trip to visit a vineyard and pick grapes is to next day $5 grocery delivery.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2260
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 58
It would be like the Space equivalent of this

BYD sells more EVs than Tesla. The Tesla hype is very US-centric.

Online ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1255
  • Liked: 526
  • Likes Given: 5
It would be like the Space equivalent of this

BYD sells more EVs than Tesla. The Tesla hype is very US-centric.

That may have been the case in prior years, but is no longer the case.

Quote
According to the latest comparison released by the EV Sales Blog, Tesla becomes the biggest manufacturer of electric cars among all automotive groups (even counting PHEVs). That’s an improvement compared to second place two months ago.

The changes concern BYD too, which through record results improved from third to second, and Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi Alliance, which fell down two positions from #1 to #3.
https://insideevs.com/plug-in-electric-car-sales-ranked-oem/

That being said, the hubris demonstrated in that clip wasn't justified given the lead was non-existent previously and is marginal today.
« Last Edit: 11/02/2018 03:46 pm by ncb1397 »

Offline Yaotzin

  • Member
  • Posts: 47
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 0
It would be like the Space equivalent of this

BYD sells more EVs than Tesla. The Tesla hype is very US-centric.
This was somewhat true before the Model 3, but the Model 3 is far and away the best selling EV anywhere.

In numbers, it sold about 20% of the entire Chinese EV market (the largest), and about 3-4 times as many as the best selling model there. S and X bring it up to ~30%.

That's just in terms of number of cars. In terms of revenue or kwh it's much more stark - the competition in number terms are all cheaper low range city car types - they're aren't even in competition really.

Sorry for OT.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11082
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8067
  • Likes Given: 6270
(mod) Let that be the last electric car post in the thread please, and thank you.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Paul451

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1575
  • Australia
  • Liked: 799
  • Likes Given: 650
If the depot has engines (as it seems to) in order to get from launch to NRHO, and the engines are the same as the lander and therefore reusable, and the depot has enough fuel to get the lander from the depot orbit to the lunar surface and back to the depot, then the depot must (in terms of delta-v) be capable of pushing the lander to near-zero horizontal velocity WRT the lunar surface at a modest height and then thrusting itself back to its NRHO storage orbit.

I mean, by definition, it must have enough fuel in order to give the lander that much fuel, right?

In which case, wouldn't it make more sense to have a partial-TSTO with the depot acting as a reusable "uncrasher-stage"? Essentially the whole bottom part of the lander is removed and the depot itself serves 95-98% of that role, the top part of the lander handling the last 100m/s or so, plus its own ascent and return to NHRO. Smaller engines would need to be added to the reduced lander along with small tanks (similar to an ascent stage), plus small legs.

Cuts the mass to be landed, reduces the size of the lander, reduces the height of the lander and opens up other design lay-outs (such as the side-lander that Masten proposed with ACES.) Disadvantage: it adds a staging when the lander is below lunar-orbital velocity, but it can be well tested before you fly humans. Requires a "docking/staging" adaptor that can withstand thrust, but, IMO, that's an overdue development anyway, and trivial on the scale of what LM wants.

Wouldn't this be a simpler, more elegant design?

So what am I missing?

[edit: I missed one big thing. The depot is meant to have the SEP PPE from LOP-G. So my proposal is drop that and move the main engines from the lander to the depot/uncrasher. Smaller engines, or a single engine, on the much lighter lander for final landing and ascent.]
« Last Edit: 01/07/2019 10:17 pm by Paul451 »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2614
  • Canada
  • Liked: 426
  • Likes Given: 628
<snip>
Wouldn't this be a simpler, more elegant design?

So what am I missing?

Where is the SLS in your plan? One Alabama Senator will asked. Since the current NASA Moon plans is basically make work for the SLS & the Orion.

If you used LEO rendezvous to build a vehicle stack to go to the Moon. Then you don't need the SLS. There is a lot of medium and heavy commercial lift to LEO options to assembled a spacecraft going to the Moon that is a lot cheaper and quicker.

Offline Paul451

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1575
  • Australia
  • Liked: 799
  • Likes Given: 650
[uncrasher stage depot thing]
So what am I missing?
Where is the SLS in your plan? One Alabama Senator will asked. Since the current NASA Moon plans is basically make work for the SLS & the Orion.

No different than LM's proposal.

Main systems are launched on SLS cargo, crew flies on Orion for each mission, crew transfer goes through LOP-G because important reasons. Only refuelling and resupply is done via lowest-bid commercial cargo, as in LM's proposal. It's no less SLS-centric than Lockheed's proposal. It could be, of course, but I'm not suggesting it here.

(If the uncrasher/depot and Lander are launched separately on two SLS launches, they will be partially and completely fuelled respectively. Alternatively, the two components can be launched dry on a single launch and fuelled from the commercial resupply program. LM mentions the same two options in its paper.)

It seems like LM is just duplicating the depot on the lander itself. So all I'm suggesting is splitting off the propulsion section of their LL, and combining that function into the depot, dropping the PPE. No other change to CONOPS is suggested. My reasoning is that the depot and the propulsion section of the lander are sitting in the same orbit, have the same sized fuel tanks...

Offline GWH

[uncrasher stage depot thing]
So what am I missing?
Where is the SLS in your plan? One Alabama Senator will asked. Since the current NASA Moon plans is basically make work for the SLS & the Orion.

No different than LM's proposal.

Main systems are launched on SLS cargo, crew flies on Orion for each mission, crew transfer goes through LOP-G because important reasons. Only refuelling and resupply is done via lowest-bid commercial cargo, as in LM's proposal. It's no less SLS-centric than Lockheed's proposal. It could be, of course, but I'm not suggesting it here.


Of course it all could be done without SLS.
Why do you think NASA is touting a 3 stage lander now?

Tags: