Author Topic: NASA Gateway Lunar Lander  (Read 27839 times)

Offline Markstark

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 163
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: NASA Gateway Lunar Lander
« Reply #220 on: 02/08/2019 06:34 pm »
Earlier this week there were reports that Jason Crusan (Gateway formulation lead) was leaving the agency. Some wondered if it was an indication on whether Gateway had a future or not. Looks like he’s leaving NASA to help his home country with their space agency.

https://twitter.com/therealbuzz/status/1093947275301347328

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18646
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 6669
  • Likes Given: 918
Re: NASA Gateway Lunar Lander
« Reply #221 on: 02/09/2019 06:13 am »
The Saturn 5 showed that direct to the Moon limits missions to flags, footprints and glorified go-karts. If we want the lunar base to contain 20 tonne buildings then the cargo, lander and propellant have to meet in lunar orbit.

All that was sufficient to complete Kennedy's objective, but also to fundamentally change our understanding of the Moon. The Saturn V was also capable of landing 15 t directly on the Moon, which would have been sufficient to enable long term Lunar bases.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2266
  • Liked: 449
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: NASA Gateway Lunar Lander
« Reply #222 on: 02/09/2019 11:23 pm »
I think manned lunar landings are an afterthought for NASA. They want that Deep Space Transport.

Offline M_Puckett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: NASA Gateway Lunar Lander
« Reply #223 on: 02/09/2019 11:47 pm »
The Saturn 5 showed that direct to the Moon limits missions to flags, footprints and glorified go-karts. If we want the lunar base to contain 20 tonne buildings then the cargo, lander and propellant have to meet in lunar orbit.

All that was sufficient to complete Kennedy's objective, but also to fundamentally change our understanding of the Moon. The Saturn V was also capable of landing 15 t directly on the Moon, which would have been sufficient to enable long term Lunar bases.

AAP's LM Truck.  There was lunar base proposals from the Apollo Applications Project that were never realized.

The architecture was dictated by flying everything on one Saturn V, not the Saturn V itself.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: NASA Gateway Lunar Lander
« Reply #224 on: 02/10/2019 05:05 am »
"The architecture was dictated by flying everything on one Saturn V, not the Saturn V itself."

The one Saturn V is the direct bit.

Offline ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1300
  • Liked: 563
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: NASA Gateway Lunar Lander
« Reply #225 on: 02/10/2019 05:46 am »
"The architecture was dictated by flying everything on one Saturn V, not the Saturn V itself."

The one Saturn V is the direct bit.

Saturn V could have built a base...without assembling payload and lander via multiple launches.


The Saturn 5 showed that direct to the Moon limits missions to flags, footprints and glorified go-karts. If we want the lunar base to contain 20 tonne buildings then the cargo, lander and propellant have to meet in lunar orbit.

20 tonnes isn't a requirement. The ISS had various modules of varying sizes. Here is the majority of it

Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer - 6,717 kg
MPLM - 4,082 kilograms
Zarya - 19,323 kilograms
Unity - 11,612 kilograms
Zvezda - 20,320 kilograms
Destiny - 14,515 kilograms
Columbus - 10,300 kg
Kibo - Mass: 15,900 kg
Z1 Truss - 8,755 kg
P6 truss—solar array - 15,824 kg
S0 truss - 13,971 kg
S1 truss - 14,124 kg
P1 truss - 14,003 kg
P3/P4 truss—solar array - 15,824 kg
P5 truss—spacer - 1,864 kg
S3/S4 truss—solar array - 15,824 kg
S5 truss—spacer - 1,818 kg
S6 truss—solar array - 15,824 kg
Canadarm 2 - 1,800 kg

All the US/European/Japanese modules would fit under 16 mT.



« Last Edit: 02/10/2019 05:54 am by ncb1397 »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: NASA Gateway Lunar Lander
« Reply #226 on: 02/10/2019 01:23 pm »
"The architecture was dictated by flying everything on one Saturn V, not the Saturn V itself."

The one Saturn V is the direct bit.

Saturn V could have built a base...without assembling payload and lander via multiple launches.


The Saturn 5 showed that direct to the Moon limits missions to flags, footprints and glorified go-karts. If we want the lunar base to contain 20 tonne buildings then the cargo, lander and propellant have to meet in lunar orbit.

20 tonnes isn't a requirement. The ISS had various modules of varying sizes. Here is the majority of it

{snip}

All the US/European/Japanese modules would fit under 16 mT.


Bigelow B330/XBASE about 23 tonne.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B330

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11356
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8400
  • Likes Given: 6728
Re: NASA Gateway Lunar Lander
« Reply #227 on: 02/10/2019 03:34 pm »
Seems like the reference architecture and BAA in general contains what a lot people have been asking of NASA. Firm-Fixed Price contracting, launching elements on commercial rockets (sized for existing rockets), in-space refueling, cryogenic propellants, partial reusability and more. 
Mostly no for me because constraining the launcher tips their hand. The only constraints should be on cubes and kg delivered being at least a certain amount. Launcher specs are irrelevant to that, only relevant to the bidders.
"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 jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6262
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 805
Re: NASA Gateway Lunar Lander
« Reply #228 on: 02/11/2019 06:20 pm »
{snip}

Assembly at the Gateway will also be a big negative for some.

The Saturn 5 showed that direct to the Moon limits missions to flags, footprints and glorified go-karts. If we want the lunar base to contain 20 tonne buildings then the cargo, lander and propellant have to meet in lunar orbit.

Yeah, but LLO would be a better lunar orbit than NRHO.

~Jon

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6262
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 805
Re: NASA Gateway Lunar Lander
« Reply #229 on: 02/11/2019 06:23 pm »
I think manned lunar landings are an afterthought for NASA. They want that Deep Space Transport.

This. I think most people who haven't been following NASA's plans for beyond-Lunar exploration don't really get what's driving the Gateway design. Its only partially the SLS/Orion performance limitations. Gateway for NASA is really a precursor to the big SEP + Habitat architecture they want to use for Deep Space Transport to get people to/from Mars. I still think it's a flawed idea, but understanding where they're coming from helps understand the reason behind the flaws.

~Jon

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6262
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 805
Re: NASA Gateway Lunar Lander
« Reply #230 on: 02/11/2019 06:24 pm »
Seems like the reference architecture and BAA in general contains what a lot people have been asking of NASA. Firm-Fixed Price contracting, launching elements on commercial rockets (sized for existing rockets), in-space refueling, cryogenic propellants, partial reusability and more. 
Mostly no for me because constraining the launcher tips their hand. The only constraints should be on cubes and kg delivered being at least a certain amount. Launcher specs are irrelevant to that, only relevant to the bidders.

Yeah, it definitely feels prematurely overconstrained to one specific architecture.

~Jon

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: NASA Gateway Lunar Lander
« Reply #231 on: 02/11/2019 10:54 pm »
{snip}

Assembly at the Gateway will also be a big negative for some.

The Saturn 5 showed that direct to the Moon limits missions to flags, footprints and glorified go-karts. If we want the lunar base to contain 20 tonne buildings then the cargo, lander and propellant have to meet in lunar orbit.

Yeah, but LLO would be a better lunar orbit than NRHO.

~Jon

True. Neither the Moon base nor the spacestation care what lunar orbit the Gateway is in. However it makes a big difference to the most expensive fuel with the lowest Isp - that of the lander and ascent stage.

Offline Negan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 408
  • Southwest
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 312
Re: NASA Gateway Lunar Lander
« Reply #232 on: 02/12/2019 04:10 pm »
Hmmm, I guess it's not such an interesting question after all. There's no way SpaceX could submit a proposal based on SH/SS. Maybe they can submit a proposal to ferry fuel to the Gateway on SH/SS and carry astronauts into orbit on F9.

[Edit: I've got it! In order to match the three-component specification, SpaceX could use one F9 to get astronauts into orbit, one SS to get them from orbit to the Gateway, and a different SS as a lunar lander!]

No way is correct, the preliminary requirements boxed in the element size and wet mass pretty tight, no way Starship can fit this, my guess is SpaceX will just ignore this like they ignored all the previous NextSTEP solicitations.

Sounds like there are submitting some kind of element design. I wonder if they could make a one engine Raptor descent element.

Online theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: NASA Gateway Lunar Lander
« Reply #233 on: 02/15/2019 08:15 am »
The Human Lander System Industry Day was held today.  HLS seems to be the acronym of choice for this thing now.

Highlights:

* Proposals due by March 25th, selections in May, be on contract by July.
* Multiple providers, each getting a 6 month, max $9M study phase.
* Max of $30-40M available for the study phase for all providers total.
* Plan is to downselect for DDT&E out of that study phase.
* Offerors may submit only one proposal per element.
* Up to two DDT&E awards for Descent elements.
 
* Gerst and Bridenstine in the opening said "open architecture" about a billion times.
* Said they'd consider proposals that don't match the reference plan, as long as they have that "open architecture".
* Later presentations say, sure, we'll consider those non-ref-matching plans, but *not* as a part of this BAA.

* Open architecture as in, multiple elements with published interfaces so subsets of providers can be swapped out?
* Things cited as planned to be open include: docking, "the way we do data", communications, avionics and navigation.
* E.g. (or perhaps i.e.): https://www.internationaldeepspacestandards.com/

* BAA request proposal is for the Descent Element, Transfer Element, and Refueling Element. No Ascent Element.
* NASA plans "an internal effort to mature designs" for the Ascent Element, Surface Suit before issuing external studies.
* A notional timeline says an Ascent Element study will begin maybe 4 months after the BAA studies start.

Element requirements (minimum and desired) and a notional timeline can be seen below.  Full slides PDF below as well.
« Last Edit: 02/15/2019 08:24 am by theinternetftw »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18646
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 6669
  • Likes Given: 918
Re: NASA Gateway Lunar Lander
« Reply #234 on: 02/15/2019 09:00 am »
Here's the front cover showing how big this thing is going to be! I've enhanced the image so that we can see it a bit better.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline bodhiandphysics

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Canada
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: NASA Gateway Lunar Lander
« Reply #235 on: 02/15/2019 12:57 pm »
It's important to note how aggressive the design of the Lunar Ascent Module needs to be.  Abort from LLO to the Gateway at NRHO takes up to 800 m/s of delta-v... and up to 4 days.  That means the module needs something like 2.6 km/s of delta v and a week of endurance, for 2-4 people, which compares rather well to the performance of the entire Apollo command and service module.  Of course, Apollo had a wet mass of 26 tonnes, and the LAM needs to mass about 15, about the same as the entire Apollo lunar lander!

Oh... and because the LAM is the abort system for the LDM, it needs to be able to reliably start its motor at any time, pretty instantaneously, so it almost certainly needs to use the same Hypergolic propellants with the same lousy Isp as Apollo did (the other elements can use cryo propellents).

It's certainly doable, just, aggressive.  Dragon 2 probably weighs about 8 tonnes all up, and if you cut out the heat shield and parachute (maybe a tonne altogether?) and the superdracos and their propellant (so as not to count the prop twice)  you could get it down to 6 tonnes.  At 314 s ISP, that gives you 14 tonnes wet mass, just on the money. 

Offline AndrewSmith

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • Cleveland, Ohio
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA Gateway Lunar Lander
« Reply #236 on: 02/15/2019 01:39 pm »
{snip}

Assembly at the Gateway will also be a big negative for some.

The Saturn 5 showed that direct to the Moon limits missions to flags, footprints and glorified go-karts. If we want the lunar base to contain 20 tonne buildings then the cargo, lander and propellant have to meet in lunar orbit.

Yeah, but LLO would be a better lunar orbit than NRHO.

~Jon

True. Neither the Moon base nor the spacestation care what lunar orbit the Gateway is in. However it makes a big difference to the most expensive fuel with the lowest Isp - that of the lander and ascent stage.

Disagree - station-keeping propellant for an LLO station would eat your lunch.  Plus it disallows using the station as a staging point for any other BEO missions.

It might be simpler and more flexible just to have a reusable inter-orbital tug (maybe just a duplicate of the lander descent stage, sans landing hardware).

Offline armchairfan

  • Member
  • Posts: 5
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA Gateway Lunar Lander
« Reply #237 on: 02/15/2019 04:32 pm »
Disagree - station-keeping propellant for an LLO station would eat your lunch.
I hear this often so I went googling. Here's a paper from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter flight dynamics people:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070035736.pdf
Quote
At 200 km altitude, impact is avoided as the altitude variations are bounded. Therefore, a 200 km orbit is valuable since stationkeeping costs are eliminated.
LRO flies much lower than this for its mission which necessitates some station-keeping but that doesn't mean that an orbiter/depot to support surface missions would need to do the same.
Quote
In its AV budget, LRO has 150 m/s allocated to stationkeeping for a one year nominal mission duration.

Offline sevenperforce

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 878
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 267
Re: NASA Gateway Lunar Lander
« Reply #238 on: 02/15/2019 08:52 pm »
Something I have not yet seen in any proposals but that occurred to me today....

Has anyone ever proposed using a wet-workshop airlock? Wet workshops aren't particularly useful for space station applications, but if all you need is a separate room, that's pretty much exactly what you'd need.

You'd have your reusable main crew capsule built with the docking port in the floor, rather than the ceiling, and you'd dock feet-first at the gateway. The descent stage would have a docking port welded to the top of a central, cylindrical fuel tank, and that tank would have a hatch cut in one side.

After landing, you'd purge the hydrogen tank with nitrogen, vent in residual LOX to bring it up to breathable levels, then open the floor hatch and you've got your airlock. Close the hatch and blast away at the end of the mission.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6262
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 805
Re: NASA Gateway Lunar Lander
« Reply #239 on: 02/15/2019 09:21 pm »

* BAA request proposal is for the Descent Element, Transfer Element, and Refueling Element. No Ascent Element.


Hmm... Refueling element, eh?

~Jon
« Last Edit: 02/15/2019 09:21 pm by jongoff »

Tags: lop-g lunar gateway