Micro-Space >> Ultralight Manned Spaceflight

[rpspeck]

savuporo - 22/9/2007  4:24 AM

Let me get this straight. You, as a small business, decided that its not worth your while to pursue the $2 Million purse of Lunar Lander Challenge, and are focussing on manned mars exploration instead ? All the while still "actively working on lightweight 90sec lunar lander" which has no relevance to manned martian missions as such ?

Micro-Space is "pursuing" the Lunar Lander Prize.  However, the TIMING of the FAA permit, including observed demonstration flights, documentation and other validation requirements are very real.  It can (and did) become obvious long before this competition event that we were not going to meet these deadlines.  

The lack of meaningful sponsorship of the Lander efforts (so unlike the Orteg prize won by Lindberg) says something very significant.  In view of this reality, team investment comparable to that for the transatlantic flight (>20 times the prize money) would be a poor business strategy.  The St. Louis sponsors themselves invested about as much money as they could win. (And chose to forgo all prize money when informed that Lindberg - due to a technicality - was not entitled to win it if he took of as planned.  That technical discrepancy was waved after his success.)

We have always realized that erasing Armadillo's two year lead on all other teams was a long shot and that smaller prizes were more attainable.  Meanwhile, Armadillo's  assertion that they have invested only a few thousand dollars is absurd.  Most of us pay rent and actually pay for labor.  Ten thousand hours of skilled volunteer labor would be nice, but it is hard to arrange.  This is a very expensive project.

Our life support efforts started long before this "Lunar Lander" competition was announced, and continue.  This is discussed further in the note below.  Beyond this, technology driven small businesses are always challenged to find markets HUNGRY for new answers.  It was thus easier for Apple to break in with an affordable, Video Graphic computer than a computer which would fine tune your carburetor for better gas mileage (both important applications today).

Our Lunar Lander design has a great deal of relevance for both MANNED Lunar and Mars expeditions.  It is in fact FULL SIZE for both applications, although the number of clustered fuel tanks is increased, as it is for the 180 sec lander.  The 2006 competition was also restricted to low concentration Hydrogen Peroxide, with its lower specific impulse.  I have discussed this in more detail elsewhere.

[rpspeck]

tnphysics - 22/9/2007  8:18 PM

rpspeck - 20/9/2007  4:58 PM

Our deep space focus actually started with our original X Prize work.  At that time we were perfecting the propulsion modules we continue to use, but recognized that there were important LIFE SUPPORT issues for an ultralight vehicle, both in normal flight and in emergency modes.  (Many of these issues have never been successfully addressed with the Space Shuttle).  Since this work tapped into research in Pulmonary Physiology I did years ago, it was not a stretch to adapt and apply the required technology. We have succeeded in producing several, fail safe, life support backpacks.  These, combined with modern high altitude technology, also provide far lighter and safer "pressure suits" than NASA standards.  

What where the life support issues?

Unlike Scaled Composites, we were not in a position to "borrow" pressure suits from Edwards AFB (which Scaled did in record setting high altitude flights of the "Proteus".  That plane used the same pressurized  cabin as the "White Knight" and "SpaceShipOne").  

The Bobsled Like, ultralight structure we were drafting and prototyping also did not allow for simultaneous pressurization and easy emergency escape (both the Shuttle and SpaceShipOne share the latter problem).

We were unwilling to undertake flight testing of a manned craft which did not have easy parachute escape - in a pressure suit - as well as the respirator duration to safely handle fire on the pad (with water or CO2 flood fire fighting), deep water immersion (since few experimental spacecraft will be launched far from the oceans) and extended launch holds, possibly with exhaust gases swirling around the vehicle.  These emergencies are far more likely than vehicle detonation, and it is unconscionable to not minimize their damage.  

Planning and developing this equipment led us to a careful review of high altitude technology (including mountaineering and jet fighter equipment)  as well as a review of the experimental work in pulmonary physiology I had been involved in.  The result was discovery of the very awkward procedures and dangers forced by NASA's life support decisions, and safer alternatives.  

Since we were already working on Manned spaceflight systems, this naturally led us to serious consideration of the synergies offered for ultralight spaceflight by such improvements.  

It was a later realization that converting a Lunar flight into a Mars flight only involves a few hundred meters per second additional Delta V (a smaller total than reaching GEO) that forced us to take a good look at MARS Missions.  ALL of the difficulties of human MARS expeditions thus come down to Life Support, and we were already making good progress in that area!

[rpspeck]

The Micro-Space updated business plan uses the Google Lunar X Prize as a catalyst to advance our manned and unmanned space system development.  

Admittedly this plan is ambitious, but it builds on systems Micro-Space has either in operation or deep in development.  

We also admit that our “Business Plan” looks to “Divine Provenance” (or Miracles) for funding since we are not in position to fund the costlier parts of this program internally or to offer exciting short term returns for investors.  “In this Sign Conquer Space!” is an odd corporate slogan, but it does fit with the conspicuous Red Crosses on our rockets.  

Our unusual approach seems to have worked, for our actual accomplishments (with liquid fuel and guided rockets) have far exceeded our original expectations.  Now we expect more.


Micro-Space has already assembled an innovative Lunar Rover which interfaces well with our lander system and should traverse lunar terrain easily.  A review of the flight requirements (which we previously studied in detail) shows that a Falcon 1 launch vehicle has more than enough capability to take our payload package to LEO.

From there, part of the payload would accelerate to lunar rendezvous in a free return orbit.  Most of the remaining payload would decelerate to Low Lunar Orbit, and most of that would be a lightweight version of our lander.  This lander, comparable in mass to our “X Prize Cup” prototype, would transport the Rover to the surface and perform as required for the Google Prize.  (All easier said than done, as were our liquid fuel and guided rocket accomplishments.)  A small radio package in lunar orbit is envisioned to facilitate communication from “Far Side” study sites or the interesting lunar South Pole.  

The Lander (with or without the Rover) would retain the capability of hopping to additional surface points, where integrated drill systems could probe the lunar surface.

Our goal, obviously, includes demonstrating that we have a valuable lunar research tool, even if some requirement of the Google Prize is missed.  

In the same vein, our plan is to maximize the benefit from an expensive orbital launch, and to demonstrate a number of our other capabilities.  

The empty transtage unit would return (in its free return orbit) to the Earth.  Without the lander hardware, it is expected that the same Falcon 1 launch would be able to transport a smallish human traveler on a similar lunar flyby with return to Earth.

A small fraction of the LEO payload would similarly serve to demonstrate a lightweight human capable reentry unit.  A 60 inch heat shield diameter would also accommodate a smallish traveler.  A target 100 pound reentry weight (1/4 of a typical load with astronaut) would allow reliable validation of the reentry shield safety factor for human use, and the adequacy of all other systems.    

To make up the 100 pound reentry payload, we expect to install versions of our full sized, long duration life support equipment.  These would include water reprocessing for high and low contamination liquids (with the highly contaminated being purified by zero g distillation), CO2 capture and Oxygen recycling.  One hundred days in LEO would serve to “Prove these systems work in space.”  

The negative of the later phrase (Not Proven in Space) is used as a “conversation stopper” by NASA and others, although it is largely bogus.  Hundreds of opportunities have been missed by NASA to validate the physics of such processes if that were important.  But in fact the behavior of solids, liquids and gasses and their interaction in space is well known and easily modeled.  These experiments have not been done since the results could have been reliably predicted.  This does not negate the value of testing OPERATIONAL prototypes in space (rather that engineering models or other experiments) since correctable problems, difficulties and awkwardness are often found.

The experiments listed would add operational validation of the Micro-Space Mars expedition life support systems, propulsion and navigation for human lunar orbit travel and ultralight human travel to LEO with the Falcon 1 vehicle as significant objectives.  It would further demonstrate the capability of the Micro-Space lander systems as research tools for all parts of the Moon’s surface and give us a shot at the complex Google Prize.  

This may seem like too much, and it would be if the same modules were not reused in several parts of the plan and most of those modules are in operation today.  For those who believe that we can do this (as we have mastered and delivered other aerospace products) the return on investment could be significant.

Space work has been grinding forward slowly – while consuming rivers of money.  In what other field of technology is the “Most reliable and cost effective” product one that became operational in 1965 (The Soyuz, manned launch system)?  We think it's time for a change.  
Richard P. Speck   9/28/2007

[tnphysics]

Would manned lunar missions use LOR or Direct Ascent?

[rpspeck]

I assume LOR (Lunar Orbit Rendezvous) for Moon missions and similar (or more complicated) procedures at Mars.  

I am "dumbfounded" by the attitude that orbital rendezvous is more difficult and dangerous than "surface rendezvous" (getting close enough to a habitat or "in situ" fuel production point so that you can actually use those resources).

Communication, including automated data links, and optical sighting are virtually unlimited in space.  There is no wind, no currents, no bad weather.  Rockets very accurately go where you expect them to go if the motors and control systems work properly.  If you can't make these things, or their backup replacements work predictably, you shouldn't be blundering around in space!  

Beyond the theory, if there ever was an orbital rendezvous failure (not associated with a simple launch failure) it was a very long time ago.  Six successes at the Moon (plus practice runs) with no failures.  Hundreds of successful link ups with space stations, with no manned failures. What difficulties (other than some unfamiliar calculations) are people trying to avoid?  Rendezvous calculations are less complex than predicting the intercept of a "High Baseball Fly" - but we don't currently practice the orbital version in grade school.  

To suggest that DEVELOPING a new launch vehicle two to ten times larger than the Delta IV Heavy is a good idea - to avoid the need for orbital rendezvous - is laughable.  

If you have the Money and Desire to build the NOVA++, just do it: you don't need an excuse.

[tnphysics]

There was a manned rendezvous failure. On Gemini 4 the Titan stage II rendezvous was aborted due to pilot error. However this was because the pilot did not understand orbital mechanics.

[rpspeck]

MARS Team Two:

Micro-Space has been involved for some time in discussions with a second Mars Expedition team. This is a large and serious group pursuing several expedition concepts in parallel.  One subgroup is focused on low cost, “Ultralight” approaches, as is Micro-Space.  

The individuals contacted are as aware as we are that “traditional” EVA pressure suits are antiquated and dangerous – yet in some ways barely necessary -  and will be replaced with far safer “Fail Safe” designs before any extensive planetary exploration takes place.

This group wishes to avoid the letdown and loss of credibility which follows premature publicity and intends to build up their organization and infrastructure before a public announcement.  I pray that their plans will succeed!

I will call this group “Mars Team Two” for now.  

What I call “Mars Team One” consists of Tom and Tina Sjogren, plus their supporters, and is publishing their plan step by step on http://www.explorersweb.com (actually the sub page http://www.pythom.com) as it develops.  I continue to pray for their success as well.

There is of course still room for other small teams in this “Race to Mars”.  The fact that a manned landing on Mars will actually be accomplished for the cost of an ocean racing sailboat has as yet been understood by only a few people. Similarly, no sponsor has shown an interest in locking up a sponsored event which will capture a viewership exceeding that of the historic Apollo landings!  But business always has more followers than visionaries.

On another note, Micro-Space is stumbling into the 21st century and has posted video of one of our 17 liquid fuel rocket launches on YouTube:

Our web site http://www.micro-space.com has also received modest updates.

Our application for participation in the “Google Lunar X-Prize” is pending (along with many others).   Richard P. Speck

[rpspeck]

The Micro-Space "Human Lunar Lander" drew quite a bit of attention at the 2007 X Prize Cup event.  

Probably, not all of those who saw "Sally", suspended in her "space suit" within this skeletal lander, actually understood what they were looking at.  But even they realized that the ambition of this team went far beyond flying robots.

Our displayed "Human Lunar Lander" is an eclectic combination of our production components and simulated parts to complete a mock up.  But it is full size!  Barely bigger than a telephone booth, this is a full scale Human Lunar Lander!

Good storable fuels require less than a 2 to 1 mass ratio to shuttle from lunar orbit to the surface of the Moon.  For the astronaut willing to travel in their "pressure suit", given the low structural mass of our landers, the ten 4 inch diameter tanks will hold all the fuel required.

Economical travel to Orbit, the Moon and Mars is just around the corner for those willing to live like mountaineers and travel light!

[A_M_Swallow]

rpspeck - 30/10/2007  10:49 PM

The Micro-Space "Human Lunar Lander" drew quite a bit of attention at the 2007 X Prize Cup event.  

Probably, not all of those who saw "Sally", suspended in her "space suit" within this skeletal lander, actually understood what they were looking at.  But even they realized that the ambition of this team went far beyond flying robots.

Any pictures?

[meiza]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10348639@N03/1794843082/in/set-72157602768338162/

[A_M_Swallow]

That is very Spartan.

I can imagine the Human Lunar Lander (it needs a name) having a second use as an escape capsule.

Are their plans for a cargo version?  Able to deliver say two months food or spare parts to the Moon.

[sandrot]

Sally will experience plume impingement and will be blind on landing. See what happens to the Shuttle cams when SRB's are jettisoned... and plume impingement there only lasts for a fraction of a second. Not to mention that Sally will be likely be covered in dust too.

[rpspeck]

It is of course intended to be very Spartan: a minimal system.  On the other hand, traveling in a metal box protects travelers from NO KNOWN HAZARD they have not chosen to face as they walk on the Moon.

NASA once had a similar plan (with a seat on the side of the rocket instead of the parachute harness). I doubt that Congress would have approved.  But people paying for their own ticket will think differently about the 10X cost increase for traveling in a box ($200 Million instead of $20 Million to walk on the Moon).

It is intended for use as cargo also.  Round trip Moon travelers would use two.  The first one to land would carry down the fuel used to return to Lunar Orbit Rendezvous.  WHEN (and if) this had landed safely, the traveler would land nearby, using a radio beacon.  When that individual was ready to return (possibly after a stay in a Bigelow Habitat) the fuel load would be transferred to the main tanks of either vehicle and the traveler would clip in for the return flight.

Supplies - OR THE GOOGLE ROVER - will be similarly landed: up to 300 pounds per unit (using 300 pounds of Fuel and a "vehicle" with 50 pounds empty mass).

Note that repositioning an empty Lander on the Moon is easy:  pick it up and carry it, since it will WEIGH less than 10 pounds in that gravity field.


We are well aware of the "Plume Impingement" issues.  This actual design is fairly attractive for demos on Earth (or Space Diving) because air entrainment will shield the hot plume and the motors outward angle will clear both structures and passengers.  Operation in vacuum does create very high plume angles, due to unavoidable nozzle under expansion.  The outer part of this does come from the cooler, lower velocity boundary layer in the nozzle and should be practical to shield.  Since we are planning to use "Radiatively Cooled" motors, thin sheets of the same Columbium alloy, or lighter ablative shields should suffice.  Alternatively, lower motor positions are also being considered.

The high motor position was originally selected (not because it improves stability - which it does not do in vacuum) but  because we expected the NG Lunar Landers to land on unshielded ground (ie, dry lake beds) and we already had observed that motors close to the ground produced unacceptable dust clouds.  Less dense clouds of dust would be created by the high mounted motors.  

Dust will be raised on the Moon with either motor position, but a review of Apollo 11 film makes  it clear that the dust streams rapidly away from the plume impact zone in a thin sheet (with small rocks protruding through this sheet).  No dust "clouds" are possible in a vacuum as most dust particles are in kinetic free fall trajectories and move rapidly out of the area.  I expect to find little dust on "Sally" or other payloads.  In any case, a removable plastic film could restore full faceplate transparency after landing.    

[A_M_Swallow]

rpspeck - 1/11/2007  8:45 PM

It is of course intended to be very Spartan: a minimal system.  On the other hand, traveling in a metal box protects travelers from NO KNOWN HAZARD they have not chosen to face as they walk on the Moon.
{snip}

Except for Earth re-entry, a heat shield is needed for that.


If the motors of the Spartan are both steerable and easily restarted I can think of a few other missions for it.

Climbing mountains.  Walking up the mountains on the Moon and Mars can take too long and some of them are too steep for the Rovers.  So a small rocket pack that lifts an astronaut from the bottom of the mountain to the top and when he has completed his task returns him to the base will be useful.

A variation of this is descending into steep sided craters.

Fast transport between bases.

Return trip to mother ship.  The delta_v LEO to Lunar Surface is 5.93 km/s but the Low Lunar Orbit to Surface is only 1.87 km/s giving a return trip of 3.74 km/s.  A restartable Spartan would allow a surveyor to drop down to the Moon, spend a few days taking photographs & samples and then return to the Orion/Dragon.

The above uses would make the Spartan more of a hiker's rucksack than a car.

[rpspeck]

Thank you for your insights and excellent suggestions!  My "CHTS" (Crusader Human Transport System), or more specifically CHTS-M for use on the Moon, is intended to only rendezvous in lunar orbit. No Earth return or heat shield required - those systems would be "cached" in lunar orbit to save a lot of unnecessary transportation costs.

I have done detailed studies of the "Hopper" mode, specifically for a Lunar Surface Study unit with a drill, which would be able to Hop to several locations for additional studies.

At present this seems to be an alternative to the Google Lunar X Prize "Rover" requirement, although I prefer the idea of attempting both.

The idea of using the Human transport system to aid in Lunar mountain climbing, or just expediting surface transfer - particularly over rough terrain - is certainly interesting.

With a reasonable (storable) fuel, a 1 % of mass supply (about 3.5 pounds) should allow a 135 meter (440 foot) horizontal hop.  A 10% supply (35 pounds of fuel) should provide a 13.5 km (44,000 foot) horizontal hop, even over extremely rugged terrain.  The 1% supply (3.5 pounds) should also allow 18 seconds of Lunar hover to perfect the touchdown spot - far less would be needed to redirect an ongoing hop to a better landing point.  These are reasonable supplies for significant ground transportation.

Our normal Lunar plan would be to use two of the pictured vehicles per traveler.  One would land with 300 pounds of fuel, instead of a human occupant.  When safe arrival of this "return fuel" was confirmed by radio, the traveler would descend on a second unit.  The extra fuel, sent first, would be transfered into the main tanks of either vehicle for use to return to lunar orbit.  Spare vehicles and fuel could be sent down to provide an even higher redundancy level.

As an option, our Mars Ascension Unit will square the mass ratio (about 4).  This would provide the greater delta V to return to Low Mars Orbit (with far lower landing requirement using aerobraking  and parachutes).  On the Moon, it could provide round trip flight with a slightly lower total mass.

Back to the lightweight, Lunar Lander.  One extra fuel load sent down would support nine long surface hops and cover a great deal of area.  (It would, however, provide for only about 7 hops each of 13 km distance if the entire fuel load was carried from beginning to end of the sequence, producing a greater average takeoff mass).  

We intend to test this system on the Earth (with greater thrust required) and to make it available for "Rocket Diving" and "Space Diving".  Thirty second ascent to 6000 feet should be interesting for a Sky Diving demonstration, and the Mars fuel load should allow the 100 Km "X Prize" Space altitude to be reached.  (For use on the Earth and Mars, an V shaped windshield will be above the main structure and traveler.  On Mars, the "Dynamic Pressure" in flight will not exceed that experienced when riding a fast motorcycle).

[meiza]

Why don't you point the nozzles to the side, rocket belt style?

[rpspeck]

meiza - 4/11/2007  6:01 PM

Why don't you point the nozzles to the side, rocket belt style?

The nozzles are in fact arranged like the "Bell Rocket Pack", pointed more or less down and spaced to each side to avoid plume impingement (in the atmosphere).  The nozzles are angled about 6 degrees outward to allow for more motion without impingement.  

The Jet Pack/ Rocket Pack systems have minor nozzle steering capability, but depend primarily on user "Weight Shift" "contortions" (actually small scale body flex motions since real contortions would lead to rapid tumbling).  Our robotic system replaces these user motions with more adjustable nozzles.  

Our structure also allows for hundreds of pounds of fuel, which a user would not want to carry on his back.  The unit with exhausted fuel would be so light that landing with the astronauts feet - particularly on the Moon - would be quite feasible.

[A_M_Swallow]

Looks like the CHTS will be a useful piece of equipment.

[imcub]

What do you have in mind for navigation?  I'm particularly curious about ascent and rendevous.  Your lightweight spartan craft doesn't seem to have much room/capacity for electronics.

BTW, I really enjoy your posts.  I enjoy the enthusiasm, spirit, thought and intelligence you use to solve the problems at hand.

[rpspeck]

Since I have been building and flying bidirectional radio systems (as well as optical sensors) in 1.5 inch diameter (and smaller) rockets for a number of years, our CHTS and other systems seem to have a lot of room for electronics!  With Many years experience in optics and optical sensing, this is a natural fall back for me.

Our MEMS rate gyros (for fast attitude change detection) are in these systems backed up by Sun, Earth and Lunar horizon sensors (the later use anticipated terrain corrections for the planned operational region.)  Small camera based systems easily provide better than one milliradian (no drift) angular accuracy with these references.  (A bright star would be added on the Moon's "Far Side" if needed.)

Keep in mind that the craft remaining in lunar orbit will be very cooperative in rendezvous operations. "Coherent" (phase locked) bidirectional communications will be established with the orbiter before launch from the Moon.  With multimegahertz  communications bandwidth (as preferred for Video links), zero ambiguity phase detection can be produced which monitors the absolute craft separation to centimeter precision.  

The simplest ascent to rendezvous procedure (from an onboard systems standpoint) would measure lunar horizon to horizon angle for an estimate of altitude and accelerate to zero closed loop Doppler shift in the communications loop.  This would establish a reasonable orbit.  Monitoring the Doppler shift for one orbit (about 109 minutes in Low Lunar Orbit) would identify the "relative" mean orbital altitude, eccentricity and apoapse point to plan corrections.  These would become obvious - and could be corrected - long before this orbit was completed.  The phasing correction (to trim out any launch timing error) would also be integrated into this period, and bring the craft very close.  

The orbital plane error could be quantified by comparative simultaneous nadir imaging, as the Moon has many identifiable features.  However the resolution is higher for craft to craft view angle at short range.  Light beams would be readily visible between the craft at hundreds of kilometers, but the most easily automated system would probably use phase comparison between dual radio antennas on the orbiter.  An antenna separation of 25 feet (8 meters) would exceed one milliradian azimuth resolution (in phase comparison mode), and as the range dropped below 1 km, this would quantify residual lateral position errors to one meter.

Any rendezvous adjustment that can be economically completed in less than 1/6 orbit (about 1000 seconds for Low Lunar Orbit) requires at most "windage" corrections and can be flown ignoring orbital mechanics. (The biggest problem being that corrections planned for close to this elapsed time, which end up taking longer than expected,  become divergent and can waste much time and fuel.)

Other modes are possible, and I admit that I have spent much more time looking at landing than at rendezvous for return.