Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

RedStreak · 2007-12-15 23:53:38

Simply spectacular. 8) They have less reason to call a methane engine "experimental" anymore now.

cIclops · 2007-12-16 04:06:46

Project Logo (designed by Michael Okuda - Star Trek graphic artist)

Lander Propulsion Overview and Technology Requirements Discussion (2.4 MB PDF) - 14 Nov 2007

LOX/CH4 Ascent Propulsion
– LOX/CH4 Main Engine (Pressure Feed)
• 4500 lbf – 6500 lbf
• 355 sec Isp
• 1 – 3 starts per mission
– LOX/CH4 RCS Thrusters
• 100 lbf
• 80 ms pulse length (40 ms growth risk)
• 300 + sec Isp
– LOX/CH4 Storage & Fluid Management
• 14 – 28 days LEO
• 3 days Transit
• 2 days LLO
• 210 days Lunar surface

210 days on the Moon! this would make a useful study of low gravity effects compared with ISS missions. All very helpful for Mars expeditions.

RedStreak · 2007-12-16 13:25:31

Couple of additional sections worth quoting from that same document:

• Both NTO/MMH and LOX/CH4 under consideration
• Initial LDAC-1 design assumed NTO/MMH integrated RCS/MPS
• After completion of LDAC-1, Ascent Propulsion System redesigned
using LOC/CH4

...and then

• Design
– LO2 and Methane are loaded subcooled and allowed to
absorb heat leak and warm over the LEO loiter, transit, and
210 day surface stay
• Thermal Modeling Has been performed by GRC and
MSFC to validate this approach
– Both models show heat leaks that result in zero boil-off for
the outpost mission
– Sortie Mission capability for zero boil-off also exists

It's great to find this positive research and thinking on Methane engines. And yeah, that 210 day stay on Lunar surface is ANOTHER step in right direction for Martian vehicles. If you can make a vehicle that can store cryogenic fuel in an enviorment that fluxes temperature nearly 500 degrees over the course of a month...I think that can probably do the same job at Mars (while cold, you have to admit it's alot more STABLE temperature-wise than the Moon).

Anti-Moon bloogers, grab a plate and start eating your hearts out 'cause there's no way this same tech for Mars would be developed...before 2050 and you guys are preparing to retire.

The Vision is moving in the right direction 8)

cIclops · 2007-12-16 14:11:09

If you can make a vehicle that can store cryogenic fuel in an enviorment that fluxes temperature nearly 500 degrees over the course of a month...I think that can probably do the same job at Mars (while cold, you have to admit it's alot more STABLE temperature-wise than the Moon).

The current plan is to land at the South Pole where the thermal environment is far less severe, about -50 to + 20 C - that's similar to Antarctica - but warmer than Mars. Sortie missions are also planned to other parts of the Moon so they will have to survive much colder temperatures, colder than Mars. The LOX/LCH4 storage and propulsion technology should be very helpful on Mars.

cIclops · 2007-12-20 04:47:38

Concept image of Altair lander

Official announcement of new lander name and more graphics - 18 Dec 2007

Altair finds its origins in Arabic and is derived from a phrase that means "the flying one." Altair is the brightest star in the constellation Aquila and is the 12th brightest star in the night sky. In Latin, Aquila means "eagle," reminiscent of the historic lunar exploration module Neil Armstrong

RedStreak · 2007-12-20 13:10:47

I remember how the ol' LEM was occassionally referred to as a "bug"

Looking at how damn BIG Altair, formerly known as LSAM ....

I have to say that's a pretty big bug alright.

The new images look impressive - it'll be interesting to see how they compare when Altair becomes reality.

cIclops · 2008-02-13 08:35:22

New motor may let ships fuel on Mars

More immediately, NASA said it would consider the methane technology among others for the Lunar Lander. The Lander will be attached to the next-generation space shuttle, Orion, and ferry astronauts to and from the moon.
Methane or its components are not present on the moon, so the Lander would have to be equipped with its own reserve of LOX/methane. Klem said NASA is considering it anyway for the Lander as a way to test the technology before launching a mission to Mars.
If NASA pursues LOX/methane for the Lander, it likely will solicit bids from ATK and the other companies that submitted last month's proposals.

GCNRevenger · 2008-02-14 19:03:11

Cool

As a vehicle becomes smaller, the density of the fuel becomes more important versus specific impulse, and this option might also increase the on-orbit loiter time and/or increase fuel usage margins for Altair since Methane boils much slower than Hydrogen. Overall, it probably won't have much of an impact on the payload and will give NASA a lander that is almost Mars-ready.

RedStreak · 2008-02-15 01:36:18

As a vehicle becomes smaller, the density of the fuel becomes more important versus specific impulse, and this option might also increase the on-orbit loiter time and/or increase fuel usage margins for Altair since Methane boils much slower than Hydrogen. Overall, it probably won't have much of an impact on the payload and will give NASA a lander that is almost Mars-ready.

Exactly, even if the methane's limited to the upper stage, the point is it will prove the technology sufficently enough to warrant its use on a Martian vehicle.

SpaceNut · 2008-02-15 05:36:00

Also much less mass would be used to keep the methane from boiloff as compared to Hydrogen I would think.

The are a total of 3 engines thus far being worked on by the way. One is a thruster of about 100 lbf while the other 2 are way larger being some where in the 3100 lbf and 7500 lbf as I recall.

cIclops · 2008-02-29 06:35:32

From: Altair Project (PDF 2MB) - 26 Feb 2008

Lander Configuration 711-A
• “Minimum Functional” design – starting point without redundancy or contingencies
• Single descent stage design for sortie, cargo and crewed outpost missions
• LOX/H2, single 18,600 lbf RL-10 derivative engine
• Cruciform truss structure (fits 8.4 m shroud)
• Combined ascent/hab module provides sortie mission surface habitation
• MMH/NTO, single 5500 lbf engine
• LIDS docking system
• Sortie mission airlock (left behind on surface)
Sortie Lander
Ascent Module 5,075 kg
Descent Module 32,718 kg
Airlock Module 949 kg
Proj. Mgr. Res. 2,857 kg
Available for Payload 3,401 kg
Cargo Lander
Descent Module 34,248 kg
Proj Mgr. Res. 1,974 kg
Available for Payload 17,378 kg
Crew to Outpost Lander
Ascent Module 5,356 kg
Descent Module 32,684 kg
Proj. Mgr. Res. 2,691 kg
Available for Payload 4,269 kg

GCNRevenger · 2008-02-29 13:40:23

17.3 metric tonnes in cargo configuration... not bad, almost to the 20 line.

cIclops · 2008-02-29 14:36:30

Yep and this is sized for an older Ares V design. NASA are looking at increasing Ares V TLI payload to 75 MT with a 10m shroud (from 63 MT and a 7.5m fairing), that should add several more tons to that number.

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-06 18:34:37

.

apart its, old-looking, BAD design, the latest Altair concept shows a TOO little (phone-booth-sized) ascent-stage's crew cabin:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/025badaltair.html

.

SpaceNut · 2008-03-06 20:59:23

So nice of you to remind me of the Doctor Who TARDIS which was small on the outside but ever so large on the inside....

Image:TARDIS2.jpg

Image:Hartnellconsole.jpg

The only reason for a large cabin is for long term stay and since this is the sortie mission stays with not much returning to orbit there is no need for it to be overly large. It is better to have the cargo down mass capability for building a base of the future....

cIclops · 2008-03-07 01:59:46

apart its, old-looking, BAD design, the latest Altair concept shows a TOO little (phone-booth-sized) ascent-stage's crew cabin:

It's clearly not "phone-booth" size as it will hold four astronauts wearing spacesuits. Checkout the image above showing Orion and Altair, Orion is 5m in diameter that would make the Altair ascent module about 3m in diameter by about 4m in length (assuming that drawing is to scale) - some phone booth.

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-07 03:39:17

It's clearly not "phone-booth" size as it will hold four astronauts wearing spacesuits.

maybe, they will change it, but, now, comparing the images and the known Altair dimensions, the crew cabin actually IS sligtly larger than a phone-booth

.

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-07 03:43:23

So nice of you to remind me of the Doctor Who TARDIS which was small on the outside but ever so large on the inside...

unfortunately, Doctor Who is not a NASA engineer...

The only reason for a large cabin is for long term stay and since this is the sortie mission stays with not much returning to orbit there is no need for it to be overly large. It is better to have the cargo down mass capability for building a base of the future....

assuming they really want to spend so much money to build a lander with so limited functions, then, it's unclear why they're building a so large Orion (that needs a bigger than necessary rocket to fly) despite, the latter, should accomplish a similar purpose

.

cIclops · 2008-03-07 09:24:22

assuming they really want to spend so much money to build a lander with so limited functions, then, it's unclear why they're building a so large Orion (that needs a bigger than necessary rocket to fly) despite, the latter, should accomplish a similar purpose.

Altair's function is to put crew and cargo on the lunar surface and return crew back to Orion waiting in LLO. That's all it does. The Outpost will be waiting on the surface to provide life support and facilities for the crew.

Commodore · 2008-03-07 10:32:41

I hope they don't get too dependent on the vertical style of lander. I'm sure its perfect for sorties and small specialized cargo, but when comes to habs, were going to need to switch to a rectangular type. We've got a 10m x 30m faring to work with, and we are going to need every bit of it if were going to get our moneys worth.

I know that its early, and these are mostly engineering studies not intended for public consumption. But if they want the needed funding for this, they are going to have to do something a little more visually inspiring.

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-07 10:38:16

Altair's function is to put crew and cargo on the lunar surface and return crew back to Orion waiting in LLO. That's all it does. The Outpost will be waiting on the surface to provide life support and facilities for the crew.

not in the early years, when they (still) want to launch only a dozen sortie missions, then, the Altair will be the place where the astronauts will live and work on for longer time than Orion, so, it's unclear why it must be so little, without life support redundancy for emergency NOR margins for extended missions' duration ... the only logical reason of this (bad) choice may reside in a too little and underpowered Ares-5 that doesn't allow to carry much more than THIS Altair

.

cIclops · 2008-03-07 10:45:21

not in the early years, when they (still) want to launch only a dozen sortie missions, then, the Altair will be the place where the astronauts will live and work on for longer time than Orion, so, it's unclear why it must be so little, without life support redundancy for emergency NOR margins for extended missions' duration

The current campaign plan is to buildup the Outpost first, sorties missions will happen later probably to the other pole and farside. Altair will be able to support short duration sortie missions for 28 surface days (4 crew for 7 days). This would be more than all of the surface time for the entire Apollo project.

What are "emergency NOR margins"?

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-07 10:48:14

Checkout the image above showing Orion and Altair, Orion is 5m in diameter that would make the Altair ascent module about 3m in diameter by about 4m in length (assuming that drawing is to scale)

done, but, measuring it with a pixel-ruler, the Altair crew cabin results no bigger than 1.8-2 m. in diameter by 2-2.5 m. in lenght... also, remember that these are the EXTERNAL dimensions inclusive of the LIDS docking port and the thick pressurization and protection structure... just add the spacesuits, the EVA support packs, the flights' control panels, four seats (if any) four beds (if any) the 7-days life support, a toilet (if any) etc... so, where is the space for the astronauts?

.

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-07 11:07:21

The current campaign plan is to buildup the Outpost first, sorties missions will happen later probably to the other pole and farside. Altair will be able to support short duration sortie missions for 28 surface days (4 crew for 7 days). This would be more than all of the surface time for the entire Apollo project. What are "emergency NOR margins"?

I've seen the images of (both) sortie and outpost versions of the Altair, that (both) have the same crew cabin (with the sortie version that has the airlock module) that's also since they can't build two different versions, one of which with a larger crew cabin a bigger descent-stage, etc.

"emergency" may happen if (e.g.) the ascent stage won't work... with one-two month life support the astronauts can be saved sending a second, remote-controlled, rescue-Altair, while, with just a couple of days of life support "redundancy" the astronauts are DEAD

extra "margins" are those the astronauts can use for better and longer-than-7-days lunar missions, rather than just four times the exploration days of Apollo (2 astronauts x 3-4 days max)

.

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-07 11:11:32

.

the true reality of facts is that, the Altair, actually IS too little since the Ares-5 has a too little max payload!

that's why I've ALWAYS said in latest two years (on my website and blog and on space forums) that the current Ares-5 is underpowered and its "130 mT payload" target is too little, then suggested to develop a 200+ mT cargo launcher)

.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2007-12-15 23:53:38

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#77 2007-12-16 04:06:46

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#78 2007-12-16 13:25:31

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#79 2007-12-16 14:11:09

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#80 2007-12-20 04:47:38

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#81 2007-12-20 13:10:47

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#82 2008-02-13 08:35:22

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#83 2008-02-14 19:03:11

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#84 2008-02-15 01:36:18

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#85 2008-02-15 05:36:00

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#86 2008-02-29 06:35:32

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#87 2008-02-29 13:40:23

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#88 2008-02-29 14:36:30

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#89 2008-03-06 18:34:37

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#90 2008-03-06 20:59:23

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#91 2008-03-07 01:59:46

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#92 2008-03-07 03:39:17

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#93 2008-03-07 03:43:23

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#94 2008-03-07 09:24:22

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#95 2008-03-07 10:32:41

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#96 2008-03-07 10:38:16

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#97 2008-03-07 10:45:21

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#98 2008-03-07 10:48:14

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#99 2008-03-07 11:07:21

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#100 2008-03-07 11:11:32

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

Board footer