Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

Commodore · 2008-03-07 11:51:58

From: Altair Project (PDF 2MB)

Is everything below the accent module for fuel and other gaseous consumables?

It would be helpful if we could say which of those tank like items within the scaffolding actually opened up and contained equipment. Where else would they keep it?

If for example, each sortie lander contained a couple of these a excavator/rover, and a small ISRU to create bake bricks to cover the inflatable and collect the oxygen, suddenly you've got something that can grow on its own long after the crew leaves, and be ready to go the moment they return.

Thats the principle we have to use.

cIclops · 2008-03-07 12:12:30

the true reality of facts is that, the Altair, actually IS too little since the Ares-5 is 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)

There are no "facts" yet, only designs in various stages. Repetition is not an argument and neither are links to websites.

As the acronym 'NOR' is undefined, please stop using it.

cIclops · 2008-03-07 12:19:34

Is everything below the accent module for fuel and other gaseous consumables?
It would be helpful if we could say which of those tank like items within the scaffolding actually opened up and contained equipment. Where else would they keep it?

This is a basic conceptual lander used for trades and top level requirements such as mass, size and capabilities. Many different designs have been proposed including horizontal landers (see earlier in this topic for images and references), no decisions have been made yet. This whole project is in pre phase A study and formal design work doesn't begin until about 2011 unless there is more funding.

RedStreak · 2008-03-07 12:38:00

... 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

Compared to ESA's Ariane V that you are bombastic over the Ares V is a MONSTER that ESA won't be matching for decades to come.

If you're so worked up over Altair gaeto-spam consider this: if they really wanna make more room they could consider a Mars Direct-esque Hab lander...provided there is an ascent vehicle planted on the surface to return to the CEV.

...however like Cyclops says it's more likely to work the other way around - a habitat would be landed first and then a crewed Altair makes the scene. Considering NASA is opting not just for sortie missions but building up an outpost as one of its top prorities don't throw out what Cyclops said about a habitat being landed there.

RedStreak · 2008-03-07 12:40:47

This is a basic conceptual lander used for trades and top level requirements such as mass, size and capabilities. Many different designs have been proposed including horizontal landers (see earlier in this topic for images and references), no decisions have been made yet. This whole project is in pre phase A study and formal design work doesn't begin until about 2011 unless there is more funding.

Exactly Cyclops! And gaeto before you mutter or type a word ESA ALSO had made revisions to the Columbus module. There were versions that made it a free-flying mini-space station...but just like Hermes they scrapped elements and downgraded it into just another laboratory module for the ISS.

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-07 15:20:38

...a excavator/rover, and a small ISRU to create bake bricks to cover the inflatable and collect the oxygen, suddenly you've got something that can grow on its own long after the crew leaves...

a lunar mission is not a Junior Woodchucks' trip in the forest... ...everything MUST be planned in details years before a lift-off and (both) the lander and its launcher MUST have the capability to accomplish the full missions (including a large life support redundancy) and NOT hope to find oxigen, water and food on the moon...

.

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-07 15:28:19

There are no "facts" yet...

the facts you want are in documents and images you post, the facts are in the Altair dimensions and in the Ares-5 specs, the facts are in the (NASA advanced planning manager and former Apollo program rocket engineer) John Sumrall's interview... there are PLENTY of FACTS for those who (really) WANT to "see" them... the facts are that THIS Ares-5 design has not enough power for the job (surely NOT for a "good/best" job) ...as I've repeated...

.

JoshNH4H · 2008-03-07 15:34:17

It's funny, but whenever I see that gaetano has made the last post in a given topic, i kind of sigh a little...

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-07 15:37:12

...no decisions have been made yet. This whole project is in pre phase A study...

that's true, but they talk, write, calculate and publish them as things to build next week... if the lander is only in the phase of "concept" then, develop and publish only the various concepts... WHY do they develop and publish so detailed data about the Ares-5 and Altair, if they are aware that EVERYTHING will be changed soon?

.

Commodore · 2008-03-07 15:51:51

...a excavator/rover, and a small ISRU to create bake bricks to cover the inflatable and collect the oxygen, suddenly you've got something that can grow on its own long after the crew leaves...
a lunar mission is not a Junior Woodchucks' trip in the forest... ...everything MUST be planned in details years before a lift-off and (both) the lander and its launcher MUST have the capability to accomplish the full missions (including a large life support redundancy) and NOT hope to find oxygen, water and food on the moon...
.

If theres two things we can be reasonably sure of, theres plenty of silicates that can be heated and melted into bricks for radiation and micrometeorite shielding, and such reaction will release oxygen that we can collect.

Scouts Honor.

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-07 15:52:47

Compared to ESA's Ariane V that you are bombastic over the Ares V is a MONSTER that ESA won't be matching for decades to come.

I've suggested to use the Ariane5 ONLY to save the time and money the Ares-1 needs to fly (assuming it can...) and, yes, the underpowered Ares-5 will be a monster compared with the Arane5 also I agree that Europe will never spend enough money or will be enough brave to build an Ares-5 nor (:)) start a manned program...

...however like Cyclops says it's more likely to work the other way around - a habitat would be landed first and then a crewed Altair makes the scene. Considering NASA is opting not just for sortie missions but building up an outpost as one of its top prorities don't throw out what Cyclops said about a habitat being landed there.

that's exactly what I've suggested (SEVEN months BEFORE the NASA change of the lunar missions' architecture from "sortie first" to "outpost first" announced in december 2006...) in this spam-article:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/007arianeX.html

unfortunately, the "sortie" version of Altair still is in the NASA documents, and, however, sortie or outpost, the Altair crew cabin always looks TOO LITTLE for a crew of four!

.

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-07 16:02:14

If theres two things we can be reasonably sure of, theres plenty of silicates that can be heated and melted into bricks for radiation and micrometeorite shielding, and such reaction will release oxygen that we can collect.

true, but they can just do some experiments in the early mission (to gather real data and experience for future projects) NOT base their life on ISRU oxygen from early days... a moon missions already is a BIG risk to add risks on risks

.

Commodore · 2008-03-07 16:21:42

If theres two things we can be reasonably sure of, theres plenty of silicates that can be heated and melted into bricks for radiation and micrometeorite shielding, and such reaction will release oxygen that we can collect.
true, but they can just do some experiments in the early mission (to gather real data and experience for future projects) NOT base their life on ISRU oxygen from early days... a moon missions already is a BIG risk to add risks on risks.

Of course. I was suggesting they include the things I mentioned so that the landing site could remain functional well after the primary manned phase ended, and perhaps contribute to follow up missions.

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-07 16:27:45

I was suggesting they include the things I mentioned so that the landing site could remain functional well after the primary manned phase ended, and perhaps contribute to follow up missions.

I agree if that will made just as experiments, while, to be true that all astronauts will survive a bad contingency, the only 100% safe way is to add enough life support for that comtingency on ALL Altair then keep a second unmanned Altair, atop its Ares-5, ready to fly for rescue

.

Commodore · 2008-03-07 20:26:09

I was suggesting they include the things I mentioned so that the landing site could remain functional well after the primary manned phase ended, and perhaps contribute to follow up missions.
I agree if that will made just as experiments, while, to be true that all astronauts will survive a bad contingency, the only 100% safe way is to add enough life support for that contingency on ALL Altair then keep a second unmanned Altair, atop its Ares-5, ready to fly for rescue.

Actually, thats not bad policy to begin with, so long as they can turn around an Ares I that fast as well. Its a great way to keep the flight rate up.

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-10 07:32:22

...got a 10m x 30m faring to work with...

the problem is not the dimensions of the cargo but it's payload's mass, that, a too little and underpowered Ares-5, limits to just 17 mT, no matter the shape of the cargo

.

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-10 19:26:12

.

I've just updated my Altair article with new data and images, so, it now is a true and detailed analysis of the ESAS lunar lander:

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

also (following the cIclops suggestion) I've added an evaluation (by comparison with the Orion) of the real dimensions of the Altair's crew cabin:

.

Commodore · 2008-03-10 21:25:54

...got a 10m x 30m faring to work with...
the problem is not the dimensions of the cargo but it's payload's mass, that, a too little and underpowered Ares-5, limits to just 17 mT, no matter the shape of the cargo.

Only assuming you want to use one rocket. It's quite worth it to use a second, or even a third (think wet workshops!), to put a single piece that large on the surface. The same would still be true if the Ares V was capable of lofting 200tons to orbit and 40+ tons to the surface.

They are going to have to switch to a horizontal lander design at some point however to do so. Some of the more fleshed out designs already have, which really makes me wonder why they are bothering with all these "requirement studies" now. Either they knew what they needed then, and are wasting time now, or didn't and those previous designs are rubbish.

cIclops · 2008-03-11 01:29:16

... also (following the cIclops suggestion) I've added an evaluation (by comparison with the Orion) of the real dimensions of the Altair's crew cabin:

Good graphics work, looks like about 2.5 m diameter x 3m - internally it'll be even less of course.

All these documents are the results of studies, most are only published in conferences and presentations. NASA always say these are concepts, some of them are very detailed and the graphics gets better and better, but they are far from final designs.

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-11 08:40:11

Only assuming you want to use one rocket.

yes, you can launch a 35 mT payload with TWO Ares-5, but, while a bigger Ares-5 needs only to pay $40M for an extra SRB, $20M for an extra RS-68 and $10M for a bigger tank, launch a second 17 mT payload needs a brand new rocket ...that means TWICE the price rather than just a 20% extra-costs on a single (bigger) rocket... also, you can launch a 35 mT payload with two rockets if that payload can be "sliced" in two parts, but, if you want or need to launch a bigger, one piece, module, you can't

They are going to have to switch to a horizontal lander design at some point however to do so. Some of the more fleshed out designs already have, which really makes me wonder why they are bothering with all these "requirement studies" now. Either they knew what they needed then, and are wasting time now, or didn't and those previous designs are rubbish.

yes, it's really incredible (and unclear) WHY they study (and publish) a lander they'll never build!

I agree about the horizontal design, and, in september 2005, I've also suggested (on my website and on uplink) to launch a 28+ mT "three-seats" horizontal lunar lander with a crewless Space Shuttle, then, I've deleted the small note in my article when I've understood that NASA was (and still is) determined to retire the Shuttles (however, I hope they'll change their plan and use the Shuttles, at least, as unmanned cargo, to fill the gap between 2010 and 2016)

.

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-11 08:46:03

...they are far from final designs...

I know that it's a "minimum requirements" concept, but, if they'll not change (both) the Altair and Ares-5 design, these "requirements" will always remain "minime" or become (very much) "smaller"

that's why I've pointed my attention mainly on the Ares-5 (rather than only the Altair) suggesting to build a BIGGER rocket

.

GCNRevenger · 2008-03-11 21:28:46

Of all the main pieces of the Lunar program, Altair is probably the least well defined thus far, nor does it really need to be: because virtually all of its non-payload mass with be either fuel, fuel tanks, and engines we can estimate how heavy the whole lander is without even knowing its shape! NASA has a target payload in mind, and put that through the equations and out comes a total mass number for Altair.

The present Altair pictures you see are little more than CGI-generated brochures for the Lunar program for NASA PR, cooked up from an engineers' concept for the minimum base tending lander. They can't, after all, have Orion docked to this big black box with a question mark on it, can they? And to top it off and maximize the PR benefit, they also drew it on the surface with some astronauts for show.

cIclops · 2008-03-17 16:53:12

Contracts for Design Study of Lunar Landing Craft - 17 Mar 2008

HOUSTON - NASA's Constellation Program has selected five space-related companies to receive contract awards for a 210-day study to independently evaluate NASA's in-house design concept for a lunar lander that will deliver four astronauts to the surface of the moon by 2020.
The awards total approximately $1.5 million, with a maximum individual award of $350,000. The study recommendations will be used to increase the technical maturity of the existing design in preparation for the development of vehicle requirements.
The Constellation Program is building NASA's next generation fleet of spacecraft -- including the Ares I and Ares V rockets, the Orion crew capsule and the Altair lunar lander -- to send humans beyond low Earth orbit and back to the moon. NASA plans to establish a human outpost on the moon through a successive series of lunar missions.
"These studies will provide valuable input for developing a sound set of requirements for the Altair lunar lander," said Jeff Hanley, the Constellation Program manager at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. "Industry collaboration will provide insight for our planning and early design efforts for the spacecraft."
The selected companies are Andrews Space of Seattle, The Boeing Co. of Houston, Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company of Denver, Northrop Grumman Corporation of El Segundo, Calif., and Odyssey Space Research of Houston.

Now we'll see some big design changes!

cIclops · 2008-03-25 11:59:34

Expanding for the 10m shroud - Posted by Rob Coppinger on March 25, 2008

(notes from 20 March interview with Altair project office deputy manager, Clint Dorris)

NASA received more than 30 proposals for the lander study. Industry should provide their own concepts. We’re onto next design cycle, LDAC-2 for safety features. The minimum functionality lander [already arrived at] may not have global capability.
Altair project is embracing the [Ares V cargo launch vehicle] 10m shroud for the lander, the primary impact being on structures, we can widen and squat the descent module. Doesn’t change subsystems but gets the deck closer to the surface.
Biggest challenge is getting the payload to the moon. We are justifying every functionality and system we add so we do not have to strip down the design later and then buy back functions.
We think it could drive a different safety paradigm, where you don’t assume that two tolerance means its safe.
The Lunar Architecture Team's (LAT) work will impact LDAC-2.
Our design can be indifferent to that [what cargo demands LAT needs]. If we are maximising that capability then we are giving them everything we can with the lander configuration that meets three missions, sortie, outpost and cargo.
The cargo lander has 14,000kg capability to the surface right now, so the regolith mover or the habitats have to fit that 14,000kg.
The [contract winning] companies have been given a one page lander requirements document. It is what the Altair project office team had at the beginning.
Industry is out of phase by one cycle but they are going to evaluate LDAC-1 and propose changes while project office is working on LDAC-2, which is to add safety features to the lander.
We want a scalable, point of departure design to be the outcome of LDAC-2 and industry input.
Dorris didn’t recall the JSC/MSFC Phase b cost estimate. The project office asked JSC and MSFC engineering for pre-Phase A, Phase A and Phase B work estimates, along then lines of how NASA has always done business.
The lander is exclusively a US responsibility but there has been interest from European companies.
We have looked at a drop stage. So have some of our industrial partners. [Boeing has and one of its designs is the embedded image in this posting.]
“Concept I’ve seen more frequently [from industry] is it [the drop tank] would perform [Lunar orbit insertion] burn and then it would drop off. It’s not complete ruled out.”
But when you get to a detailed design they tend to see the drop tank dropped.
Although the study announcement asked how would companies perform the work, during some conversations with industry some wanted to bring drop tank to the table.
Apollo Sages – it has been fantastic. I would like an independent technical assessment by the government and contractor sages. We had a question and answer session with three to four Apollo astronauts. None of them were present at the design review stage.
We are addressing the LOX/LH2 boil off issue. Amount of [Earth orbit] loiter time affects whether it is a problem or not. Looking at a similar mechanism to Ares V EDS, a passive capability, it is still in the trade zone.
Landing areas and scavenging hydrogen issues are in the trade space for surface systems people.

RedStreak · 2008-03-25 14:56:55

A good idea to expend the shroud to maximize capabiliy, and they explained how that gives worthwhile implications here:

...the primary impact being on structures, we can widen and squat the descent module. Doesn’t change subsystems but gets the deck closer to the surface.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2008-03-07 11:51:58

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#102 2008-03-07 12:12:30

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#103 2008-03-07 12:19:34

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#104 2008-03-07 12:38:00

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#105 2008-03-07 12:40:47

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#106 2008-03-07 15:20:38

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#107 2008-03-07 15:28:19

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#108 2008-03-07 15:34:17

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#109 2008-03-07 15:37:12

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#110 2008-03-07 15:51:51

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#111 2008-03-07 15:52:47

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#112 2008-03-07 16:02:14

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#113 2008-03-07 16:21:42

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#114 2008-03-07 16:27:45

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#115 2008-03-07 20:26:09

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#116 2008-03-10 07:32:22

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#117 2008-03-10 19:26:12

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#118 2008-03-10 21:25:54

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#119 2008-03-11 01:29:16

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#120 2008-03-11 08:40:11

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#121 2008-03-11 08:46:03

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#122 2008-03-11 21:28:46

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#123 2008-03-17 16:53:12

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#124 2008-03-25 11:59:34

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#125 2008-03-25 14:56:55

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

Board footer