Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and - return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?

SpaceNut · 2004-09-27 06:47:37

Question for CEV, Can one vehicle design do all or must we have different vehicles for all or could we plan for the future use that it may be put to in order to make a universal unit.

The end goal is Mars with the moon as a stepping stone or practice site. Why not design as if we where going to mars, working out all details as we go now rather than later for the journey.

Landing on the Moon or Mars is a problem since we will need a vehicle capable of the down mass to surface but also be capable of return to orbit.

Now on the note of the lunar lander, If I recall the LEM was a Vertical landing Vertical take off, but was a two stage. Could this be done as a single stage if fuel tanks are replenished?

On the other side of the coin we have only done the simple heat shield with parachute anding in bouncing bag ball trick.
Mars will require a new method.

Thought from previous posted under the moon direct before:

Another thought I am having is to make the Mars Lander and Earth re-entry vehicle one in the same, also reusuable. Make the unit a biconal design much like a stretch klipper but rather than wheels to land on a runway. Lets glide from orbit using the well known spiral method but finish it off with a banking to climb manuver, where at the top of the glide up the cone would release with drone parachutes openning for a verticle landing using the landing engine and legs much like on the lunar surface for both the Earth and for Mars future ships.

Design the ship fuel tanks for a single stage to orbit for mars since that would also be more than adequate for the lunar surface since both would be basically empty. Design the universal lander for a down mass size for the mars mission using the glide, parachute and verticle landing. Unit left in orbit could carry the needed fuel for Mars return, plus food and water.

What that means is the section left in orbit for the moon is smaller than that of the one for the Mars mission.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-28 06:07:15

Something like the Roton and a few other such designs.

clark · 2004-09-28 06:22:40

CEV is not about Mars. It is not about the Moon. It's about everything.

It's the beyond. By planning for 'just' Mars as your end goal you end up constraining yourself for the day after Mars.

Look around, there is much more than a red star going back and forth in the sky.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-28 07:19:17

Question for CEV, Can one vehicle design do all or must we have different vehicles for all or could we plan for the future use that it may be put to in order to make a universal unit.

Yes that is what and why I made note of it in my opening line.

A universal lander, re-entry vehicle and moon, mars to orbit return vehicle, reusuable design from the get go. Rather than a single vehicle design for each seperate item, which I feel is very costly since they would most likely not be design for reusablity.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-28 11:40:36

Link to the old apollo program LM
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apollolm.htm

I believe we only stayed on the moon for a few days in it, but what would it take to make one for a crew of six to stay a month?

Martian Republic · 2004-09-28 14:01:30

Question for CEV, Can one vehicle design do all or must we have different vehicles for all or could we plan for the future use that it may be put to in order to make a universal unit.
Yes that is what and why I made note of it in my opening line.
A universal lander, re-entry vehicle and moon, mars to orbit return vehicle, reusuable design from the get go. Rather than a single vehicle design for each seperate item, which I feel is very costly since they would most likely not be design for reusablity.

As much as it would be nice to have a universal shuttle, it would not be practical to do that. The Earth, Mars and Moon are all different and you would pick different ways to solve you problem for get off or go to those planets or the moon.

On earth you might go to a two stage shuttle to replace the current four piece shuttle, because the Earth has more gravity and thick atmosphere with dual jet air plane/rocket configuration. With the jet air plane part taking the rocket part of the shuttle to hundred thousand feet and releasing it to make the rest of the trip.

On Mars you may design jet air plane/rocket shuttle as all one piece and designed with two types of engines on it to use the Martian atmosphere and the rocket part to send it the rest of the way into orbit.

We may even choose to have two types of shuttle for the Moon too. If we are just going to visit, then we will design it one way and if we got a prominent base on the Moon, we will design another way. If we are just visiting the Moon and there no prominent base, our shuttle will have to be self-contained and be able to land and take off. So it will have to have the capability to do that. But, if we had prominent base on the moon and a dedicated launch sit for our shuttle. We might decide to build a shuttle that is designed to be launched into orbit down a levitated rail system that three or four mile long to get momentum to throw it into space. We would also build three or four mile landing strip to receive the incoming shuttle. We would also be using a levitated system to slow and stop them, but they would still have to come in at the right angle and be able to line up with the landing stripe. So they would still have engines and thrust jets on there shuttle, but most of the heavy work for going into orbit will be done by the launch pad and landing stripe. It cost more to build, but once it in place, it should be maybe 1/10 of the cost of having a fully contained unit that does everything and you don't have to come up with as much fuel either.

So we may pick different solution to solve the same problem. As much as I would like a one solution shuttle fit all, I really don't see it happening. At least until we developed a whole lot further than we are right now, that is. We are kind of stuck with specially engineered shuttle for each of our target sights.

Larry,

Austin Stanley · 2004-09-28 17:45:59

It's not entirely true that we have only done the air-bag thing on mars. Both Viking landers landed sucssefully using mainly rocket engines for lift.

Also, on the thin atmosphere on mars generates so little lift, I do not think wings will be realy practicel there. The wing surfaces would have to be incredibly big, and the plane would have to very fast just to get off of the ground. Given Mar's low gravity, I think a verticle approach is probably the best.

GCNRevenger · 2004-09-28 21:19:17

Air breathing engines/propellars or any kind of lift-effect system on Mars is a non-starter for orbital launch or for lifting signifigant payloads... There simply isn't enough pressure to get and keep you up. Rocket power is the only option for orbital launch or heavy air transport on Mars.

But the air pressure on Mars gives one advantage... less air resistance on trains, which can go much faster on Mars than Earth.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-29 20:16:11

I have been thinking about the old apollo lunar mission and reviewing that hardware.

Basically we had two ships in one launch, cargo equipment plus lunar buggy, supplies, and of course the two parts one that brought us to the moon and back, the other from lunar orbit to the surface and back to lunar orbit. Some would on the mars direct plan feel that seperating these functions into two distinct vehicles for use one launched ahead of the other is the approach to take.

If that were the case put a capsule on a delta for the manned version and use the normal one for the unmanned cargo hauler.. This is not to bad of a trade off if both vehicles use as much common material as possible until you find out that they probably when you factor in the heavy lift making the unmanned vehicle much larger than the maned one. Which then leads to different launch pads for each most likely.

So it would be better to share the rolls of shape as well to help control costs, such that you balance the vehicles structure for both uses. Also if the cargo unit can also land on the lunar surface it then can double as extra habitat or for other uses once empty.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-30 10:53:45

The Documentary on Mars Direct Trailer. (Pages 1 2 )
Based on Zubrin's case for Mars. had the perfect view of what I was trying to describe in my low tech manner.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-30 11:45:39

On the note of cargo vehicles the Dart demonstator is readying for an oct 26 launch. This is not only needed to off load those mission of the shuttle that could be done by an unmanned vehicle but will also be need for the much larger and longer journies to the moon or Mars in the future.

NASA DART Spacecraft Moves One Step Closer to Fall Launch
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15162

Nasa page at Marshall space flight center
http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/dart/

Also get the latest news on other missions from Gravity Probe B, Chandra X-ray Telescope, and more missions of the space center.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-30 11:46:33

I have been thinking about the old apollo lunar mission and reviewing that hardware.
Basically we had two ships in one launch, cargo equipment plus lunar buggy, supplies, and of course the two parts one that brought us to the moon and back, the other from lunar orbit to the surface and back to lunar orbit. Some would on the mars direct plan feel that seperating these functions into two distinct vehicles for use one launched ahead of the other is the approach to take.
If that were the case put a capsule on a delta for the manned version and use the normal one for the unmanned cargo hauler.. This is not to bad of a trade off if both vehicles use as much common material as possible until you find out that they probably when you factor in the heavy lift making the unmanned vehicle much larger than the maned one. Which then leads to different launch pads for each most likely.
So it would be better to share the rolls of shape as well to help control costs, such that you balance the vehicles structure for both uses. Also if the cargo unit can also land on the lunar surface it then can double as extra habitat or for other uses once empty.

If you were going to do that, you would have to have a vary much oversize command module and slight Martian lander and slight bigger and heavier duty buggy on the manned rocket. That because your spending almost a year in the going to and from Mars in the command module and the Martian lander buggy are going to have to last longer and take more abuse than the Apollo equipment did. So your going to have to throw twice to three time as much on that manned rocket going to landing and taking off and coming back to the earth and there no way around it. The second rocket which has to be almost as big as the manned rocket, because it carrying everything else like the habitat, hydroponics garden, scientific equipment, etc. Because, your going to be leaving most of your life support system on your command module so you can make the trip back when you leave Mars. You Martian launder is going to be basically just an down and back up space ship and it doesn't do anything else. So that cargo ship is going to have to have all resources that your going to need for almost a whole year until your ready to go back home. Since the Apollo Mission was only going to the moon and back 7 to 9 day period they didn’t have to worry about a cargo ship. They could pack light and do there thing.

Larry,

SpaceNut · 2004-09-30 11:56:40

But if this is a three ship trio rather than a twosome I think it becomes more plausable with more margin for error or disaster.
But you are right do not over pack...

GCNRevenger · 2004-09-30 13:24:29

So instead of a direct or semidirect flight, you are thinking about an indirect mission with an orbit-to-orbit ship and a lander down to a waiting Mars surface HAB/MAV? No way any of these componets except the lander would fit on a Delta-IV in a single flight, you would need somthing much bigger because of the fuel needed to get to Mars (and back). There are a few issues with this aproach:

1: Relies on accurate landing within relativly short range of the Mars HAB/MAV payload for the crew to survive, unless the lander itself either doubles as a MAV or carries a long-range rover. In MarsDirect/NASA DRM-III, the long-range rover rides with the landing HAB module.

2: The orbital ship must be able to last and carry supplies for at least three years of continuous use, as this would be aproximatly the time it would take to get to Mars and back in the event of having to abort the landing on a free-return course, not just one year coming and going. But unlike MarsDirect or NASA DRM-III, you might have enough fuel for a direct abort to Earth en-route to Mars.

3: Fuel boiloff may be an issue if you cut weight by using liquid hydrogen/oxygen or Hydrogen/Nuclear, or the other way around, weight might be a problem if you bring storable fuels like Kerosene and Peroxide. NASA DRM-III gets around this problem by sending the ERV fully fueled on its own HLLV launch, so that the Mars-bound HAB only needs to carry fuel to get there, not get there and come back on a single launch.

Its not a bad idea, and might wind up being the one we use, but it will probobly be heavier then other mission designs and i'm nervous about relying on the accuracy of the lander.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-01 05:58:05

1 Easily solvable though the contract on steerable parachute and verticle landing thrusters as we have done with the apollo LM for Mars landing. Lunar landing are achievable once relearned by the apollo LM method only from the compound design I have put forth.

Also for Mars if lander is a lifting body design accuracy of glide followed by gentle parachute and thruster landing should hit the target very closely.

second part of making it a space plane is that you can repack the parachute and use the system again for Earth re-entry.

2 The orbit to orbit section of the ship carries the needed fuel for going and return, which are left in orbit at the destination only the lander goes to the surface from each unit.

Since two or more ships go at the same time one manned the other cargo there is more than enough supplies remaining in orbit for when the return process begin. Simply redock with what is left in orbit transfer any needed fuels and supplies from the orbiting peices sending the cargo unit away from the Moon or Mars once empty. Yes redocking may need a space walk to firmly couple the pieces back together and to make any interconnections possible.

Orbit to Orbit section size changes with destination and would carry the extra water for return for crew back to earth.

Benifits to multiple landers manned and unmanned sent at the same time is that once cargo is removed that amount of space can be reused for living area, experiments, green house and more.

Learning lunar-landing lessons
http://www.reed-electronics.com/ednmag....Comment

Martian Republic · 2005-05-23 12:21:28

1 Easily solvable though the contract on steerable parachute and verticle landing thrusters as we have done with the apollo LM for Mars landing. Lunar landing are achievable once relearned by the apollo LM method only from the compound design I have put forth.
Also for Mars if lander is a lifting body design accuracy of glide followed by gentle parachute and thruster landing should hit the target very closely.
second part of making it a space plane is that you can repack the parachute and use the system again for Earth re-entry.
2 The orbit to orbit section of the ship carries the needed fuel for going and return, which are left in orbit at the destination only the lander goes to the surface from each unit.
Since two or more ships go at the same time one manned the other cargo there is more than enough supplies remaining in orbit for when the return process begin. Simply redock with what is left in orbit transfer any needed fuels and supplies from the orbiting peices sending the cargo unit away from the Moon or Mars once empty. Yes redocking may need a space walk to firmly couple the pieces back together and to make any interconnections possible.
Orbit to Orbit section size changes with destination and would carry the extra water for return for crew back to earth.
Benifits to multiple landers manned and unmanned sent at the same time is that once cargo is removed that amount of space can be reused for living area, experiments, green house and more.

Learning lunar-landing lessons
http://www.reed-electronics.com/ednmag/ … ...Comment

We could also choose to assemble them together in space too and just bring it down as one unit. Then once there down unbuckle every thing and set it up. Build our Martian habitat with most of it supplies and have Martian rover on one side and have our return shuttle to orbit on the other side of our habitat, But, we would have to have a fair size platform to work off of, to make something like that to happen though. But, I'm sure we could come up with a solution once we decided we wanted to go to Mars.

Larry,

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-23 13:37:19

(skip)

SpaceNut · 2006-05-05 20:38:43

Sort of seems like Nasa is aiming for a design that will be usable for both the moon and mars from the competition...

X PRIZE Foundation and NASA offer $2.5 million Lunar Lander Challenge; Competition to take place at the 2006 X PRIZE Cup in Las Cruces, New Mexico

The competition is divided into two levels. Level 1 requires a vehicle to take off from a designated launch area, rocket up to 150 feet (50 meters) altitude, then hover for 90 seconds while landing precisely on a landing pad 100 meters away.
The more difficult course, level 2, requires a vehicle to take off from a designated launch area, rocket up to 150 feet (50 meters) altitude, then hover for 180 seconds before landing precisely on a simulated, rocky, lunar surface 100 meters away. For both level 1 and level 2, the vehicle has the option to refuel before conducting the required return level to the original starting point.
The $2.5 million is the total prize purse for the competition. Level 1 will offer $350,000 for first place and $150,000 for second place. Because of its increased difficulty, Level 2 will offer $1.25 million to the winner, $500,000 for second place and $250,000 for third place. If any prize is not won at the 2006 X PRIZE CUP, the leftover purse will can be won the following year.

Lunar lander contest cleared for liftoff; X Prize Foundation, NASA sign agreement on rocket ship fly-offs

The X Prize Foundation will manage the Lunar Lander Challenge on NASA's behalf — with the inaugural contest to be conducted during the X Prize Cup in New Mexico Oct. 18-21.

RedStreak · 2006-05-12 15:03:31

CEV is not about Mars. It is not about the Moon. It's about everything.

That is the supposed concept of the CEV although I suspect NASA bureacratics may garbble it a tad.

Still, at the very least the CEV crew capsule alone could be applied to numerous tasks:

1) A Crew Return Module (Most Obviously) - the component that physically returns a crew back to Terra Firma.

2) Cargo Return Module - I believe NASA was already considering this concept but it may have or might cancel due to tight funding. Basically delivers transportable cargo to Earth (or possibly Mars).

3) Mars/Lunar Ascent Module - from either a Lunar or Martian lander - add a propulsion module add you got a way up.

4) Mars Descent Module (One-way) - Just like the Crew Return Module this could make for a simplied Mars Descent Lander but for safety the astronauts would need a becon to guide toward and flat terrain. Considering they want to land the CEV on land here on Earth why not do the same on Mars once we have something established?

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-12 17:29:13

The landing on Mars should be largely powerd. The air is too thin for parachutes and air bags alone, plus you can survive missing your landing point on Earth but not on Mars.

The Moon also has considerably different acent requirements.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-12 20:25:50

Good to see some new faces and welcome to NewMars RedStreak.

CEV is not about Mars. It is not about the Moon. It's about everything.
That is the supposed concept of the CEV although I suspect NASA bureacratics may garbble it a tad.
Still, at the very least the CEV crew capsule alone could be applied to numerous tasks:
1) A Crew Return Module (Most Obviously) - the component that physically returns a crew back to Terra Firma.

Works ok for Terra Firma but as GCNRevenger notes that it would need to weigh by far less for parachute use on Mars.

2) Cargo Return Module - I believe NASA was already considering this concept but it may have or might cancel due to tight funding. Basically delivers transportable cargo to Earth (or possibly Mars).

Thou we will want to keep the basic shape we would not want to have a heat shield since it has no purpose on a cargo vehicle.

3) Mars/Lunar Ascent Module - from either a Lunar or Martian lander - add a propulsion module add you got a way up.
4) Mars Descent Module (One-way) - Just like the Crew Return Module this could make for a simplied Mars Descent Lander but for safety the astronauts would need a becon to guide toward and flat terrain. Considering they want to land the CEV on land here on Earth why not do the same on Mars once we have something established?

Mars still requires a heat shield which would need to be removeable so as to allow for rocket engines to be fired. Lunar requires no such heat removal.

SpaceNut · 2007-05-31 08:17:52

The possibility of making use of the Orion plus a methane SM, I have been kicking around for a piece of what would be intergrated on orbit with a mars descent hydrogen, insitu processing stage to form the MAV. Why carry the Orion capsule all the way from Earth to Mars if it is just dead weight until you need it for earth re-entry. Why not try to make use of it in some way as you go.

If the ideal crew size is 6 for a mission to mars but for long stays you need more space and supplies when using the capsule, why not then use the Orion with the capability to seat 3 on launch but allow for them to seat 6 once on return from mars. This allows for an additional Mav less seats to be made use of for later missions should there be any issue with one of the MAV units.

The benifit of this is that you gain a methane production foot hold with the unit left behind on Mars for the next crew.

SpaceNut · 2024-03-17 16:58:33

It was then which I did realize we had a problem with landing on the return trip from Mars as well as landing a sizable payload on mars due to the extreme atmospheric differences.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-09-27 06:47:37

Re: Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and - return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?

#2 2004-09-28 06:07:15

Re: Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and - return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?

#3 2004-09-28 06:22:40

Re: Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and - return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?

#4 2004-09-28 07:19:17

Re: Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and - return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?

#5 2004-09-28 11:40:36

Re: Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and - return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?

#6 2004-09-28 14:01:30

Re: Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and - return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?

#7 2004-09-28 17:45:59

Re: Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and - return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?

#8 2004-09-28 21:19:17

Re: Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and - return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?

#9 2004-09-29 20:16:11

Re: Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and - return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?

#10 2004-09-30 10:53:45

Re: Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and - return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?

#11 2004-09-30 11:45:39

Re: Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and - return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?

#12 2004-09-30 11:46:33

Re: Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and - return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?

#13 2004-09-30 11:56:40

Re: Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and - return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?

#14 2004-09-30 13:24:29

Re: Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and - return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?

#15 2004-10-01 05:58:05

Re: Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and - return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?

#16 2005-05-23 12:21:28

Re: Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and - return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?

#17 2005-05-23 13:37:19

Re: Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and - return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?

#18 2006-05-05 20:38:43

Re: Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and - return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?

#19 2006-05-12 15:03:31

Re: Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and - return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?

#20 2006-05-12 17:29:13

Re: Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and - return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?

#21 2006-05-12 20:25:50

Re: Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and - return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?

#22 2007-05-31 08:17:52

Re: Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and - return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?

#23 2024-03-17 16:58:33

Re: Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and - return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?

Board footer