Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

cIclops · 2006-05-26 02:59:13

25 May 2006: NASA/JSC released LSAM requirements in a RFI solicitation for concept studies.

· Dual rendezvous mission mode (EOR+LOR)
· Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV) Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI) capability from 296 km (160 nmi) circ (assuming 20 mt CEV at TLI):
· Cargo mission (single launch) TLI mass: 53.6 mt
· Low-Impact Docking System (LIDS) docking system
· LSAM performs attitude control and Trajectory Correction Maneuvers)TCMs during trans-lunar coast
· LSAM performs lunar orbit insertion, deorbit, powered descent, hazard avoidance, terminal landing, ascent, and rendezvous.
· CEV remains in 100 km (54 nmi) circular Low Lunar Orbit (LLO)
· 4 crew members for lunar missions
· 500 kg minimum science/technology payload down to lunar surface
· 100 kg minimum payload return from lunar surface to Earth
· Surface airlock
and
· Surface duration - 4 days (minimum) to 180 days

Note that the requiremets for anywhere landing and anytime return are not stated.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-26 19:55:13

I had found the change for the RLEP and then I find this one on NASA JSC Solicitation: Lunar Lander Concept Studies and I am going what?

Once I found the document it is about the LSAM.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) Constellation Program Office (CxPO) is assessing concepts for lunar landers that will deliver crew and cargo to the surface of the moon late in the next decade.

Still there will be many simularities for any lander designed for the moon only the size will change.

cIclops · 2006-06-05 13:50:19

New high resolution graphic (1500x971 pixels) showing the EDS pushing the LSAM and CEV moonwards (423kb)

cIclops · 2006-07-04 11:07:35

LSAM docked with CEV and attached to the EDS. Ripped from Ares V factsheet (PDF 5MB)

The first crewed lunar excursion is scheduled for launch in the 2020 timeframe.

SpaceNut · 2006-07-07 21:10:19

Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne's Common Extensible Cryogenic Engine Demonstrates Propulsion Technologies to Land on the Moon

The CECE is a deep-throttling, 15,000-pound-thrust-class engine fueled by a mixture of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen.
CECE demonstrated an overall "deep throttling" capability of 11.4 to 1, exceeding the test goal of 10 to 1. Deep throttling, or a wide variation of thrust, enables a vehicle to maintain adequate thrust during in-space travel, yet have a controlled descent at its final destination.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2006-07-07 23:54:17

I will be interested to see what the LSAMs Cargo only capabilities end up being once the program gets rolling, because that is going to be where the real progress in the lunar program comes in once we start landing habitats and ISRU equipment on the surface. Also I sort of think that the LSAM requirements are being overblown to make the LSAM a basis for a Mars habitat lander, 4 engines for landing and its size seem to make it suited for an evolutionary upgrade to the eventual Mars program. </knock on wood>

Or maybe it's just me being desperate to find H2M componets in the ESAS report.

cIclops · 2006-07-13 20:07:21

According to this Flight International article NASA is considering using a lander developed by other agencies. This would be the classic way to reduce costs and bring RTTM closer in time.

The US agency is currently discussing a global exploration strategy with other agencies, such as the European Space Agency. Following a workshop in April there is a synthesis team working on an international architecture for exploring the Moon and Mars. NASA is determining what its Constellation programme will do and what international partners can do. “If internationals came up with a lander, that’s good,” said NASA Constellation programme manager, Jeffrey Hanley, speaking last week at the Kennedy Space Center in Orlando, Florida.

Commodore · 2006-07-22 19:13:10

According to this Flight International article NASA is considering using a lander developed by other agencies. This would be the classic way to reduce costs and bring RTTM closer in time.
The US agency is currently discussing a global exploration strategy with other agencies, such as the European Space Agency. Following a workshop in April there is a synthesis team working on an international architecture for exploring the Moon and Mars. NASA is determining what its Constellation programme will do and what international partners can do. “If internationals came up with a lander, that’s good,” said NASA Constellation programme manager, Jeffrey Hanley, speaking last week at the Kennedy Space Center in Orlando, Florida.

Thats a good way to make Congressmen eat you alive.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-22 23:34:04

No Jeffery dear, no... thats bad. ISS bad. European control of critical Lunar hardware bad. International cooperation bad, generally speaking.

RedStreak · 2006-08-01 21:07:19

No Jeffery dear, no... thats bad. ISS bad. European control of critical Lunar hardware bad. International cooperation bad, generally speaking.

I have to agree there, but we should make our equiptment universally compatable. We don't have to rely exlcusively on one nation making this while another makes that, but it'd be handy for a USA CEV to accept the occassional cargo from a ESA ATV or a Russian Progress. Also helpfuly for emergency rescue and what-not.

cIclops · 2006-09-23 03:52:09

One of the three LM Lunar lander concepts

The Lockheed Martin Lunar Lander Configurations (PDF 2MB) document is now online:

This paper describes design principles based on development and operational experience with the Centaur upper stage which can be applied to build practical LO2/LH2 lunar landers. These include the use of a minimum number of large propellant tanks with common bulkheads and thin-wall structure. Consideration has been given to crew and cargo operations on the lunar surface, which drive needs for lander mobility and ease of transfer between the lander cabin or cargo mounts and the ground.

RedStreak · 2006-09-23 12:32:37

They put alot of emphasis on Centaur stage crygenics. Given the 170+ flights they cite their idea for utilizing Centaur engineering doesn't sound too bad at all.

Also using a single tank instead of multiple ones lowers surface area for heat loss so that is also a plus, especially if we're worried over losing liquid hydrogen containment.

Reading more on this page - looks promising so far...

RedStreak · 2006-09-23 15:43:44

After reading through the Lockheed Martin proposals for lunar landers alot of intruiging ideas occur to me and I will definetely be interested in seeing what other potential competitors like Boeing or perhaps the smaller up-and-coming orbital companies (SpaceX as example) suggest.

Concept 1 is definetely Lockheed's poster child of the trio. I think what is initially striking and difficult to initially accept is the horizontal layout. Unless it is winged like the shuttle or the spaceshipone, no spacecraft has had a horizontal landing configuration. Still horizontal is relative, since during spaceflight this LSAM would be as vertical as any other with the docking module fore and the main engine aft. Only during landing itself does it change after the main descent burn with smaller engines taking over largely for maneuving for a softer descent than the Apollo LEM. Despite relying on nitroxides and hydrazine they do emphacise cycling oxygen and nitrogen along with hydrogen and oxygen from the descent stage to create a completely integrated life support and propellant system. Even Mir or Mars Direct didn't have a way to cycle nitrogen whereas the nitroxides, normally envoking a hiss from enthusiasts, provides a source of nitrogren and oxygen not considered at all. The configuration also allows easier egress for both cargo and crew and mobility you couldn't get as easily with a vertical lander.

Concept 2 is essentially a mini-Concept1. The noted difference is the descent stage is jettisoned which solves and creates problems at once, one of the problems being litering the lunar surface and creating a potential threat. This option is the least viable of the three to me but NASA may still consider it.

Concept 3 is something I have been suggesting myself: a single stage, potentially reuseable, LSAM. Lockheed actually suggest this option may be the cheapest suprisingly and for good reason: one set of propellant tanks and engine to handle LOI, descent, and ascent. This in turn minimizes mass and minimizes propellant loss with single tanks instead of multiple ones. The only downside, and this is one I've always noticed myself in futuristic lander designs, is problems with delivering big cargo...namely habitat modules. It is configured as a more "traditional" vertical lander so it would be akin to the LEM moreso than the original VSE version.

Out of the three, I can not help but want to opt for concept 1, namely because it integrates so much into a single module. The descent stage of such a craft alone is a built in propellant tank, solar arrays, fuel cells, thermal control system, and life-support unit in one, and mobile to boot! To a lunar base one of these vehicles is a God-send! Mana from Earth! When a cargo vehicle descends the cargo section (which replaces the ascent obviously) would pop off for whatever need but the descent stage could be wheeled next to the base, switched on, and become part of an entire array of utility modules with plumbing and wiring only nessicary to hook it to the habitats.

However, while I would vote for #1 I would want #3, the SSLSAM (or RLSAM as I'd hope to call it in time), to be set as a back-burner study and eventually a project to replace #1 once the nessicary lunar infrastructure is in place. It is a simpiler lander with its only flaw being lack of a place to put big-honkn' equiptment, but for a reuseable crew vehicle that isn't a priority. #1 should still be utilized in cargo fashion but from then on #3 ought to be the lunar vehicle of choice.

Again both designs are brilliant and would put the VSE a definete step beyond Apollo's legacy. Now we just need to see what any contenders can do.

Commodore · 2006-09-23 22:21:52

I like Consept 1 as well. The Horizontal configuration is an absolute requirement for base building. It delivers a complete reusable, mobile life support package from day one. If deployed with the right gear, each and every mission could lay the cornerstone for a permenent oasis for future explorers. A follow-up mission with the most basic of construction and exploitation gear could provide an endless supply of oxygen to a rad shielded structure. I would suggest an immediate robotic follow up mission to construct a basic lunar brick housing over the deccent module to protect it against prolonged temperature extremes. If designed properly, it could be easily resuppied with smaller Progress style rovers delivering supplys, and then roving around.

cIclops · 2006-09-24 10:45:20

Over on space.com one of the posters there under the name impulse says he's the designer of version 1. He has some interesting comments about version 3:

There is one very cool thing about Version 3 (the vertical guy). The top habitat is just a cockpit- you don't live there. The entire base is a toroidal habitat with rigid ceiling and floor but with fabric sidewalls. You lower it down after touchdown. 9 foot ceilings, similar inflatable airlocks, all utilities in the fixed ceiling. We were afraid to freak folks out with that concept. You get an truly enormous hab that four or more people could live in for an indefinite period without strangling each other. It is heavier though. You can also use that area for bulk cargo delivery- like a decent size rover that is not folded up. In that way not all the cargo has to be in little chunks. You lower the toroidal base on simple come-along-like mechanisms. To visualize the geometry think of a bagel and how they are normally cut.
Version 3 can also be flown to LLO in two modes. You can retract the base habitat ( to permit RL-10 gases to escape) back up and fly the whole thing back to orbit or you can leave the entire hab /landing leg torus on the surface and fly the core back to LLO. Then you can mate that Ascender propulsion core to another base torus with new payloads and fly it back down (after refueling). It is a modular payload delivery system with the payload AFT.

His posts so far are here and here

SpaceNut · 2006-09-24 20:56:07

cIclops, thanks for posting the lander link.

The concept picture 3 posted only has a few short falls in the design.

1 stowed away struts must be higher than an any rocks that might be to high in the landing field and able to stay latched in landing impact if not slowed sufficiently.

2 dead weight of tank not with any propellant in it, possible in accuracy on landing fuel use as well as boil off isue for launch to orbit months later.

The concept 3 is so 1999... sort of like this

With the change from verticle descent to a horizontal landing.

Maybe they could change the engines to something like the above image to be more like a VLVT lander.

I wondered how the concept that drops the descent stage could work when it will need it to ascend to orbit.

RedStreak · 2006-09-24 21:08:18

Maybe they could change the engines to something like the above image to be more like a VLVT lander.

It might be possible but Lockheed's concern was with getting this developed and giving the review boards as few concerns to poke at as possible.

I am not certain about a flaming rocket being swiveled about but the Harrier Jet does blast out hot exhaust too so it isn't inconceivable, but it would definetely need considerable more design than what's been put into the Harrier.

Oh...and so 1999?

Personally to me it reminds me of 2001....a space odessy that is.
Looking at the layout the domed front, its windows, and even the docking port eeriely ressemble Discovery. I suppose that's another reason why I'm warming up to the concept 1 lander.

cIclops · 2006-09-25 00:25:31

So everyone knows what Lockheed Martin's concept 1 lander looks like.

idiom · 2006-09-25 03:21:46

With slightly larger wheels and a bit of ground preperation, you could launch that puppy up the side of a hill.

It looks like the craziest soapbox kart ever

SpaceNut · 2006-09-25 05:57:41

One of the problems I can see happening is when it transision from a verticle landing to horizontal that if there is any motion in the horizontal direction that the vehicle could roll into a rock at the landing site. I think that it will be hard to break in the soft lunar soil.

Commodore · 2006-09-25 06:31:30

Over on space.com one of the posters there under the name impulse says he's the designer of version 1. He has some interesting comments about version 3:
There is one very cool thing about Version 3 (the vertical guy). The top habitat is just a cockpit- you don't live there. The entire base is a toroidal habitat with rigid ceiling and floor but with fabric sidewalls. You lower it down after touchdown. 9 foot ceilings, similar inflatable airlocks, all utilities in the fixed ceiling. We were afraid to freak folks out with that concept. You get an truly enormous hab that four or more people could live in for an indefinite period without strangling each other. It is heavier though. You can also use that area for bulk cargo delivery- like a decent size rover that is not folded up. In that way not all the cargo has to be in little chunks. You lower the toroidal base on simple come-along-like mechanisms. To visualize the geometry think of a bagel and how they are normally cut.
Version 3 can also be flown to LLO in two modes. You can retract the base habitat ( to permit RL-10 gases to escape) back up and fly the whole thing back to orbit or you can leave the entire hab /landing leg torus on the surface and fly the core back to LLO. Then you can mate that Ascender propulsion core to another base torus with new payloads and fly it back down (after refueling). It is a modular payload delivery system with the payload AFT.
His posts so far are here and here

That isn't well described in the document, and offers a tempting alternetive.

SpaceNut · 2006-09-25 09:57:06

Some of this sounds simular to gaetanomarano's proposal in the reuseable lunar lander thread.

Major problem is getting the fuel to the ascent module and it being able to dock to the descent stage that is connected to the EDS when the orion capsule will be in the way unless this is an unmanned cago flight, then why bother with all of this.

SpaceNut · 2006-10-02 20:51:08

We now have a name Artemis for the Orion Moon landerNASA to name moonlander after Greek goddess

SpaceNut · 2006-10-09 18:52:15

Boeing seeks UK lunar ideas

Boeing is inviting UK companies to contribute technologies to NASA’s Constellation space exploration programme. The US giant is looking for technologies in a range of areas including long-term propellant storage, integrated vehicle health management, docking, life support and advanced extra-vehicular activity systems.

RedStreak · 2006-10-09 19:25:34

Gaeto will be squeaking with joy on that UK comment...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-05-26 02:59:13

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#2 2006-05-26 19:55:13

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#3 2006-06-05 13:50:19

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#4 2006-07-04 11:07:35

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#5 2006-07-07 21:10:19

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#6 2006-07-07 23:54:17

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#7 2006-07-13 20:07:21

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#8 2006-07-22 19:13:10

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#9 2006-07-22 23:34:04

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#10 2006-08-01 21:07:19

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#11 2006-09-23 03:52:09

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#12 2006-09-23 12:32:37

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#13 2006-09-23 15:43:44

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#14 2006-09-23 22:21:52

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#15 2006-09-24 10:45:20

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#16 2006-09-24 20:56:07

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#17 2006-09-24 21:08:18

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#18 2006-09-25 00:25:31

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#19 2006-09-25 03:21:46

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#20 2006-09-25 05:57:41

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#21 2006-09-25 06:31:30

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#22 2006-09-25 09:57:06

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#23 2006-10-02 20:51:08

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#24 2006-10-09 18:52:15

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

#25 2006-10-09 19:25:34

Re: Altair - Lunar Lander (LSAM) - status

Board footer