Lockheed Martin reveal their three Lunar Lander Concepts

[jamie_young]

Very Cool!<br /><br />http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4810

 

[j05h]

I read the article this morning, very interesting. At the least, it shows Lockmart is interested in more than just dusting off old viewgraphs. I'm specifically refering to the ESAS LSAM graphic that's been shown around: it's a retread of a 1990s lander. The three landers the article describes include a reusable crew transport and two very well-conceived multirole landers. The 2-axis lander is interesting for both base-building (every unit is a power plant) and exploration (rover/landers) - plus it's designed to have the crew low to the ground, easy access.<br /><br />Good job, LM, please build one! 8) <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Thank you, that looks really cool. I wonder if they are planning to take any BA330 modules any time soon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Those links don't work for me. For some reason I have not been ablre to get onto the nasaspaceflight site for months. Can you post downsized images here?<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[docm]

Is it me or does the LM2 look a lot like a rounded off version of the Eagle transport from Space 1999?<br /><br />http://www.sci-fi.co.uk/ekmps/shops/scifiuk/images/spacestation%5Bekm%5D487x300%5Bekm%5D.jpg<br /><br />Both have a forward cabin, use thrusters on the sides of the airframe for descent/ascent, stow cargo amidships and have engines in the rear. The Eagles didn't split off for ascent, but whattheheck.<br /><br />Hmm.....<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[toymaker]

Have you noticed that they added wheels ?<br />I don't recall this concept ever used, even in sf <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> It is interesting.

 

[mattblack]

>>Is it me or does the LM2 look a lot like a rounded off version of the Eagle transport from Space 1999?<<<br /><br />Yep!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

I still can't get onto that dratted website to look at the images but a horizontal lander makes a huge amount of sense from the point of view of what you do after you have landed. It is much easier to enter and egrees, to load and unload, and, if fitted with wheels, to move about on the surface. If the module is fitted out as a habitat module there are a number of advanatges from working out a viable internal layout as well.<br /><br />A colleague and I chose the configuration for a Mars surface mission here for these reasons.<br /><br />And yes, the Eagles from Space 1999 were cool! they always reminded me of the Skycrane helicopter concepts from Sikorsky and Mil.<br /><br />Jon<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Hi John -<br /><br />We do seem to have a problem with one Aussie ISP who have a router problem to some US servers. Although that's their problem, we're adding another server next month, so that might sort it.<br /><br />I'll e-mail you the article and images.

 

[JonClarke]

Thanks Chris<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[subzero788]

I'm also an Aussie who used to have trouble getting onto nasaspaceflight (fantastic site by the way!) up until a couple of months ago. Could never figure out why exactly, maybe it was my ISP... anyway the important thing is it works fine for me now, so there's still hope for you Jon!

 

[mithridates]

How about me too? I'm in Korea and I've been getting nothing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[docm]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Toymaker said;<br /><br />Have you noticed that they added wheels ?<br />I don't recall this concept ever used, even in sf It is interesting.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />According to the article this is to permit towing the spent descent stages to a parking area away from a moon base; think lunar junkyard. Otherwise a ring of descent stages would accumulate around the base. <br /><br />Personally I'd like to see a reusable lander that could be put into a parking orbit after ascent & wait for the next mission which would refuel it. This, however, would require a much tougher/simpler kind of engine than whats used now...something that wouldn't deteriorate in the environment. <br /><br />Advanced hybrids maybe? Just replace the propellant 'can' & recharge the oxydizer tank. I'd much prefer a collection of spent solid fuel cans laying around than a collection of whole descent stages. This could also eliminate the need for cryogenics.<br /><br />Also; did anyone catch these quotes in the NSF forum?<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Chris Bergin - NSF Managing Editor<br /><br />We wanted to get this one turned into an article ahead of <b>the massive news next week.</b><br /> /><br />It's not STS related and it's not a public forum thread to refer to at this time. I shouldn't tease<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Hmmm.....<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[toymaker]

Is there any other site where I could see those pictures. The "front" picture of the lander isn't available in large version.

 

[jamie_young]

Lockheed only gave that presentation to that site, but if you ask I'm sure they would put some more images up for you. I'll post a request.

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Personally I'd like to see a reusable lander that could be put into a parking orbit after ascent & wait for the next mission which would refuel it. This, however, would require a much tougher/simpler kind of engine than whats used now...something that wouldn't deteriorate in the environment.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I like the reusable part. However, I think the landers should be single stages that have fuel only for the decent. After landing, a rover that made fuel from lunar regolith would refuel the lander with enough for one round trip. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[baktothemoon]

If we had a second generation vehicle we should have a fully reusable lander, almost a shuttle. For now, I would like to see a one stage version, unlike apollo.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Is it me or does the LM2 look a lot like a rounded off version of the Eagle transport from Space 1999?"<br /><br />Exactly right.

 

[nyarlathotep]

>"We do seem to have a problem with one Aussie ISP who have a router problem to some US servers. Although that's their problem, we're adding another server next month, so that might sort it. "<br /><br />Neither Optus nor Telstra work. It's not just 'one' aussie ISP, it's 85% of Australia.<br /><br />Also, it's not their problem. You're the one losing L2 subscriptions.

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

"Neither Optus nor Telstra work. It's not just 'one' aussie ISP, it's 85% of Australia."<br /><br />Works fine on my ISP "Internode". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

I know it does, that's the ISP I used to cancel my L2 subscription. <br /><br />Unfortunately I live in the 60% of innercity areas which although they have a DSLAM at their exchange, can't connect to ADSL because of line attenuation over a measley 3500m of Telstra's antique copper. That leaves the cable olligopoly as my only choices.

 

[scottb50]

It seems to me if we want to have a base on the moon, rather than repeat the Apollo scenerio, it makes more sense to have a surface based vehicle that leaves the moon rendevous with an orbiting transport and transfers people and cargo.<br /><br />There is no reason anything has to be expendable, especially with the gravity of the moon. A simple re-usable vehicle based on the moon makes he most sense. <br /><br />Water could be launched to lunar orbit by dirt cheap launchers, picked up in lunar orbit and processed on the lunar surface using Solar power. Higher priority payloads and people would use LEO to LMO transports.<br /><br />Where I see a problem is trying to do too many things with one vehicle, reach LEO, go to the moon, go to Mars and return directly to Earth from both is too ambitious, something the Shuttle has shown. What is needed is various vehicles that can go from the surface to LEO, dock to LEO facilities and return to the surface. Next we need vehicles that can go from the LEO facilities to other orbits, to deploy and retrieve autonomous satellites or service manned facilities, and return to LEO facilities. The next stage is vehicles that leave LEO and go to lunar or Martian orbits and return to LEO and finally vehicles that go from the moon to lunar orbit and Mars and Mars orbit.<br /><br />This one size fits all attitude has never worked. Rip out all the lockers and load as much equipment and supplies as you can onto a Shuttle and take it to ISS. Why does a Shuttle have to be capable of two weeks in orbit when it only has to go to the ISS? Other than Hubble, once or twice what else does it need to do? Columbia's mission could have been done at the ISS just as easily, if we know all of what it's mission was. <br /><br />Better to strip Shuttle down and maximize payload, once ISS has enough power and room you don't have to take up crews to install stuff, the ISS crew can do that. ISS completion could be pushed up and Hubble could be refurbished once or twic <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

>"Water could be launched to lunar orbit by dirt cheap launchers, picked up in lunar orbit and processed on the lunar surface using Solar power. Higher priority payloads and people would use LEO to LMO transports. "<br /><br />You'd be better off just launching hydrogen or methane. There's plenty of oxygen on the surface, if not much else. It's a pity those fuel transfer studies were cancelled, isn't it.

 

[no_way]

Wow, i cant believe my eyes .. concept viewgraphs ?? thats just unbelievably amazing. BTW, for all the ISP and routing problems, you can try TOR in cases you cant access a certain site ( http://tor.eff.org/ ) . they have a firefox plugin available that does all the configuration for you.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

"I know it does, that's the ISP I used to cancel my L2 subscription. "<br /><br />Really? We've not had one cancellation since we started it, so that's a "interesting" comment <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />