Lockheed Martin reveal their three Lunar Lander Concepts

[subzero788]

"Neither Optus nor Telstra work. It's not just 'one' aussie ISP, it's 85% of Australia."<br /><br />Well I have Optus and while I used to have problems accessing the site, a couple of months ago it miraculously started working. Have you tried recently?

 

[spacefire]

I like this lander (the first concept). It shows promise for a lunar base. If it is adopted, I might start liking this VSE. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

For the purposes of this discussion, that counts as fuel. Besides, with some hypergolic combinations, can you say which is the "fuel" and the "oxidizer"? <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>

 

[PistolPete]

Actually you can, it's called chemistry.<br /><br />Nitrogen Tetroxide (N2O4) is the oxidizer (hence the O4 part of N2O4) and Unsymmetrical Dimethylhydrazine ((CH3)2NNH2) is the fuel (hence the (CH3)2 and H2 parts of ((CH3)2NNH2)). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

That is just one combination. There are many others. During WWII, the Germans had several -- most highly posinous. <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>

 

[soyuztma]

Lockheed Martin has put the presentation on their website: Lunar Lander Configurations Incorporating Accessibility, Mobility, and Centaur Cryogenic Propulsion Experience<br /> There are some other interesting documents on there website: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=17607&rsbci=14917&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400, including a brochure wich promotes the use of the Atlas V for space tourism: Space tourism. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[henryhallam]

<font color="yellow"><br />Actually you can, it's called chemistry. </font><br /><br />You can even have an oxidiser which doesn't contain any oxygen atoms, though they tend to be a bit esoteric, e.g. liquid fluorine.<br /><br />"OILRIG - Oxidation Is Loss, Reduction Is Gain (of electrons)".

 

[ldyaidan]

"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 />Agreed. I see smaller vehicles to go to/from earth/moon/mars to their respective orbital facility, where people/cargo can be transferred to larger ships for the longer trip. I know that there will initially be more expense in having to design the different types of ships, but ultimately I think it will be worthwhile. <br /><br />Rae<br />

 

[ldyaidan]

"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 />Would these be able to be recycled in any way? Even if they are melted down and made into other things? Seems anything that we can re-use will save money in having to launch the materials. If so, maybe one of the things we should consider is a robotic station that recycles this "junkyard" stuff into usable items, so they are ready to start assembly when we get there. This would probably need to consist of a smelting facility and machine shop. Would also already been in place when we start mining resources directly from the moon.<br /><br /><br />Rae

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Would these be able to be recycled in any way? Even if they are melted down and made into other things? "</font><br /><br />It's hard enough trying to recycle used goods into raw materials and then back into new goods here on Earth. The degree of complexity and automation such a factory would require makes it extremely unlikely for recylcing at that level to happen on the moon for decades.<br /><br />What is much more likely (although I doubt it will happen in the earlier stages of this program) would be landers with component parts that can be broken down and reused for compatible purposes at a moon base. Some examples might include:<br /><br />-- Li-Ion batteries that were drained on descent could be removed and added to the base power center.<br /><br />-- If LH/LOX engines are ever used for landers (as opposed to hypergolics that will probably be used initially) -- tanks that were drained on descent could be removed and reused. LOX tanks would obviously be ideal for storage if LUNOX ever happens. LH tanks should be hunky-dory for use in storing reclaimed water. <br /><br />-- Trusses & other connecting elements could be disassembled and used to build support structures required for the base.<br /><br /> Anything that can't simply be disassembled and reused in this fashion likely won't be for quite some time.

 

[j05h]

With such long daylight periods, the Lunar surface could support solar foundries. This is probably further in the future than VSE, but any metal parts could be slagged and extruded into truss components fairly simply. After a lander is stripped of useful engines, tankage, etc, it is crushed and fed into the foundry, then extruded. Crushing is accomplished by either a big slab of lunar concrete (used to store energy like a hydrraulic dam) or via nuclear bulldozer. Again, not for the first few landings. <br /><br />How about a self-disassembling lander? Sort of a design-for-dismantling vehicle? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Getting back to the original point, I really like the dual axis concept of the first two designs as it keeps the cargo and crew close to the ground making operations much easier. Wheels on the lander are also great, although i think the ones shown are far too small for the purpose.<br /><br />I also really like the idea in the first lander of using the spent LH2 and LOX as reactants for fuel cells, allowing for overnight stays without the complications of nuclear reactors or Stirling egine RTGs.<br /><br />Using a retrostage (second example) is, I understand, highly efficient, although it eliminates the availability of using tankage and residual propellants on the Lunar surface. I suppose it also raises issues of repeat landings to similar locations. You would not want a spent stage crashing on top of previously positioned hardware.<br /><br />I wonder if these two concepts are evolutionary? the retrostage version stage virst, followed by the larger lander, and then perhaps specialised cargo versions?<br /><br />The thirs example, the SSTO is, like all such ideas, seductive in its elegance. But it has severe problems from an operationals perspective - the crew is very high, requirng special acess facilities, and it requires orbital and/or surface refueling. All these imply extensive space infrastructure. But a great idea for a decade or two down the track after the return to the Moon.<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>

 

[impulse]

Version 1 is the one that I (as the designer) really favor. Version 2 and Version 3 were departures to explore consequences of alternate requirements. The vehicle shown is VERY weight competitive and can effectively control LH2 and LO2 boiloff to permit extended orbital durations either in LLO or LEO. <br /><br />The original design used LH2/LO2 lateral thrusters but we were concerned that since those machines do not presently exist that the whole thing would be rejected without further understanding. So the intent is that you can start with a 293sec Isp biprop system ( which is pretty crummy even for a biprop) and upgrade to a 440 sec Isp LO2/LH2 system as the hardware becomes available. <br /><br /> In that all-LH2/LO2 design you liftoff (from earth) with the Ascender propellant tanks totally empty. Hence they do not have to have long duration thermal provisions- reducing mass. Also the Ascender structure will be driven by having to react 3-5 G's with full tanks during ascent to LEO. If you get rid of that requirement mass will shrink a lot. You load propellants into the Descender which has all the fancy thermal stuff. When you are finally ready to head to the surface you rapid load the Ascender and GO. WHen you get to the surface you put them back in the descender for thermal stasis. Repeat when ready to ascend to orbit.<br /><br />It is important to note that we did not design on the "edge". We assumed low or presently demonstrated Isp's (450 for the RL-10) , used high delta V numbers for all the burns, practical boiloff rates (no ZBO or even close) and deliberately extended hover time to create a flyable machine. We don't have to throttle the RL-10 or run it at weird MR's. The original design had twin RL-10's operated at 50% throttle- in this way you can suffer a shutdown and still hit a specific lunar landing site by throttling up the operational engine to 100% so that the propellant depletion profile remains identical. However to avoid distracting c

 

[j05h]

Impulse- Thank you for posting! These kind of designs are achievable and flyable. I'll buy 3 in a couple decades, please! When I saw the picture of the #1 lander, I immediately thought it looked helicopter-like in flight profile, especially placement of landing thrusters and all the glass in the cockpit. Cool stuff you've cooked up there. Modular, reusable, upgradable spacecraft are all things we've been calling for. If you can make a buck building that kind of hardware, more power to you. Great details on the variants. <br /><br />I'd like to point out that Lunar use of External Tanks (if you can get them there) makes more sense than LEO usage. The popcorning foam doesn't matter because it will settle, and if you can bury it fast enough it'll be a nicely insulated space. Maybe the last couple Shuttles can bring their tanks into orbit.<br /><br />Jon- he answered everything I could have and a lot more. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Wow! We are honoured to have you with us! Thank you very much for sharing your experience and we look forward to further insights in due course.<br /><br />Best wishes and the best of luck.<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>

 

[tplank]

I'd like to add my thanks. It is good to know that their are passionate people involved in these pursuits. I think if the passionate folks were more front and center, there would be a lot more public support. Ultimately, hard work and reason makes it happen, but passion, if nurtured and not stifled, advances those efforts to something of extraordinary excellence. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>The Disenfranchised Curmudgeon</p><p>http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </p> </div>

 

[impulse]

The landers are just a part of an entire architecture which was envisioned to be buildable within less than 6 years. The key is the reuse of elements so that you don't have to redesign and redesign endlessly. Modularity is not some sort of option- it is MANDATORY for serious exploration. <br /><br />A complete lunar and Mars architecture from the launchers to the landers can be done far less expensively and far faster than the present course. I'll attach a file on a subsequent post that outlines the architecture so you guys can check it out. Any feedback would be quite welcome. It too is just to get folks thinking about alternatives to the present ESAS concepts which are rather self-limiting. Not that they won't work- just that they are somewhat of a dead-end.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"I'll attach a file on a subsequent post that outlines the architecture so you guys can check it out. Any feedback would be quite welcome. "<br /><br />Welcome the space.com forum boards! And thank you for sharing all the extra detailed information which is not availble online. The LH2/LOX propellant dual-axis-thrust lander information was fascinating.<br /><br />I look forward to seeing your alternative architectures. Does it include the original 'pie-wedge' lifting-body Crew Module? From the publicly available info my best guess is that the 'pie-wedge' uses a parallel architecture scheme; the manned lifting body with the attached Mission Module is sent to the moon by itself and first links up the lunar-lander in low-lunar-orbit, unlike the ESAS plan which links up the CEV and LSAM in LEO and uses a single Earth Departure Stage to send them to the moon. <br /><br />

 

[JonClarke]

I have a couple of questions, ifi may. the off axis concept lends it slef to a whole family of vehicles, including such as cargo carriers, and habitat modules. Have these been considered in any detail as yet?<br /><br />I would also be interested in the rationale for the 9-foot ceilings. I assume this is because of low lunar gravity. But has any experimental work being done to justify this height?<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>

 

[j05h]

> I would also be interested in the rationale for the 9-foot ceilings. I assume this is because of low lunar gravity. But has any experimental work being done to justify this height? <br /><br />Bunk beds/stacked berths. Also, height is an easier addition than width in the #3 Impulse describes. 9 foot ceilings would provide a lot of mental "room" for inhabitants that 7ft ceilings won't. It's a lot harder to feel claustrophobic or lesser, room-induced stresses when you're under a taller roof. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[scottb50]

One problem I have is having descender and ascender stages. I would think it much simpler to have a single vehicle that can do both. Propellant could be stored long term at the lunar base and tankered to LLO from LEO. Enroute from LEO and on the moon, Solar power could provide more than enough electricity to store LH2 and LOX for extended periods. <br /><br />With this idea propellant could be transfered to the moon in tanks that are then re-used to build and expand the facilities. The key, I think, is basing the vehicle on the moon, not carrying it back and forth and leaving a big part of it on the moon with little idea of what to do with it.<br /><br />What I see is a fairly simple platform with either two or four RL-10 engines, a manifold splits the thrust into two nozzles on each side, from either one or two engines, to provide the maneuverability you are talking about. Payloads attach to the platform and are added and taken off as needed.<br /><br />What I see is a mobile platform on the moon that rolls out on tracks from a pressurized hanger. The vehicle is serviced and loaded, or unloaded in a shirt-sleeve environment, the doors are opened and the platform rolls out to the launch position for takeoff to LLO. Inbound Landers maneuver to a landing on the platform and the platform rolls into the hanger. Helicopters do this every day. <br /><br />It would be a lot more effective to transport replacement parts then the entire vehicle to LLO every time you go. If we must use capsules for direct re-entry, and not go from LEO to LLO and back it still saves leaving the descender stage sitting in a lunar parking lot and the ascender burning up in the atmosphere evry mission. What is saved there might even be enough to consider going from the surface to LEO in a dedicated vehicle, or vehicles, LEO to LMO and back to LEO in a Cycler Vehicle and the lunar surface LLO and back to the surface in a dedicated vehicle. It seems to me it would be cheaper to transport propellant, rathe <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

That is why I keep suggesting that we make propellants from the regolith. You then send your lander there unmanned with just enough fuel to land safely. It then refuels and returns to orbit once the crew has arrived. Upon landing again, it refuels for a second time.<br /><br />The unknowns:<br />*How to get the factory down -- Mostly likely you need a dedicated lander for this. Such landers might also deliver habitat modules and ground vehicles.<br />*Two TLI stages needed -- one for the crew and one for each lander sent. However, this is an investment as the landers would be reusable for some time.<br />*How many flights could each lander make before it has to be replaced?<br /><br />Also, ideally the lander could connect to a habitat somehow. Perhaps the habitat could swing a jetty-like arm over. If nothing else, this lets the crew move from lander to habitat without climbing down to the surface and back up (which might be further than with Apollo-era landers). It might even allow for shirt-sleeve movement and power-fuel tranfers (we want to refuel the lander, remember?) <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>

 

[scottb50]

I think the best bet is to carry the propellant as water from Earth and break it down in LEO and on the moon using solar power. The mechanics of getting it from regolith would take a lot of equipment and machinery that could more easily be carried as water in simple tanks. <br /><br />I think, in the relatively near future, transporting water from the surface is a lot simpler and economical then getting it locally.<br /><br />Also, ideally the lander could connect to a habitat somehow. Perhaps the habitat could swing a jetty-like arm over. If nothing else, this lets the crew move from lander to habitat without climbing down to the surface and back up....<br /><br />When I lived in the Seattle area there was a heliport a couple blocks away. The helicopter landed on a platform and was pushed into a shed that split in half and pushed back together once the helicopter was inside. There is a Burger King next door by the way.<br /><br />You don't need jetways, if that's what you mean. The whole idea would be to have the vehicle in an enclosed, pressurized hanger where it could be serviced and payloads could be unloaded and loaded with minimal complications. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

> The landers are just a part of an entire architecture which was envisioned to be buildable within less than 6 years. The key is the reuse of elements so that you don't have to redesign and redesign endlessly. Modularity is not some sort of option- it is MANDATORY for serious exploration.<br /><br />6 years is a great baseline, especially if it were for a commercial project. It's also within a 2-term presidency if you're talking NASA missions. Importantly, 6 years is 'actionable' - the VSE's 20+ year timeline is fuzzy and lots that can go wrong. Reusing components and elements is great, the only thing I can suggset on that is make the hardware easy to disassemble, preferably even with hand tools. Modularity allows easy upgrades and reuse. The tinker-toy approach works really well for spacecraft. <br /><br />I really like this for the #1 lander: it seems like everything is reused. Once you drag the Descender into position, it becomes moonbase grid, along with everything else it gets reused. Since you describe it as accomodating different RL10 configs, it makes sense that you bring used motors back up from the surface to a LLO facility for outfitting other landers. <br /><br />From your rough numbers for cargo landing, if you disregard bulk, the #1 lander could land 2 "Nautilus" inflatables at a time.<br /><br /> /> A complete lunar and Mars architecture from the launchers to the landers can be done far less expensively and far faster than the present course.<br /><br />Yes it can! The pessimists say we won't (for instance) land on Mars this century, the optimists say maybe 20 years. Human boots can be on Mars in under a decade, but only if there is a compelling reason to go. We'll make it there eventually, barring catastrophy here, the question is how long will it take? The stronger the incentive, the faster we can reach a destination.<br /><br />Please post the rest of the architecture at your leisure. ESAS is self-limiting and any alternative that makes sense needs to be <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>Bunk beds/stacked berths. Also, height is an easier addition than width in the #3 Impulse describes. 9 foot ceilings would provide a lot of mental "room" for inhabitants that 7ft ceilings won't. It's a lot harder to feel claustrophobic or lesser, room-induced stresses when you're under a taller roof.</i><br /><br />It is an awful lot of wasted volume that can't be easily accessed. Which is one reason why houses have 8' ceilings, people can each into top shelves without a ladder. Lower ceilings are even better because you can change light bulbs and other overhead fittings very easily.<br /><br />Seven foor ceilings are only claustrophobic when the interior spaces are wide. In a yacht or caravan they don't feel claustrophobic at all. The wider the interior space the heigher the ceiling. Which is why houses and apartments typically have 8' celings and office spaces migh higher ones.<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>