NASA Lunar Lander

[keermalec]

NASA plans to issue a Request for Proposal for a 6000 lbf thrust LOX/LCH4 restartable engine for its lunar lander:<br /><br />Synopsis from the GRC Business Opportunities site<br /><br />To me this indicates the lander could mass approximately 16 tons on the way down and 8 tons on the way up, if using the same engine both ways. The Apollo lander massed 14.7 tons down and 4.5 up.<br /><br />Considering the indicated target ISP of 355s, useful payload could be approximately 5.8 tons down and 2.9 tons up. The Apollo lander could fery 4.5 tons down and 1.5 tons up.<br /><br />Considering the Apollo lander was designed to carry two astronauts, it is conceivable that the current lunar lander be designed for 4. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy</em></p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

I'm very confident this methane engine is for the ascent stage and not the descent stage of the Lunar Lander.<br /><br />NASA is counting on a high-performance hydrogen engine in the Landers descent stage to provide the kind of high-payload system NASA wants for lunar operations.<br /><br />But this new methane engine belongs in the Orion Service Module as well as the Lunar Ascent Stage. That it isn't is what I find odd.<br /><br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

story update!<br /><br />NASA LDAC-1 Lander<br /><br />payload-shortfall-triggers-nasa-lunar-lander-redesign.html

 

[keermalec]

From the look of that 3d rendering, the lunar lander team at NASA isn't very close to finalizing their design...<br /><br />Interesting that they have come to consider LOX/LH for descent and LOX/LCH4 for ascent. I remmember our discussion, gunsandrockets, and the fact that LOX/LCH4 is the better propellant wrt to dry mass, while LOX/LH2 is better wrt wet mass.<br /><br />To me that means NASA is planning on producing LOX and LCH4 on the moon... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy</em></p> </div>

 

[webtaz99]

Or that they are being cautious, testing a LOX/CH4 engine for Mars use...<br /><br />It's one thing to be 99.999% sure it'll work, and another to say "this is flight proven hardware". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[solarspot]

Methane also has the advantage of being much easier to store than Hydrogen. Wouldn't that be a good reason to use LOX/CH4 on the ascent stage and/or Orion's service module?