Need Lunar Lander Ideas

[bpfeifer]

I’m working on a card game, and I need a couple of methods to land astronauts on the Moon. The concepts can be slightly silly. I’ve already got an Apollo Style LeM, and an airbag based lander. Any other suggestions? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[tohaki]

How about a one man open lander jet pack/"chair"? I believe it has been suggested on this forum before.

 

[henryhallam]

There's no atmosphere on the Moon so you can't use aerobraking. But maybe lithobraking? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[christine16]

lol <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> chair landing

 

[lampblack]

Bungee cords dangling from the command module? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[lampblack]

A really long ladder? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

[silly idea]<br />A 'wheel' lander. This'll be rough without drawing a picture, but I'll give it a shot. Think somthing akin to the MER landing concept except with rolling rather than bouncing. The landing module is at the hub of a wheel with inflatable airbag 'treads'. The module spins freely (i.e. independently of the outer 'wheel') and is weighted such that 'down' is always down. On insertion, retros are fired just enough to lower the orbit into an arc that will touch down at a relatively flat location. When the lander touches down (still with a high forward acceleration), there will likely be a couple of bounces, but then the 'wheel' will begin rolling, eventually slowing to a stop from friction.<br /><br />Mind you -- not the most precise of landing methods...<br />[/silly idea]<br />

 

[lampblack]

Lithobraking would be rather abrupt. But it <i>would</i> bring the spacecraft to a complete stop pretty dog-goned effectively. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

OUCH!<br /><br />That's going to leave a mark <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[elguapoguano]

I like the really long ladder idea. Talk about a stairway to heaven :>) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

I've given this some reasonably serious thought. Even silly ideas are simply too unreasonable. There's just too much energy to scrub off. It's the reverse problem of a lunar railgun launch system. If you have a railgun launcher on the moon that accelerates cargos at 10G -- it will take ~17 seconds to reach a velocity for a minimum lunar orbit (~1.7 km/sec). The *distance* required for that 17 seconds of railgun acceleration at 10G is about 14 kilometers.<br /><br />This applies in reverse. If you have an object coming to the surface of the moon with a velocity on a similar order as the minimum lunar orbital velocity, then it would take about that distance at 10G to scrub off the velocity. All of the ideas I'm coming up with don't have anough distance to scrub off a reasonable portion of the orbital velocity. To work, most of the velocity would still have to be removed by thrusters... a large enough percentage that the added complexity of the end system simply isn't reasonable (even by the silliest of standards). <br /><br />Mind you -- the wheel would still work... in theory... since it has no distance limitation. If it only decelerates at 1/2 G, the wheel would roll ~294 kilometers... but it <b>could</b> roll that far. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[lampblack]

How 'bout a big ol' cushioning pile of plastic bubble wrap 14 km high? Heck, it'd beat lithobraking.<br /><br />They could get it there in a compressed form on one of those Ares V 18-wheelers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[kane007]

Wrap the astronauts in aerogel like Stardust, and let that take the impact and energy!

 

[bobw]

You could land them with a tether from a skycrane like the Mars Science Laboratory mission is going to do.<br /><br />Crane in Action<br /><br />Close-up of Crane <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Since it's for a game and some impracticality (?) is allowed ... why not use mrmorris' idea. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"><i>"It's the reverse problem of a lunar railgun launch system. If you have a railgun launcher on the moon that accelerates cargos at 10G -- it will take ~17 seconds to reach a velocity for a minimum lunar orbit (~1.7 km/sec). The *distance* required for that 17 seconds of railgun acceleration at 10G is about 14 kilometers. <br /><br />This applies in reverse. If you have an object coming to the surface of the moon with a velocity on a similar order as the minimum lunar orbital velocity, then it would take about that distance at 10G to scrub off the velocity."</i></font><br /><br />Sounds good to me, make a reverse railgun and land on/in it ! Imagine some really big hoops making humungous magnetic feilds. The incoming lander has to hit the first hoop near the center and on the proper trajectory. The remainder then bend the trajectory and slow the lander. Might be somewhat scary entering lunar orbit only a small distance above the surface but hey ... it's only a game. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Only 2 (ha !) problems I can't quite get around. First a lander, made of some conductive metal, moving through large magentic feilds may not be such a good thing for the electronics inside. Second making the lander sufficiently "magnetic" to react to the fixed lunar feilds w/o adding so much weight it would never work. Could some pre-landing mate-up be done, like a reverse sabot ? Just some musings ... <br /><br />ps - I imagine they'll have to be some use of chemical retro-rockets to fine tune the entry trajectory and velocity.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[bobw]

That one should be worth at least a thousand points <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bpfeifer]

Thanks guys! I knew I could count on you. I’ll probably add the rocket-chair, which I had forgotten about, and the bungee.<br /><br />I still need one more booster second stage. So far I have a traditional “big dumb booster” (think Saturn II/B) second stage, a laser booster, and a hyper-x style scramjet. Any suggestions?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[lampblack]

A huge, two-story-tall corked bottle (with the corked opening facing aft).<br /><br />Load up that bad boy with diet Coca-Cola. Have NASA's finest craft a Mentos injection device.<br /><br />Crank it up, get the Mentos to flowing, remove the cork -- and voila.<br /><br />To the moon, Alice! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[davf]

How about using a non-nuclear pulse engine? <br /><br />If you want to get really wild, how about some degree of electrogrativics?<br /><br />Another thought: how about some sort of magneto-hydrodynamic system where the field is used to accelerate small amounts of propellant to extremely high velocities... kind of like ion-propulsion on stearoids. After landing, the power supply could be used to power the 'buildings' landed as part of a larger base for exploration.<br /><br />And if you wanted to get really silly, how about the holy grail of some kind of system that violates the second law of thermodynamics? A 'subspace momentum manipulator'? <br /><br />Oh, one more: how about they get shrunk down to 'Fantastic Voyage' sizes and landed that way using a miniscule amount of propellant... and they then subsequently grow back to normal size afterwards. LOL! <br /><br />Geez, I need another beer...

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<font color="yellow"><i>"I still need one more booster second stage. So far I have a traditional “big dumb booster” (think Saturn II/B) second stage, a laser booster, and a hyper-x style scramjet. Any suggestions? "</i></font><br /><br />Does it really have to be a booster or just perform the same function ? If the latter why not a rotovator for a second stage? It's even been discussed in this very forum. Plus it's just plain kewl. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[webtaz99]

Put the astronaut in a phone booth, and tell him to step out just before it hits the ground. <br /><br />It'll work; I saw it on TV. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...and the bungee"</font><br /><br />I know you weren't excluding 'silly', but you <b>do</b> realize that orbit isn't about altitude, but about velocity... right? <br /><br />You have a command module orbiting the moon at 1.8 km/sec. It lowers a lander to the surface (we'll ignore the mass and tensile strength problems of a 30km bungee as well as problems with differences in angular velocity). The lander will *still* be at the same velocity as the CM when it gets to the ground... 1.8 km/sec or ~4,000 miles/hour if you prefer. What a ride! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[barrykirk]

What about a giant anchor that lithobrakes on the moon<br />attached to a tether on a reel that slows down the actual lander?

 

[bpfeifer]

"I know you weren't excluding 'silly', but you do realize that orbit isn't about altitude, but about velocity... right?"<br /><br />Sure, but I was thinking about something like the skycrane, but with a bungee instead of the tether. It's still rediculous, but only slightly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

I know this is silly, but the image of a Giant Catchers Mitt keeps popping into my mind.<br /><br />Told you it was silly! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>