New info on LSAM, ascent stage engine switched to hydrogen?

[gunsandrockets]

"While these designs are the most-obvious solutions, it looks like they just put the capsule in orbit, made the Hab bigger and added an engine. From viewgraph to viewgraph, they can just keep recycling. Some of the trade studies last year were really innovative, instead the presentations NASA gives on VSE look like they ignore that advice."<br /><br />The various proposals put forth by the aerospace companies that NASA rejected would have been more efficient in sending men to the moon than the NASA plan. But as much as I am myself a critic of the NASA plans and it's reliance on a Heavy Lift Booster, I admit the NASA plan has a unique virtue non of the other plans possessed: the ability to land very heavy cargos on the lunar surface. That's why the NASA plan has a jumbo sized Lunar Surface Access Module which in turn requires a jumbo sized Earth Departure Stage which in turn requires a jumbo sized Heavy Lift Vehicle.

 

[digitalman2]

Thanks for filling in the forgotten details! I would be kinda worried about the safety of the suit even if it's unused over time since it would be exposed to potential damage. But it's an interesting idea.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Air and Space is a great magazine to kill time with at the barbershop, (especially the unique photos,) but it is NOT a primary source for aerospace news."<br /><br />In the absence of anything better or more recent, it will have to do for now. <br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

Well well well, looks like Lockheed-Martin is thinking along lines...<br /><br /><br />http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/get-attachment-big.asp?action=view&attachmentid=12680<br /><br /><br />...similar to what I posted here five months ago...<br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=478523&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0<br />

 

[docm]

The weakness LM4 vs. LM2 is that it has less cargo capability. The LM2 has rather generous cargo paletts on either side of the descent stage under the solar panels. I see no such capability for LM4's lander post jettison of the descent stage, and little in the way of changing the situation because of its short length. Can't put 'em on the descent stage anymore 'cause folks, it's gonna crash.<br /><br />Maybe what they really need <i><b>is</b></i> the Eagle, or something very much like it. Sometimes the TV/movie guys do have decent ideas.<br /><br />Build it rough & tough with round trip sized tanks and the ability to sit in a parking orbit. Refuel them either from Earth or by cooking lunar soil, I don't care. The bottom line is that building a reusable lunar shuttle along those lines makes a lot of sense. <br /><br />It would also be a good experience getting ready for a Mars shuttle, which you really could cook mass quantities of fuel for.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nibb31]

The ESA mission profiles studied by Alenia that were posted by carp a while have just that. Strangely, there weren't many comments at the time:<br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=519417&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1

 

[docm]

That lander looks more like the jump-ships from Starship Troopers. <br /><br />Also: about half the images on that thread are no longer at the hosting site. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

[Air and Space is a great magazine to kill time with at the barbershop, (especially the unique photos,) but it is NOT a primary source for aerospace news.]<br /><br />Aha! New supporting evidence for a hydrogen fuelled lunar ascent stage...<br /><br />"The current placeholder ESAS design for a LSAM used 4 RL-10 engines in the descent stage and now uses 1 RL-10 in the ascent stage."<br /><br />...from this article...<br /><br />http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5063 <br /><br /><br />