Rocketman Type MMU, For Lunar Exploration

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Personally I agree with the assessment that a vehicle is the way to go.&nbsp; With that you get relatively easy controllability, and the ability to carry a practical cargo load.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Ok Dr. Rocket, you're hired, design us one.&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" />&nbsp;How much money do you need, to design and build a prototype?&nbsp; How does $20,000,000 sound?&nbsp; Is that enough?&nbsp; What other features would be needed for a rocket chair?&nbsp; I can think of:</p><p>1.&nbsp; Flood lights&nbsp;</p><p>2.&nbsp; TV camera</p><p>3.&nbsp; McPherson Struts for the LEM legs</p><p>4.&nbsp; Ground Radar</p><p>5.&nbsp; Altimeter</p><p>6.&nbsp; Ejection seat?</p><p>7.&nbsp; Auto-pilot?</p><p>8.&nbsp;&nbsp;Fuel guage</p><p>9.&nbsp; Speedometer&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Ok Dr. Rocket, you're hired, design us one.&nbsp; &nbsp;How much money do you need, to design and build a prototype?&nbsp; How does $20,000,000 sound?&nbsp;<br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Low<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<p><br />Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">&nbsp;Ok Dr. Rocket, you're hired, design us one.&nbsp; &nbsp;How much money do you need, to design and build a prototype?&nbsp; How does $20,000,000 sound?&nbsp;<br />Posted by kyle_baron</div><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Low</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Considering a complete LEM cost $50,000,000 back in 1968, I don't see how a 1/4 sized, lower (1/2 section) LEM, could cost more than $50,000,000 with infation.&nbsp; The new Altair Lunar Lander is going to be 33% larger than the old LEM.&nbsp; That baby, is going to cost a few dollars!</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Replying to:&nbsp;Ok Dr. Rocket, you're hired, design us one.&nbsp; &nbsp;How much money do you need, to design and build a prototype?&nbsp; How does $20,000,000 sound?&nbsp;Posted by kyle_baron&nbsp;Low&nbsp;Considering a complete LEM cost $50,000,000 back in 1968, I don't see how a 1/4 sized, lower (1/2 section) LEM, could cost more than $50,000,000 with infation.&nbsp; The new Altair Lunar Lander is going to be 33% larger than the old LEM.&nbsp; That baby, is going to cost a few dollars!&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;That is the incremental cost of buying one more LM (not LEM, the "E" was dropped in 1965) . &nbsp; The development and test costs were in the hundreds of millions. &nbsp;</p><p>Just one (1) 1/4 sized, lower (1/2 section) LM is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars in development, testing and production</p>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;&nbsp;Just one (1) 1/4 sized, lower (1/2 section) LM is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars in development, testing and production <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Really?&nbsp; Taking roughly the same technology, and downsizing it, is going to cost the same as developing a full scale 1960's model?&nbsp; I'd hate to see what the new Altair Lander,&nbsp;developement costs are!&nbsp; Can you say Ba, ba, ba, $Billion!</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
K

KosmicHero

Guest
<p>The cost does not have to be this high.&nbsp; First of all, the trail-and-error methods of yesteryear are mostly alleviated with high-fidelity computer modeling.&nbsp; The solid modeling, dynamic load and vibration testing, software development, etc can be done on a desktop in a bored engineer's home office (I'm actually currently doing this since I thought it was such a good idea).&nbsp; Most of the technology is off-the-shelf.&nbsp; The rest is very near term (TRL's of 7 and higher).&nbsp; Building a structure will not be expensive since you would want to build the material out of a native Lunar material so replacement parts and newer models could be manufactured on the moon (someday).&nbsp; Since the moon has aluminum and titanium in its surface regolith these seem appropriate choices.&nbsp; Even high-grade aerospace titanium isn't too expensive if you'd designed and validated the structure mathematically first (i.e. on a computer).</p><p>&nbsp;The most expensive elements would be the avionics and sensors (aka the control system).&nbsp; This is going to take some work both designing a model on a simulator and the real system.&nbsp; Plus the high accuracy sensors/actuators needed for this type of system will not be cheap.&nbsp; I think it could be done for less than $20M.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> kosmichero.wordpress.com </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.&nbsp; I think it could be done for less than $20M. <br />Posted by KosmicHero</DIV></p><p>On a government contract ?&nbsp; You've got the job.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The cost does not have to be this high.&nbsp; First of all, the trail-and-error methods of yesteryear are mostly alleviated with high-fidelity computer modeling.&nbsp; The solid modeling, dynamic load and vibration testing, software development, etc can be done on a desktop in a bored engineer's home office (I'm actually currently doing this since I thought it was such a good idea).&nbsp; Most of the technology is off-the-shelf.&nbsp; The rest is very near term (TRL's of 7 and higher).&nbsp; Building a structure will not be expensive since you would want to build the material out of a native Lunar material so replacement parts and newer models could be manufactured on the moon (someday).&nbsp; Since the moon has aluminum and titanium in its surface regolith these seem appropriate choices.&nbsp; Even high-grade aerospace titanium isn't too expensive if you'd designed and validated the structure mathematically first (i.e. on a computer).&nbsp;The most expensive elements would be the avionics and sensors (aka the control system).&nbsp; This is going to take some work both designing a model on a simulator and the real system.&nbsp; Plus the high accuracy sensors/actuators needed for this type of system will not be cheap.&nbsp; I think it could be done for less than $20M. <br /> Posted by KosmicHero</DIV></p><p>doubt it.</p><p>&nbsp;Need structural testing or over build it.&nbsp; Since it is going to be manned it needs redundant systems and it will need to be tested.</p><p>There are no small throttable hypergol engines, there are some bucks in a deveopment and cert programs</p>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The cost does not have to be this high.&nbsp; First of all, the trail-and-error methods of yesteryear are mostly alleviated with high-fidelity computer modeling.&nbsp; The solid modeling, dynamic load and vibration testing, software development, etc can be done on a desktop in a bored engineer's home office (I'm actually currently doing this since I thought it was such a good idea).&nbsp; Most of the technology is off-the-shelf.</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Cool!&nbsp; Be sure to share some of your results with the rest of us!&nbsp; Then send the rest to NASA, and tell them to get going, on it!&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The rest is very near term (TRL's of 7 and higher).&nbsp;</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Could you please explain, what that means?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Building a structure will not be expensive since you would want to build the material out of a native Lunar material so replacement parts and newer models could be manufactured on the moon (someday).&nbsp; Since the moon has aluminum and titanium in its surface regolith these seem appropriate choices.&nbsp; Even high-grade aerospace titanium isn't too expensive if you'd designed and validated the structure mathematically first (i.e. on a computer).&nbsp;The most expensive elements would be the avionics and sensors (aka the control system).&nbsp; This is going to take some work both designing a model on a simulator and the real system.&nbsp; Plus the high accuracy sensors/actuators needed for this type of system will not be cheap.&nbsp; I think it could be done for less than $20M. <br />Posted by KosmicHero</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Anything under $100M, should be economically feasible, for NASA, IMO.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
K

KosmicHero

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>On a government contract ?&nbsp; You've got the job. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Certainly not.&nbsp; I'm suggesting that given a $20M prize for demonstrating a vehicle that operates in an analog environment (and perhaps scaled back requirements that would equate to adequate lunar performance) on&nbsp;Earth,&nbsp;a profit could be made.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> kosmichero.wordpress.com </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Cool!&nbsp; Be&nbsp;...&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Could you please explain, what that means?&nbsp;...Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Aa TRL is a NASA acronym for Technology Readiness Level.&nbsp; Here is a link that describes the terminology.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_Readiness_Level</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Aa TRL is a NASA acronym for Technology Readiness Level.&nbsp; Here is a link that describes the terminology.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_Readiness_Level <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Thanks.&nbsp; Either the Space Shuttle, or Orion capsule could take it to LEO, where the astronauts could play with it, before taking it to the Moon.&nbsp; Similar to what NASA did with the LM, in the late '60's.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
K

KosmicHero

Guest
<p>&nbsp;</p><p>As soon as I have results, you'll be the first (actually I think my girlfriend will find it before I get to send it out) to know.</p><p>&nbsp;As for rocket development.&nbsp; I agree, this will require technology development.&nbsp; I'm trying to use as much native material as is feasible.&nbsp; It turns out that a decade ago, a gelled LOX-Al powder monopropellant was designed to be made from lunar LOX and lunar aluminum (I don't know about the energy balance on this... it may be the case that it requires so much energy and/or seed hydrogen to make that we might as well use hydrocarbon fuel and LOX, but I doubt it). &nbsp;</p><p>This LOX/Al rocket was designed to yield 6000 lbf thrust at 290 s Isp.&nbsp; Since this would be a small vehicle, the inert mass fraction is significant.&nbsp; That is to say that more plumbing (nozzles, feed lines, tanks, pumps, coolant systems, etc.) will drive the weight up and thus the thrust and propellant requirements.&nbsp; A monopropellant minimizes this effect since you only need half the hardware. &nbsp;</p><p>Wickman Spacecraft Co. did some tests on a small-scale version (I would rank this a TRL of 6: System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment, thus needing some technology investment). &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> kosmichero.wordpress.com </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;&nbsp;This LOX/Al rocket was designed to yield 6000 lbf thrust at 290 s Isp.&nbsp; Since this would be a small vehicle, the inert mass fraction is significant.&nbsp; That is to say that more plumbing (nozzles, feed lines, tanks, pumps, coolant systems, etc.) will drive the weight up and thus the thrust and propellant requirements.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by KosmicHero</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I'm guessing this rocket chair would weigh around 2,000 lbs. (Earth weight) empty.&nbsp; Maybe 3,000 lbs. fully fueled?&nbsp; Then on the Moon, we divide this weight by 6.&nbsp; What do your calculations indicate?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
K

KosmicHero

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I'm guessing this rocket chair would weigh around 2,000 lbs. (Earth weight) empty.&nbsp; Maybe 3,000 lbs. fully fueled?&nbsp; Then on the Moon, we divide this weight by 6.&nbsp; What do your calculations indicate? <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>My initial calculations are a little higher since I'm using a two-mission-to-refuel requirement and some smaller rockets (6 nozzles; 2 in each corner of a triangular configuration) designed to provide enough lift at 50% throttle for redundancy.&nbsp; It's about 1800 kg (4000 lb on&nbsp;Earth or a weight about 700 lb on the&nbsp;Moon)&nbsp;without pilot and small cargo.&nbsp; I think that the weight will drive down though on my next iteration.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> kosmichero.wordpress.com </div>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Thanks.&nbsp; Either the Space Shuttle, or Orion capsule could take it to LEO, where the astronauts could play with it, before taking it to the Moon.&nbsp; Similar to what NASA did with the LM, in the late '60's. <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Orion can't deliver anything other than crew into orbit and the Ares I can barely carry the Orion.&nbsp; Also LEO testing is not applicable for this vehicle.&nbsp; The LM was a full fledge spacecraft that operated in orbit independently of the CSM.&nbsp; This vehicle is for hopping on the moon.&nbsp; It won't have an orbital guidance/navigation system.&nbsp; It wouldn't have 6 DOF controls neither.&nbsp; It will like the LRV, earth tests with the&nbsp; moon as the final proving ground </p>
 
K

KosmicHero

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Orion can't deliver anything other than crew into orbit and the Ares I can barely carry the Orion.&nbsp; Also LEO testing is not applicable for this vehicle.&nbsp; The LM was a full fledge spacecraft that operated in orbit independently of the CSM.&nbsp; This vehicle is for hopping on the moon.&nbsp; It won't have an orbital guidance/navigation system.&nbsp; It wouldn't have 6 DOF controls neither.&nbsp; It will like the LRV, earth tests with the&nbsp; moon as the final proving ground <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />This is true.&nbsp; However, some key systems will operate under the same conditions as the lunar surface environment (vacuum, thermal issues, etc.) that could be tested in LEO.&nbsp; The propulsion system for instance would have to be tested either in LEO or lunar surface before use. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> kosmichero.wordpress.com </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Orion can't deliver anything other than crew into orbit and the Ares I can barely carry the Orion.&nbsp; Also LEO testing is not applicable for this vehicle.</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Well then, I'm&nbsp;a little confused on the Ares 1 payload.&nbsp; According to this Wiki article, the payload is 25,000 kg.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_1</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>NASA wouldn't have to test the landing gear (I assume that's 1/2 of the volume).&nbsp; The interior volume of the Orion capsule is huge.&nbsp; They might have to take out a few seats, along with a few astronauts.&nbsp; It would depend on the capsule door size, and whether it can be fueled outside the capsule.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; This vehicle is for hopping on the moon.</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Yes, up to 3mi. high hops, and drops!</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It won't have an orbital guidance/navigation system.&nbsp; It wouldn't have 6 DOF controls neither.</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I was hoping for a gimbaled engine nozzle.&nbsp; Is that too much to ask for?&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;It will like the LRV, earth tests with the&nbsp; moon as the final proving ground <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Hopefully someday, we'll see.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is true.&nbsp; However, some key systems will operate under the same conditions as the lunar surface environment (vacuum, thermal issues, etc.) that could be tested in LEO.&nbsp; The propulsion system for instance would have to be tested either in LEO or lunar surface before use. <br />Posted by KosmicHero</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>And if NASA starts on this project right now, maybe in 2yrs. it could end up in the shuttle storage bay, on it's last flight!&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Well then, I'm&nbsp;a little confused on the Ares 1 payload.&nbsp; According to this Wiki article, the payload is 25,000 kg.&nbsp;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_1NASA wouldn't have to test the landing gear (I assume that's 1/2 of the volume).&nbsp; The interior volume of the Orion capsule is huge.&nbsp; They might have to take out a few seats, along with a few astronauts.&nbsp; It would depend on the capsule door size, and whether it can be fueled outside the capsule. </DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Ares I capability is only to lift the Orion.&nbsp; EVAs from Orion are not SOP, only contingency.&nbsp; There is no room to store such items, only locker type equipment .&nbsp; The hatch size.&nbsp; would be an issue.&nbsp; Fueling would be a big issue.</p><p>1,&nbsp; there are no tanks outside of the Orion to connect to.</p><p>2.&nbsp; don't want to do it around the crew&nbsp;</p>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;And if NASA starts on this project right now, maybe in 2yrs. it could end up in the shuttle storage bay, on it's last flight!&nbsp; <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>1,&nbsp; There is no room for it on the shuttle flights, they are packed with station items from now until the program end. </p><p>2.&nbsp; Too early to start on this project&nbsp; It isn't needed for a decade and the money could be better spent on other things now. </p>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;And if NASA starts on this project right now, maybe in 2yrs. it could end up in the shuttle storage bay, on it's last flight!&nbsp; <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>1,&nbsp; There is no room for it on the shuttle flights, they are packed with station items from now until the program end. </p><p>2.&nbsp; Too early to start on this project&nbsp; It isn't needed for a decade and the money could be better spent on other things now. </p>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>1,&nbsp; There is no room for it on the shuttle flights, they are packed with station items from now until the program end.</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I'm sure if they had to, NASA&nbsp;could squeeze it in, somehow.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2.&nbsp; Too early to start on this project&nbsp; It isn't needed for a decade and the money could be better spent on other things now. <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I disagree.&nbsp; The MMU would have to be incorporated (designed) into the Altair Lunar Lander storage, as well as the Lunar Rover (to be hauled to existing craters).&nbsp; NOW, is the time to design it.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p>
I'm sure if they had to, NASA&nbsp;could squeeze it in, somehow.</p><p>&nbsp; I disagree.&nbsp; The MMU would have to be incorporated (designed) into the Altair Lunar Lander storage, as well as the Lunar Rover (to be hauled to existing craters).&nbsp; NOW, is the time to design it. <br /> Posted by kyle_baron[/QUOTE}</p><p>&nbsp;There are other more important ISS items that need to be squeezed in.&nbsp; This isn't even on the radar. &nbsp; Also there isn't enough time to develop it for a shuttle mission. &nbsp; </p><p>You can disagree but you are wrong&nbsp;</p><p>1.&nbsp; it is way too early, Altair isn't even being designed for years.&nbsp;&nbsp; Altair is only in the study stage.&nbsp; It does even have the requirements review until 2010. &nbsp; </p><p>2.&nbsp; there is no extra money for&nbsp; years for these items </p><p>3.&nbsp; the MMU doesn't have to be incorporated into the Altair storage design.&nbsp; The Apollo LRV was added years after the LM was designed. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;4.&nbsp; the first need of such a system is not on the first few LSAM flights, which puts the need out to 2020.</p><p>&nbsp;All this means, is that it is almost a decade before this MMU needs to be designed </p>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>TThe propulsion system for instance would have to be tested either in LEO or lunar surface before use. <br /> Posted by KosmicHero</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;No it wouldn't.&nbsp; Vacuum chambers are good enough for small propulsions systems.&nbsp; The just as the orbital MMU was checked out in orbit before an operational use.&nbsp; The lunar MMU can be checked on the moon by test flights.&nbsp;&nbsp; Also it can be tested on earth in a counterbalance rig.</p>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY