Rocketman Type MMU, For Lunar Exploration

Page 3 - 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'>&nbsp;&nbsp; You can disagree but you are wrong.&nbsp;1.&nbsp; it is way too early, Altair isn't even being designed for years.&nbsp;&nbsp; Altair is only in the study stage.</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>So is the MMU, with LM legs and struts.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;&nbsp; 2.&nbsp; there is no extra money for&nbsp; years for these items</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Canceling one robotic mission, would do it.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Sure it does, if more than one MMU is brought to the surface of the moon, in a single Altair Lander.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>4.&nbsp; the first need of such a system is not on the first few LSAM flights, which puts the need out to 2020.</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Only according to the current manifest.&nbsp; Schedules change, priorities change, China could enter the race, as Griffin had hinted, etc. etc.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All this means, is that it is almost a decade before this MMU needs to be designed <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Maybe, Maybe not!</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
J

j05h

Guest
<p>Recommend a rocket version of the WASP or the above mentioned SpaceDev "Chair"</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJARrc40imk</p><p>I've met Dan the Rocketman (rocketman.org) at the XPrize Cup - he said that the number of people who've flown rocketbelts is lower than the number of Moonwalkers: 9 vs 12 or something. Rocket belts/Jump packs are dangerous - as someone said earlier, legs are not great landing gear.</p><p>For general lunar access, why not a large robotic walker instead? 10-20 foot long legs with big feet might be the ticket. </p><p>Josh </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Recommend a rocket version of the WASP or the above mentioned SpaceDev "Chair"http://www.youtube.com/watch?</DIV>&nbsp;</p><p>Interesting video.&nbsp; Kinda operates like a Segway, without the wheels.&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Rocket belts/Jump packs are dangerous - as someone said earlier, legs are not great landing gear.For general lunar access, why not a large robotic walker instead? 10-20 foot long legs with big feet might be the ticket. Josh <br />Posted by j05h</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Yes, but the MMU is would be used for exploring craters, valleys, and mountains.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
K

keermalec

Guest
<p>I would say the safest, most worked&nbsp;out solution for a lunar MMU to date is the Lunar Flyer, designed in 1969.&nbsp;It was intended to be flown on one of the Apollo missions but was unfortunately cancelled in favour of the Lunar Rover due to its excessively high propellant mass requirements per km of excursion.</p><p>If oxigen were to be mined on the Moon however, this setback would disappear.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <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>
 
K

KosmicHero

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I'm sure if they had to, NASA&nbsp;could squeeze it in, somehow.&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. Posted by kyle_baron[/QUOTE}&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; You can disagree but you are wrong&nbsp;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; 2.&nbsp; there is no extra money for&nbsp; years for these items 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;&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.&nbsp;All this means, is that it is almost a decade before this MMU needs to be designed <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>It is better to design systems that are going to work together (or travel together... like a lunar transportation system and its payload) than to build one and try and fit the other one in.&nbsp; This usually results in reduced performance of one or both systems or disqualifies one all together.&nbsp; </p><p>Also, as you have pointed out, we have the time... why not use it?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> kosmichero.wordpress.com </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would say the safest, most worked&nbsp;out solution for a lunar MMU to date is the Lunar Flyer, designed in 1969.&nbsp;It was intended to be flown on one of the Apollo missions but was unfortunately cancelled in favour of the Lunar Rover due to its excessively high propellant mass requirements per km of excursion.If oxigen were to be mined on the Moon however, this setback would disappear.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by keermalec</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Excellent!&nbsp; That's exactly what I was thinking about.&nbsp; Maybe a larger version though.<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'> Only according to the current manifest.&nbsp; Schedules change, priorities change, China could enter the race, as Griffin had hinted, etc. etc.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;They aren't going change enough to start a lunar&nbsp; MMU.&nbsp; MMU is very low on the list. &nbsp; </p>
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would say the safest, most worked&nbsp;out solution for a lunar MMU to date is the Lunar Flyer, designed in 1969.&nbsp;It was intended to be flown on one of the Apollo missions but was unfortunately cancelled in favour of the Lunar Rover due to its excessively high propellant mass requirements per km of excursion.If oxigen were to be mined on the Moon however, this setback would disappear.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by keermalec</DIV><br /><br /><font size="2">That is very close to what is needed. Just up the size & give it orbital capability & you've got the "Rocket Chair".</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
 
K

keermalec

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is very close to what is needed. Just up the size & give it orbital capability & you've got the "Rocket Chair". <br />Posted by boris1961</DIV><br /><br />Just replacing&nbsp;nitrogen tetroxide / Aerozine propellant by liquid Methane / Oxygen could enhance its delta-v by 30%, therefore its ballistic range by 70% (theoretically). Using liquid Hydrogen / Oxygen instead could enhance its range by 156%, going from 8.5 km to 21 km. Going orbital would require roughly more than twice the tank capacity if using LH/LOX.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <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>
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just replacing&nbsp;nitrogen tetroxide / Aerozine propellant by liquid Methane / Oxygen could enhance its delta-v by 30%, therefore its ballistic range by 70% (theoretically). Using liquid Hydrogen / Oxygen instead could enhance its range by 156%, going from 8.5 km to 21 km. Going orbital would require roughly more than twice the tank capacity if using LH/LOX.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by keermalec</DIV><br /><br />Godd idea. I think using&nbsp;ISRU, it will be easier to produce methane or LH/LOX anyway.&nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
 
K

KosmicHero

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Godd idea. I think using&nbsp;ISRU, it will be easier to produce methane or LH/LOX anyway.&nbsp; <br />Posted by boris1961</DIV><br /><br />Neither methane nor LH can be made on the Moon in great quantity.&nbsp; The little water ice that is there (if there is any there) is too scarce for this kind of use.&nbsp; Instead, LOX/Al should be used since it is 100% native.&nbsp; All of the H2 needed to manufacture this is recycled.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;You take a performance hit, but the overall system is more sustainable and will cost much less.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> kosmichero.wordpress.com </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY