Alternative Lunar Lander... a Eagle?!

Very cool find by NASA Watch!
A design NASA worked on as a reusable alternative to Altair:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009...unarLander.pdf
The design on pages 6 and 15-22 of the PDF will look _very_ familiar to
and Gerry and Sylvia Anderson fans.
There's a animated Powerpoint presentation on it he
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009...unarLander.pps

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
Very cool find by NASA Watch!
A design NASA worked on as a reusable alternative to Altair:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009...unarLander.pdf
The design on pages 6 and 15-22 of the PDF will look _very_ familiar to
and Gerry and Sylvia Anderson fans.
There's a animated Powerpoint presentation on it he
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009...unarLander.pps

Those recent "finds" by NASA Watch are really funny. The refueling module
looks like a promising concept (to get around the Ares I performance
problem).

But the horizontal lander PDF has graphics that look like they were done by
managers in PowerPoint. There are cubes everywhere instead of cylinders
which are *easy* to create in any CAD package. This one looks so much like
a blatant rip-off of a Space: 1999 Eagle that I'd almost say it's an April
Fool's joke at the expense of NASA Watch.

Seriously though, NASA has looked at horizontal landers before and they do
have several advantages. Visibility when landing, much lower center of
gravity (they aren't likely to tip over), and easier access to the surface
(no huge ladders for EVA or huge cranes needed to lower the payload to the
surface).

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson

Jeff Findley wrote:

Seriously though, NASA has looked at horizontal landers before and they do
have several advantages. Visibility when landing, much lower center of
gravity (they aren't likely to tip over), and easier access to the surface
(no huge ladders for EVA or huge cranes needed to lower the payload to the
surface).

And, to be fair, one big disadvantage: clearance issues with staging
during abort from powered descent.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
Jeff Findley wrote:

Seriously though, NASA has looked at horizontal landers before and they
do have several advantages. Visibility when landing, much lower center
of gravity (they aren't likely to tip over), and easier access to the
surface (no huge ladders for EVA or huge cranes needed to lower the
payload to the surface).

And, to be fair, one big disadvantage: clearance issues with staging
during abort from powered descent.

True, and that's not the only disadvantage. The notional designs for
landers with both landing engines on the bottom and engines at the back
introduce more failure modes which could trigger an abort.

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson

Jeff Findley wrote:
True, and that's not the only disadvantage. The notional designs for
landers with both landing engines on the bottom and engines at the back
introduce more failure modes which could trigger an abort.


Note the two engines mounted under the central backframe just ahead of
the payload, their use is never explained in the presentation.
But, guess what? The Space 1999 Eagle also has two engines up the
http://www.space1999.net/catacombs/m...w2meagle1.html

Pat

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:


Jeff Findley wrote:

True, and that's not the only disadvantage. The notional designs for
landers with both landing engines on the bottom and engines at the
back introduce more failure modes which could trigger an abort.



Note the two engines mounted under the central backframe just ahead of
the payload, their use is never explained in the presentation.

Huh? I see four downward pointed landing engines, one under each "pod"
(where the landing gear was on the "Eagle") and each pod equipped with
an excess of RCS quads. The rockets at the back - the lunar orbit
insertion/deorbit engines - are annoyingly superfluous, however. The
landing egines appear to be exactly the same number and type. They
should be used for both operaions.

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:

Seriously though, NASA has looked at horizontal landers before and
they do have several advantages. Visibility when landing, much lower
center of gravity (they aren't likely to tip over), and easier access
to the surface (no huge ladders for EVA or huge cranes needed to
lower the payload to the surface).

And, to be fair, one big disadvantage: clearance issues with staging
during abort from powered descent.

This design does not stage, although it probably could dump its cargo if
it had to do a landing abort.
Other than a Space 1999 Eagle (which is almost identical to in both
concept and design) the closest analogy to it would probably be a
Sikorsky Skycrane helicopter.

Pat

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:02:42 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

Jeff Findley wrote:

Seriously though, NASA has looked at horizontal landers before and they do
have several advantages. Visibility when landing, much lower center of
gravity (they aren't likely to tip over), and easier access to the surface
(no huge ladders for EVA or huge cranes needed to lower the payload to the
surface).

And, to be fair, one big disadvantage: clearance issues with staging
during abort from powered descent.

It doesn't look to me as though it has stages, just a deployable
payload in the middle. They're probably depending on having enough
engines to cover abort contingencies, one dies during powered descent,
they can continue on the others, sort of a reverse abort to orbit.

That low-to-the-ground could be a problem if they're landing site is
boulder-strewn, though.

And that things so much like Space 1999's Eagles (clunky Powerpoint
graphics notwithstanding*) that the Andersons should get a royalty
payment!

Brian

*I mean really, who did those graphics? Your average High School kid
could have done a better job.

Brian Thorn wrote:

It doesn't look to me as though it has stages, just a deployable
payload in the middle. They're probably depending on having enough
engines to cover abort contingencies, one dies during powered descent,
they can continue on the others, sort of a reverse abort to orbit.


The rear-pointed engines are a bit odd in my opinion... unless you are
going to be flying it low over the lunar surface like the 2001 Moonbus,
you should be able to decelerate out of orbit and climb back into it via
the four downward pointing landing engines, as spacecraft attitude isn't
of any importance in a airless environment.
You could certainly save some weight by removing the four rear-facing
engines, and have the lander move at low speed over the surface by
banking it or changing its pitch angle so the center of thrust isn't at
ninety degrees to the surface, causing it to move in the direction you
want, similar to the way a helicopter maneuvers.
In forward flight this would also improve the astronaut's view of the
surface out of the front windows.
If I had been designing it there would been some windows on the bottom
of the crew module also, similar to those on a helicopter.
The bottom ones on the Eagle are odd, as they don't let the astronauts
see out of them given their geometry in relation to the crew seating.

Pat

Brian Thorn wrote:

And that things so much like Space 1999's Eagles (clunky Powerpoint
graphics notwithstanding*) that the Andersons should get a royalty
payment!

*I mean really, who did those graphics? Your average High School kid
could have done a better job.

The graphics, and overall lack of polish on both the PDF and the
Powerpoint lead me to believe that this is a very low level proposal,
not a serious one.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL