Lunar Lander in a 5.2m faring?

Quite a few people have criticized the NASA architecture for developing
new launch vehicles whilst lower cost alternatives exist, or will
exist.

Suppose in 2011,
- SpaceX has flown Falcon 9 succesfully, including its 25 ton version.
- The President says "Constellation is a good idea, but needs to be
done cheaper, so scrap the SDHLV and save $10 billion".

A descent moon mission could be flown with three Falcon 9 launched
Earth Departure Stages, with no orbital propellant transfer, and
"assembley" consisting of joining up units. (Already planned). The CEV
could be launched on the Stick (only a NASA vehicle being good enough
for its Astronauts). The Earth Departure Stages would be cheap, and
assembled in volume, and launched well before the other flights.

But how can you get a descent lunar lander, capable of landing ~10 tons
on the lunar surface, into the 5.2m dimater faring offered by SpaceX
(or Boeing, LM, or the Stick)?

Can this be done without orbital assembley?


One idea I had would be a lander that consists of two propulsion units
that would fit either side of the payload, and would be joined across
the top by a "bridge". The payload would fit in the middle, suspended
from the joining bridge. This bridge would be telescopic, enabling the
two propulsion units to be launched together inside a single faring.

This has the advantage that no crane or ramp is needed to lower the
payload to the lunar surface, and payload can be of almost any shape
and size. However, it needs two propulsion units, and both must work,
doubling failure probability. and engine out would lead to certain
mission destruction.

On 23 Oct 2005 03:56:21 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:

But how can you get a descent lunar lander, capable of landing ~10 tons
on the lunar surface, into the 5.2m dimater faring offered by SpaceX
(or Boeing, LM, or the Stick)?

Can this be done without orbital assembley?

Maybe, but the simplest solution would be to launch the lander without
any fuel tanks first, and then attach fuel tanks (launched seperately
or uninstalled on the same launcher.) in orbit. That would take some
ISS-like assembly, though.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:

:On 23 Oct 2005 03:56:21 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
:wrote:
:
:But how can you get a descent lunar lander, capable of landing ~10 tons
:on the lunar surface, into the 5.2m dimater faring offered by SpaceX
:(or Boeing, LM, or the Stick)?
:
:Can this be done without orbital assembley?
:
:Maybe, but the simplest solution would be to launch the lander without
:any fuel tanks first, and then attach fuel tanks (launched seperately
r uninstalled on the same launcher.) in orbit. That would take some
:ISS-like assembly, though.

And you're back to talking about assembly of pressure fittings in
space. This is almost always a bad idea, particularly for relatively
high pressure fittings like fuel feed lines.

Space assembly is HARD, people. It's difficult and clumsy work.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brian Thorn wrote:

:On 23 Oct 2005 03:56:21 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
:wrote:
:
:But how can you get a descent lunar lander, capable of landing ~10 tons
:on the lunar surface, into the 5.2m dimater faring offered by SpaceX
:(or Boeing, LM, or the Stick)?
:
:Can this be done without orbital assembley?
:
:Maybe, but the simplest solution would be to launch the lander without
:any fuel tanks first, and then attach fuel tanks (launched seperately
r uninstalled on the same launcher.) in orbit. That would take some
:ISS-like assembly, though.

And you're back to talking about assembly of pressure fittings in
space. This is almost always a bad idea, particularly for relatively
high pressure fittings like fuel feed lines.

Space assembly is HARD, people. It's difficult and clumsy work.

There's assembley and there's assembley. I was hoping to keep itdown to
rendez-vous and attachment, as proposed by NASA. However, for this at
least one of the modules needs thrust.

As for high pressure feedlines, I assume they're only high pressure
when the valve is turned on. And even if their valveless, joiming high
pressure feed lines in space should be relatviely straight forward, as
long as they align correctly.

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
oups.com...

As for high pressure feedlines, I assume they're only high pressure
when the valve is turned on. And even if their valveless, joiming high
pressure feed lines in space should be relatviely straight forward, as
long as they align correctly.

And if they don't align correctly, a billion plus dollar mission has just
been wasted.

"Alex Terrell" wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Brian Thorn wrote:
:
: :On 23 Oct 2005 03:56:21 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
: :wrote:
: :
: :But how can you get a descent lunar lander, capable of landing ~10 tons
: :on the lunar surface, into the 5.2m dimater faring offered by SpaceX
: :(or Boeing, LM, or the Stick)?
: :
: :Can this be done without orbital assembley?
: :
: :Maybe, but the simplest solution would be to launch the lander without
: :any fuel tanks first, and then attach fuel tanks (launched seperately
: r uninstalled on the same launcher.) in orbit. That would take some
: :ISS-like assembly, though.
:
: And you're back to talking about assembly of pressure fittings in
: space. This is almost always a bad idea, particularly for relatively
: high pressure fittings like fuel feed lines.
:
: Space assembly is HARD, people. It's difficult and clumsy work.
:
:There's assembley and there's assembley. I was hoping to keep itdown to
:rendez-vous and attachment, as proposed by NASA. However, for this at
:least one of the modules needs thrust.

Yep. And it's not the 'attach fuel tanks in orbit' model anymore.

:As for high pressure feedlines, I assume they're only high pressure
:when the valve is turned on.

Correct, but is there a point there? You still have to get the joined
in such a way as to stand up to operating pressure.

:And even if their valveless, joiming high
ressure feed lines in space should be relatviely straight forward, as
:long as they align correctly.

Just a wave of the Technology Fairy's wand away....

--
"We come into the world and take our chances.
Fate is just the weight of circumstances.
That's the way that Lady Luck dances.
Roll the bones...."
-- "Roll The Bones", Rush

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
Brian Thorn wrote:

:On 23 Oct 2005 03:56:21 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
:wrote:
:
:But how can you get a descent lunar lander, capable of landing ~10 tons
:on the lunar surface, into the 5.2m dimater faring offered by SpaceX
:(or Boeing, LM, or the Stick)?
:
:Can this be done without orbital assembley?
:
:Maybe, but the simplest solution would be to launch the lander without
:any fuel tanks first, and then attach fuel tanks (launched seperately
r uninstalled on the same launcher.) in orbit. That would take some
:ISS-like assembly, though.

And you're back to talking about assembly of pressure fittings in
space. This is almost always a bad idea, particularly for relatively
high pressure fittings like fuel feed lines.

Space assembly is HARD, people. It's difficult and clumsy work.

Why do the feed lines have to be high pressure? Why not have a single set
of high pressure tanks on the "core" of your stage, and attach lower
pressure fuel and oxidizer tanks to that? This means you'd have to do a
series of burns to get where you're trying to go, but it might make the task
easier by eliminating those high pressure connections.

The Russians have been transferring storable hypergolic fuel and oxidizer
from Progress tankers to their stations (including ISS) for years. No EVA
or clumsy pressure fittings seem to be required for this to work.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: Brian Thorn wrote:
:
: :On 23 Oct 2005 03:56:21 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
: :wrote:
: :
: :But how can you get a descent lunar lander, capable of landing ~10 tons
: :on the lunar surface, into the 5.2m dimater faring offered by SpaceX
: :(or Boeing, LM, or the Stick)?
: :
: :Can this be done without orbital assembley?
: :
: :Maybe, but the simplest solution would be to launch the lander without
: :any fuel tanks first, and then attach fuel tanks (launched seperately
: r uninstalled on the same launcher.) in orbit. That would take some
: :ISS-like assembly, though.
:
: And you're back to talking about assembly of pressure fittings in
: space. This is almost always a bad idea, particularly for relatively
: high pressure fittings like fuel feed lines.
:
: Space assembly is HARD, people. It's difficult and clumsy work.
:
:Why do the feed lines have to be high pressure?

How does the fuel get into the engine? Little tiny men with buckets?

:Why not have a single set
f high pressure tanks on the "core" of your stage, and attach lower
ressure fuel and oxidizer tanks to that? This means you'd have to do a
:series of burns to get where you're trying to go, but it might make the task
:easier by eliminating those high pressure connections.

Any task that reduces vehicle capability (as your suggestion above
does) no doubt makes things easier.

:The Russians have been transferring storable hypergolic fuel and oxidizer
:from Progress tankers to their stations (including ISS) for years. No EVA
r clumsy pressure fittings seem to be required for this to work.

Now you might want to look at the thrust developed and burn durations.
I don't see any of those vehicles going to the Moon, landing, and then
taking back off.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:
:Maybe, but the simplest solution would be to launch the lander without
:any fuel tanks first, and then attach fuel tanks...

And you're back to talking about assembly of pressure fittings in
space. This is almost always a bad idea, particularly for relatively
high pressure fittings like fuel feed lines.

The Russians made it work quite routinely -- untouched by human hands --
for refueling Mir (and, I believe, ISS) from Progress tankers. There's
nothing that hard about it.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:
:The Russians have been transferring storable hypergolic fuel and oxidizer
:from Progress tankers to their stations (including ISS) for years. No
EVA
r clumsy pressure fittings seem to be required for this to work.

Now you might want to look at the thrust developed and burn durations.
I don't see any of those vehicles going to the Moon, landing, and then
taking back off.

Which is why I've said before that I think in orbit transfer of LOX and
other mild cryogens (like methane) ought to be a technology that NASA should
be researching now. After all, once we set our sights on Mars, even the
SDHLV is going to be too small to launch a fully fueled Mars transfer stage.
Why not start working on the technology needed now?

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.