Altair Lunar Lander.

[Sharkman Briton]

So I will admit I'm more excited about a possible return to the Moon rather than a crewed Mars Mission, as the Mars one will be alot further in the future, with the Moon I'm excited as it's very achievable and the Altair Lunar Lander is awesome, especially the fact that it and the Orion go to the Moon semi-Apollo style, with the orbiter and the lander.

What are you people's thoughts on the Altair?

[Kryten]

My thoughts are that it was cancelled in 2010.

[Virtualgenius]

Obama canned it didnt he

[Yukon0009]

Unfortunately he did.

[Streetwind]

In order to temper your inevitable disappointment, I invite you to Google the following topics:

- Google Lunar X-Prize

- Masten Space Systems

- China's lunar far side mission

- Lunar Mission One

This should help restore your enthusiasm!

[Sharkman Briton]

Okay, I had a feeling it was cancelled since my book is from 2009 or early 2010.

[Exoscientist]

Okay, I had a feeling it was cancelled since my book is from 2009 or early 2010.

[davidy12]

If you ask me what my opinion of returning to the moon is, well, I'll quote one of my favorite astronauts Pete Conrad. Returning to the moon is "a waste of tax payer money," going to Mars or Asteroids is a much better plan. Am I completely opposed to a Lunar base, hell no, but I think it should be done after a mission to Mars and Asteroids. Also, I agree with Obama's decision to cancel the Constellation program, if everything was going as good as it was, the Orion CEV would have been undergoing unmanned testing by the time I was a freshman in high school, the first manned tests would be done by now and maybe even a circumlunar flight maybe by the end of last year, and at this point (freshman in college) the Altair would be undergoing final tests before an unmanned test flight.

[fredinno]

If you ask me what my opinion of returning to the moon is, well, I'll quote one of my favorite astronauts Pete Conrad. Returning to the moon is "a waste of tax payer money," going to Mars or Asteroids is a much better plan. Am I completely opposed to a Lunar base, hell no, but I think it should be done after a mission to Mars and Asteroids. Also, I agree with Obama's decision to cancel the Constellation program, if everything was going as good as it was, the Orion CEV would have been undergoing unmanned testing by the time I was a freshman in high school, the first manned tests would be done by now and maybe even a circumlunar flight maybe by the end of last year, and at this point (freshman in college) the Altair would be undergoing final tests before an unmanned test flight.

I disagree. The Lunar Farside and Poles are interesting and unexplored enough to validate a manned mission there, to build up to a Lunar Base, of course.

I would also love a manned mission to Tycho Crater.

- - - Updated - - -

So I will admit I'm more excited about a possible return to the Moon rather than a crewed Mars Mission, as the Mars one will be alot further in the future, with the Moon I'm excited as it's very achievable and the Altair Lunar Lander is awesome, especially the fact that it and the Orion go to the Moon semi-Apollo style, with the orbiter and the lander.

What are you people's thoughts on the Altair?

I didn't really like Altair- for example, the fact that it used fuel cells made it harder to be extended for longer-duration missions, and doing the Lunar Orbital Insertion with it was more ineffiecient than using another or enlarged upper stage, for example.

Oh well, it's canned now. Not that it mattered since so little development was done on it anyways.

[davidy12]

I disagree. The Lunar Farside and Poles are interesting and unexplored enough to validate a manned mission there, to build up to a Lunar Base, of course.

I would also love a manned mission to Tycho Crater.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't really like Altair- for example, the fact that it used fuel cells made it harder to be extended for longer-duration missions, and doing the Lunar Orbital Insertion with it was more ineffiecient than using another or enlarged upper stage, for example.

Oh well, it's canned now. Not that it mattered since so little development was done on it anyways.

Should it what we should be focusing on right now, no. Yeah, it would be cool and it would be an amazing achievement for the human race, but it won't be an area to refine fuel that's liquid based, and it won't be a good training ground for Mars.

[fredinno]

Should it what we should be focusing on right now, no. Yeah, it would be cool and it would be an amazing achievement for the human race, but it won't be an area to refine fuel that's liquid based, and it won't be a good training ground for Mars.

Well, differing opinions I guess.

[_Augustus_]

I think that NASA will bring back a solar-powered version of the original Altair, the LSAM.

[Budgie]

I think that NASA will bring back a solar-powered version of the original Altair, the LSAM.

IIRC, while NASA by law is not allowed to, in public, present plans to return to the moon, I'm sure in an office somewhere there are many plans and designs for vehicles to return to the moon, to be fully developed and integrated with SLS when/if funding comes in

[Nibb31]

If we ever get serious about going to the Moon, what we will need is a reusable single stage lander and to add refuel capability to the Orion/EUS. Leave the lander at EML-1 or 2 and refuel as needed.

[Pipcard]

I thought your mindset was that reusability wasn't worth it unless it is used very, very frequently, and that producing more units instead is more economical? Like what you keep saying about reusable Falcon 9?

Edited September 18, 2015 by Pipcard

[Kryten]

I thought your mindset was that reusability wasn't worth it unless it is used very, very frequently, and implying that producing more units is more economical? Like what you keep saying about reusable Falcon 9?

Generalise any harder and you'll start complaining he reuses his cutlery. A launch campaign for an LV takes a good bit more effort than starting up a vehicle that's already in space, and a moon landing involves much less structural then launch from earth and boostback, so reuse should be easier. We've been consistently some in-space structures for decades after all, including pretty powerful reboost engines.

[fredinno]

IIRC, while NASA by law is not allowed to, in public, present plans to return to the moon, I'm sure in an office somewhere there are many plans and designs for vehicles to return to the moon, to be fully developed and integrated with SLS when/if funding comes in

There are. They are acutally made somewhat public, but it is not announced publicly.

[Nibb31]

I thought your mindset was that reusability wasn't worth it unless it is used very, very frequently, and that producing more units instead is more economical? Like what you keep saying about reusable Falcon 9?

I said launch vehicle reusability might not be economical compared to increasing production volume. We won't know until somebody tries. I disagree with claims that reusability is the only way to reduce costs or that the only way to reduce costs is through reusability.

But the economics of an exploration infrastructure are not the same as for a launcher. SpaceX has based their cost reduction on mass producing Merlin engines and stages, but there will never be a mass production of lunar landers in the foreseeable future. They are always going to be expensive and they go through a much less wear and tear, so it makes sense to try to reuse them. We have restartable engines, we have space vehicles that have shut down, restarted, and have lasted several years. It's much easier than reusing a first stage or a capsule.

Also, it's just what I'd like to see if we want a return to the Moon and Lagrange gateway to make sense, not what is necessarily feasible. It probably isn't at this stage. Orion doesn't currently support refueling. Neither does the EUS. And a lander has to be extremely rugged and reliable, which might not be compatible with reusability and the limitations or in-space checkout procedures.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Nibb31

[Dkmdlb]

They are acutally made somewhat public

Got a link?

[fredinno]

Got a link?

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/604643main_2-Panel%202_Donahue_Final.pdf

It's actually by Boeing, but I really like this concept, nevertheless. Only 15T, much smaller than Altair, and fully reusable. Looks like it will probably hold 4 too.

[Nibb31]

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/604643main_2-Panel%202_Donahue_Final.pdf

It's actually by Boeing, but I really like this concept, nevertheless. Only 15T, much smaller than Altair, and fully reusable. Looks like it will probably hold 4 too.

I really like it too. It provides a sustainable architecture with global access and I've always preferred the "crasher stage" profile rather than the "descent/ascent stage" of Apollo. The only problem I can see is that the lander needs to be super reliable. There is no abort mode if the engines fail to start after dumping the EUS.

[meve12]

-snip- but it won't be an area to refine fuel that's liquid based, and it won't be a good training ground for Mars.

You realize there's tons of water ice on the lunar north pole, right?

http://www.space.com/7987-tons-water-ice-moon-north-pole.html

That's hydrogen propellant for NTRs/VASMIRS/LH-LOX rockets, plus oxygen for other uses, all without having to lift that from Earth.

That's the most immediate use for lunar materials. On top of that, the lunar regiloth is approx. 13% iron or aluminum, depending on location. This brings up the possibility of fabricating structural members for spacecraft from lunar material. Again, without having to lift that from Earth.

Oh, sorry, got carried away there.

For training for a mars mission-it's less of a need to train personnel, and more of a need to train our technology. Our ability to run closed-cycle ecosystems-a necessity for any mission on Mars, since help is years out- is, to be frank, quite ....te. ISRU is still in the prototype stages, if at all that. Everything a Mars base needs has to be either ultrareliable, or we need a very compact workshop that can reproduce every component, including itself. And so on.

An extended moon base wouldn't help develop these, but it'd serve as a final proving ground for them. It's got a very hostile environment while still being close enough to Earth for help, resupply or evacuation if needed.

On top of that, with expansion it'd allow use of that lunar ice and regolith.

[stratochief66]

Sharkman, I'm currently researching Altair data for configuring one of the SSTU landers to behave like the Altair, any data you can provide from your book would be most helpful. In particular, engine thrust (or, just what specific engine the book suggests, such as an RL-10 or RS-18) dry mass and fuel mass. I'm looking for as broad of a base of Altair data as I can find because I prefer that over 'eyeballing' the masses.

[fredinno]

Sharkman, I'm currently researching Altair data for configuring one of the SSTU landers to behave like the Altair, any data you can provide from your book would be most helpful. In particular, engine thrust (or, just what specific engine the book suggests, such as an RL-10 or RS-18) dry mass and fuel mass. I'm looking for as broad of a base of Altair data as I can find because I prefer that over 'eyeballing' the masses.

Well, Altair was 42 T wet mass...

[Phineas Freak]

Altair Lunar Lander (LSAM)

Descent Module:

Gross Mass: 35100 Kg

Propellant Mass: 19266 Kg (3209 Kg LH2 - 16056 Kg LOX)

Total Delta - V: 3000 m/s (Piloted) - 3100 m/s (Cargo)

Engines: 4 x CECE (RL-10 derivative, throttling range 12% to 100%)

Notes: Descent module assumes 0% propellant boiloff for the Earth - Moon trip. A target mass of 42 to 43 metric tonnes at initial LEO is to be assumed.

Ascent Module:

Gross Mass: 10800 Kg

Propellant Mass: 5542 Kg (1977 Kg MMH - 3565 Kg NTO)

Total Delta - V: 1970 m/s (Sortie) - 1985 m/s (Outpost)

Engines: 1 x AJ10-118K (with modifications, see below)

Notes: The engine was selected for a target VAC ISP of 321 s. A maximum thrust value of 21 kN and a throttling range between 45% to 100% would probably be necessary.

Source:http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20100035768