NASA Human Landing System

[YNM]

50 minutes ago, Xd the great said:

I cant imagine NASA working with Romocos and CNSA and God-knows-what to build a Moon base.

Well, everyone could go their own ways... just like in t'good ol' days.

[DDE]

1 hour ago, Xd the great said:

I cant imagine NASA working with Romocos and CNSA and God-knows-what to build a Moon base.

Moscow air seems to do things. Like make you imagine a US-Russian lunar orbit station followed by, or even concurrent with, a Russian-ESA or all-Russian South Pole base.

[tater]

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_hls_baa_industry_forum_14feb2019.pdf

[Canopus]

7 hours ago, YNM said:

Well, everyone could go their own ways... just like in t'good ol' days.

It will be the ISS Partners minus Russia maybe.

[YNM]

4 hours ago, Canopus said:

It will be the ISS Partners minus Russia maybe.

That's the West vs. the East again...

[sevenperforce]

They now have a proposed architecture:

Three stage with two stages reused. Presumably subsequent missions would involve a new descent element launched commercially carrying fuel to refuel both the ascender and transfer vehicle...though that might require SLS.

Wait, here are all three slides.

https://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/moonmissions.pdf

Two commercial unmanned logistics-launch resupply missions to refuel the ascent and transfer vehicles; a third for a brand new descent module to deliver under its own power; an added SLS launch tho only to do another crew exchange.

Wasteful.

[EchoLima]

29 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Wasteful. 

The worst part is that NASA already sent people to the moon on a single rocket! Now somehow it takes three... 

[StrandedonEarth]

2 minutes ago, EchoLima said:

The worst part is that NASA already sent people to the moon on a single rocket! Now somehow it takes three... 

Well, they should be able to get more boots on the regolith with more cargo doing it this way, and with more re-use. But yeah, still seems wasteful. Unless they launch on re-usable boosters (but that's not the NASA way, yet), and find a way to repurpose the descent stage once landed.

[Bill Phil]

10 minutes ago, EchoLima said:

The worst part is that NASA already sent people to the moon on a single rocket! Now somehow it takes three... 

Yeah.

But the mission was very limited in scope and capability. 

[James Kerman]

It should be noted that this is part of a Broad Agency Announcement to seek proposals from industry to fit this framework with the industry responses due March 25.  NASA hopes to make awards in May to allow the six-month studies to begin by July.  Other architectures may be considered but will be put to the side until these proposals are evaluated.

Quote

Thomas Zurbuchen, NASA associate administrator for science;

“We’d like to fly this calendar year,” he said. “We want to go fast.” The ability to do so, he said, will depend on whether companies have landers ready to go."

To try to get a first CLPS payload launched this year, Zurbuchen said it will offer unspecified financial bonuses. “If you can fly faster, we will incentivize that,” he said. “We care about speed.”

NASA is also lining up payloads to fly on those CLPS missions. Zurbuchen said NASA will announce the week of Feb. 18 the selection of about 12 payloads proposed within the agency that would be ready to fly later this year. “If we have a ride in late 2019, we will have instruments in late 2019,” he said.

A separate solicitation is looking for payloads outside of NASA that could be developed quickly, and final proposals are due to NASA in late February. Zurbuchen said NASA prioritized that program as it worked to recover from the five-week partial government shutdown that ended last month. “This is the one thing we advanced the fastest,” he said.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-seeks-to-accelerate-work-on-lunar-missions/

It seems like NASA is moving way too fast on this, considering one of the expediency measures in the document refer to only crew rating the actual lander and not the complete ascent/descent system.

[tater]

43 minutes ago, EchoLima said:

The worst part is that NASA already sent people to the moon on a single rocket! Now somehow it takes three... 

Because they elected to build what they describe as the biggest rocket ever, but it's somehow less capable than Saturn V.

They should have built a rocket with a goal.

[EchoLima]

41 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

But the mission was very limited in scope and capability. 

True. It's just that there's an irony in the mission being more complex/convoluted and less directed the second time.

Edit: I don't know the details of the LOP-G plan, but it seems to me to be more efficient to send multiple Apollo style mission to various sites on the moon. The costs to build a LOP-G and tug in an attempt to make lunar exploration more efficient will rise fast (multiple SLS launches required). 

Edited February 17, 2019 by EchoLima

[tater]

56 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Yeah.

But the mission was very limited in scope and capability. 

Apollo was definitely a sortie lander mission. That said, functionally so is Gateway, even with landers. They can only crew Gateway at most once  a year, for something on the order of a month, max (including any lunar sortie).

Given this reality, what's the point of doing it in any way other than an Apollo like mission, anyway? They could just as well use the effort to put Gateway in place to land infrastructure on the lunar surface, then once a year send crew to the Moon for a month, instead of to Gateway/Moon for a month (less time on the Moon, given any time at all at Gateway). Orbital supplies could just as well be put in a frozen orbit over the Moon, heck, some could be merely contingency supplies.

Gateway makes zero sense.

(except that SLS/Orion was arbitrarily designed to not quite be able to do this, so it's off the table)

Edited February 17, 2019 by tater

[tater]

My idea would be:

1. Use commercial partners to place relay/mapping sats around the Moon to facilitate a base someplace.

2. CLPS lands exploration vehicles in the base area, and they find the ideal spot to place the facility.

3. CLPS pre-places supplies for the crew habitat.

4. The newly announce commercial crew lander program tests their craft by precise landings in the base area, and perhaps some providers are tasked with landing habitats instead of round trip vehicles (no ascent stage).

5. Crewing base is accomplished via a distributed LOR. Lander sent ahead. Orion (in a magical world where it can reach LLO and return to Earth---might take docking it to a giant Centaur (ACES) or something) drags crew to lander.

6. Sortie to base area (designed to land near dawn). Crew does some science, living out of lander, but works on extracting the pre-landed habitats to get them assembled. If possible, they can inhabit it, else they prepare for next crew.

[Bill Phil]

11 minutes ago, tater said:

Apollo was definitely a sortie lander mission. That said, functionally so is Gateway, even with landers. They can only crew Gateway at most once  a year, for something on the order of a month, max (including any lunar sortie).

Given this reality, what's the point of doing it in any way other than an Apollo like mission, anyway? They could just as well use the effort to put Gateway in place to land infrastructure on the lunar surface, then once a year send crew to the Moon for a month, instead of to Gateway/Moon for a month (less time on the Moon, given any time at all at Gateway). Orbital supplies could just as well be put in a frozen orbit over the Moon, heck, some could be merely contingency supplies.

Gateway makes zero sense.

(except that SLS/Orion was arbitrarily designed to not quite be able to do this, so it's off the table)

Honestly solar electric tugs from LEO to LLO might be a good way to get material to LLO, then use SLS or some other super heavy to send crews every once in a while.

[tater]

12 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Honestly solar electric tugs from LEO to LLO might be a good way to get material to LLO, then use SLS or some other super heavy to send crews every once in a while.

The problem of course is that Orion can't get home from LLO if it also has to to the lunar orbital insertion burn. I think it needs about another km/s of dv to be able to function as the Apollo CSM did (a comanifested stage? A larger EUS?).

[sevenperforce]

12 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Honestly solar electric tugs from LEO to LLO might be a good way to get material to LLO, then use SLS or some other super heavy to send crews every once in a while.

Except for the station-keeping you need in LLO. Nothing can stay there very long.

Just now, tater said:

The problem of course is that Orion can't get home from LLO if it also has to to the lunar orbital insertion burn. I think it needs about another km/s of dv to be able to function as the Apollo CSM did (a comanifested stage? A larger EUS?).

Doesn't matter how big you build the EUS if it can't burn beyond LEO. If a cryogenic upper stage can have persistence to cislunar space then you have something to work with.

[tater]

9 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Except for the station-keeping you need in LLO. Nothing can stay there very long.

Doesn't matter how big you build the EUS if it can't burn beyond LEO. If a cryogenic upper stage can have persistence to cislunar space then you have something to work with.

Yeah, that's the problem. Something like ACES would obviously make more sense. Since EUS doesn't actually exist, they should make it a useful cryo stage.

Regarding ion propulsion---useful for stationkeeping, and for moving supplies to the Moon, though the descent stage needs to have storable propellants for the long trip.. Too slow for people.

[EchoLima]

20 minutes ago, tater said:

The problem of course is that Orion can't get home from LLO if it also has to to the lunar orbital insertion burn.

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, but if Apollo could do it, why can't Orion? 

[Bill Phil]

5 minutes ago, EchoLima said:

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, but if Apollo could do it, why can't Orion? 

It has less delta-V.

Apollo CSMs had a higher mass ratio, essentially. 

23 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Except for the station-keeping you need in LLO. Nothing can stay there very long.

Ion engines can deal with that. Also some LLOs are not as unstable as others. Depends.

27 minutes ago, tater said:

The problem of course is that Orion can't get home from LLO if it also has to to the lunar orbital insertion burn. I think it needs about another km/s of dv to be able to function as the Apollo CSM did (a comanifested stage? A larger EUS?).

I’m thinking a comanifested hypergolic stage. I’m still baffled by how low Orion’s delta-v is...

[Cunjo Carl]

17 hours ago, James Kerman said:

It seems like NASA is moving way too fast on this, considering one of the expediency measures in the document refer to only crew rating the actual lander and not the complete ascent/descent system.

I really have to agree, which pains me.

I've been trying to find out what capability they're aiming for, in terms of planetary science on the moon. I guess they're planning to tell us some time later this week?  I agree, that this all feels uncharacteristically slapdash. NASA does a lot of useful research in all sorts of fields (a lot of which I use), and I'm hoping this doesn't take away from their science programs. This sudden upcoming unveiling of 12 instruments ready to go in 10 months, along with an open request for more feels off to me. I don't want to sound too disparaging I'm definitely a big NASA fan, especially in more recent years with their updated PR, but still hoping to get some more context on this.

The CLPS program's been in proposal since early last year, but I feel like the time frame and scope have changed dramatically. I'd thought it was just for little unmanned science rovers like a continuation of the X-Prize! Or maybe I just didn't notice? Anyways, I decided to check out the companies to see what they're up to, and figured I'd share what I found at first glance.

Astrobiotic Technology
Aiming to make lunar landers. "BUY SPACE 1.2M$/KG TO THE MOON" Planned first launch of prototype their Peregrine lander in 2020 on an ATLAS V with a rover from ispace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrobotic_Technology        https://www.astrobotic.com/

Deep Space Systems
An ongoing business of ~100 employees for making space flight hardware such as cameras and electronics. Aiming to make a rover
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Systems        https://www.deepspacesystems.com/

Draper Laboratory
A large not-for-profit, which had worked on the Apollo lander! Specializes in aerospace nav/control/MEMS, and much more. Planning to make a rover with ispace (Artemis 7).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draper_Laboratory        https://www.draperinc.com/

Firefly Aerospace
Aiming to launch for the small sat market to LEO and sun synchronous. Planned first flight Dec 2019, ~1t LEO. Plans to strap 3 rockets together for larger missions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefly_Alpha        https://fireflyspace.com/

Intuitive Machines
A startup working on various space concepts. Aiming to make a lander by 2021 capable of landing and also relocating an 85kg payload across the lunar surface.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitive_Machines        https://www.intuitivemachines.com/

Lockheed Martin
Some yahoos, I'll bet they have no idea what they're getting themselves into! /s Submitted a lander proposal 'McCandless' based on InSight and capable of 100kg payload. Interestingly, they don't seem to have a proposed launch date yet.

Masten Space Systems
A small startup developing small liquid motors and winning prizes in vertical takeoff/landing. Planning to fly their Lunar Catalyst program lander XL-1 no sooner than 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masten_Space_Systems        https://www.masten.aero/

Moon Express
A small startup that vied for the X-prize, they plan to launch a moon lander capable of 30kg later this year aboard an Electron. It will use RP1/Peroxide which is 'Eco Friendly'!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Express        http://moonexpress.com/

Orbit Beyond
A startup designing a 50kg payload lander called the XL-1 for hopeful flight in 2020. Plans to scale up after that. Not a lot else jumps out....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OrbitBeyond        https://www.orbitbeyond.com/

EDIT: NASA's been kind to put together concept pictures here: https://www.nasa.gov/content/draft-concepts-for-commercial-lunar-landers

Edited February 17, 2019 by Cunjo Carl
typo

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, tater said:

6. Sortie to base area (designed to land near dawn). Crew does some science, living out of lander, but works on extracting the pre-landed habitats to get them assembled. If possible, they can inhabit it, else they prepare for next crew.

If some mineral deposits are already found exactly there. So, if it makes sense to drill there.
Otherwise we should remember that the lunar and martian rovers have been able to pass < 50 km each along across that landscape.

So, either a long-term exploration site is going to become this

Spoiler

, or they should send short-term missions exploring just several kilometers from the landing site.

(Maximum range of Apollo rovers from the lander was just 5 km
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Roving_Vehicle#Control_and_navigation)

So, probably they should first find an exact place to drill efficiently, and that requires short-terms expeditions with shovels and buckets.

[tater]

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

, or they should send short-term missions exploring just several kilometers from the landing site.

Yeah, the CLPS (unmanned) rovers would do the scouting, then pick a place of interest for humans to set up an outpost. That was step 2, but I forgot to put the bit where they find the base area, first (various places checked).

[kerbiloid]

6 minutes ago, tater said:

Yeah, the CLPS (unmanned) rovers would do the scouting, then pick a place of interest for humans to set up an outpost.

And here we would compare the area explored by the unmanned rovers and by an Apollo expedition.
Both have passed ~40 km in total (just unmanned rovers along, while the human buggies around).

But it took years for rovers and just a day for humans, because you don't need to program and test any movement.
Unlike a robot, a human just looks around, finds some stones, takes by hands, looks, throws away, puts an interesting one into the bucket.

Edited February 17, 2019 by kerbiloid

[tater]

Robotic rovers have improved, and the Moon is far, far closer than Mars, so speeds could be substantially improved over the usual rover missions we have been doing. The round trip delay is only ~2 seconds.