Lunar Lander for SLS

[Pawelk198604]

I wonder does NASA considering returning to Moon,

Presentment Obama killed Consolation Project, but kept Orion, i just wonder does NASA considering returning to Moon what LM would look, i don't like LM from constellation project "Altair"

It's look so ugly.

in my opinion landers from the Apollo program are more aesthetic and generally nicer:D

[Mitchz95]

I kinda like the new one (and it's Constellation program )

As far as I know there are no current plans to return to the moon, at least not in NASA.

[FishInferno]

do aesthetics really matter in terms of a moon lander?

I think that we shoud return to the moon before we visit an asteroid. we can prepare better for mars with a moon mission

[Budgie]

I like the new one too, actually. I can't see what geometry is what in the Apollo lander. Its a mess of shapes.

Anyway, Im sure there are at least powerpoint presentations about going to the moon. Isn't one of the unmanned Orion + SLS missions to orbit the moon and come back?

[xenomorph555]

I personally prefer the old lander.

I do have a question as well, why is altairs service/decent module so massive compared to the living module?

[magnemoe]

So large compared to the Apollo one.

Why so much larger, even with more landing option an three man crew I don't see why they need a landing stage more than 5 times the Apollo one.

[Giggleplex777]

There's an LK-shaped moon lander in Boeing's recent SLS mission booklet: https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=g_ExVNPZEcXeoAS_yoLYCQ&url=http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/defense-space/space/sls/docs/sls_mission_booklet_jan_2014.pdf&cd=7&ved=0CDAQFjAG&usg=AFQjCNFAsNOURf9V_kTcBj7K9VuKbccSWw&sig2=i6DlnKT4VVY5dndBd1tZXA

Probably just an artist's impression, but it's still worth noting.

[Pawelk198604]

So large compared to the Apollo one.

Why so much larger, even with more landing option an three man crew I don't see why they need a landing stage more than 5 times the Apollo one.

Exactly! (10 char)

[Rakaydos]

So large compared to the Apollo one.

Why so much larger, even with more landing option an three man crew I don't see why they need a landing stage more than 5 times the Apollo one.

IIRC, it's because it's built as a combination Lunar single stage down-and-up reusable lander, and Mars Ascent Stage on top of a new decent stage.

Making a multi-use design is supposed to save costs down the line.

[astropapi1]

IIRC, it's because it's built as a combination Lunar single stage down-and-up reusable lander, and Mars Ascent Stage on top of a new decent stage.

Making a multi-use design is supposed to save costs down the line.

Also, Altair would do the Lunar Orbital Insertion instead of Orion, so the descent module has to be much bigger.

[metaphor]

So large compared to the Apollo one.

Why so much larger, even with more landing option an three man crew I don't see why they need a landing stage more than 5 times the Apollo one.

It's much bigger because it was supposed to do the lunar insertion burn for both the lander itself and the capsule (Orion). It's like if the service module of the Apollo spacecraft was attached to the lunar lander instead of to the command module. Overall it's not as efficient as the Apollo architecture (which is part of the reason it was cancelled). They did it this way because Orion had to be smaller in order to be able to launch on the Ares I.

[sp1989]

I wonder does NASA considering returning to Moon,

Presentment Obama killed Consolation Project, but kept Orion, i just wonder does NASA considering returning to Moon what LM would look, i don't like LM from constellation project "Altair"

http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/altair-580x325.jpg

It's look so ugly.

in my opinion landers from the Apollo program are more aesthetic and generally nicer:D

http://www.spacetoys.com/product_images/r/full_scale_apollo_lunar_lander__16419.jpg

Actually a lot people said the same thing about the LEM. They thought it was extremely ugly. I think we look back at with nostalgia and pride. We even look at it with astonishment considering what it could do. So give the design for the altair some credit, its actually quite an impressive and clever design. It was supposed to be capable of operating for 210 days, with a crew of 4! Thats pretty impressive. I was not a fan of the Constellation program. I did not like the original design for Ares I and Ares V concept. Now the Ares V is now the SLS. I think the current state of affairs for NASA are extremely under appreciated. However I do wish we were going to the moon again.

[magnemoe]

It's much bigger because it was supposed to do the lunar insertion burn for both the lander itself and the capsule (Orion). It's like if the service module of the Apollo spacecraft was attached to the lunar lander instead of to the command module. Overall it's not as efficient as the Apollo architecture (which is part of the reason it was cancelled). They did it this way because Orion had to be smaller in order to be able to launch on the Ares I.

Understand, however as I see it it would be better with an separate stage for this.

[Nibb31]

Understand, however as I see it it would be better with an separate stage for this.

A separate stage means at least one more engine, more tankage, more mass and therefore a smaller payload.

What they really should have done, is go for a refuelable lander that would be parked in LLO.

[Pawelk198604]

Also, Altair would do the Lunar Orbital Insertion instead of Orion, so the descent module has to be much bigger.

So this is very much direct ascent

[Nibb31]

So this is very much direct ascent

No, direct ascent means that the LM has a capsule on top and goes straight from the surface of the Moon back to Earth.

Altair was a two-stage vehicle. The descent stage would perform the LOI burn (for the Orion+Altair), the deorbit burn, and the landing, which is why it was so big. The ascent stage would do the launch and rendez-vous with Orion, just like Apollo.

The main difference with Apollo was that it could land at higher latitudes and for several weeks with 4 people. Other than that, it was simply an incremental improvement over Apollo and wouldn't have facilitated a permanent Moon base.

[goncaloeaguiar]

A separate stage means at least one more engine, more tankage, more mass and therefore a smaller payload.

What they really should have done, is go for a refuelable lander that would be parked in LLO.

But then you had to carry the fuel with orion spacecraft and refuel the lander, which at the moment has never been done before.

[Sylandro]

I prefer both, actually.

[Nibb31]

But then you had to carry the fuel with orion spacecraft and refuel the lander, which at the moment has never been done before.

Well, of course it wouldn't be Orion/Constellation. You would have to redesign the entire architecture around it. However, it does make more sense to only carry the propellant for the lander rather than use a new lander each time.

[Rune]

The Altair (cancelled) lander concept was bigger than the LM not only because it did the insertion burn, but also and mostly because its descent stage used H2/LOX cryogenic propellants. And we all know stories about LH2's great density...

Rune. The ET being a good example.

[Woopert]

There's also a Boeing proposal from 2011. Probably not current anymore but it still looks cool!

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

[CDK]

There's also a Boeing proposal from 2011. Probably not current anymore but it still looks cool!

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

That's pretty cool!

[Vallius]

It looks so, so Kerbal. Took me a moment to convince myself that the lander wasn't built in KSP.

[metaphor]

Here's a study of different kinds of possible lunar landers (starting from L1/L2).

http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/AIAA-2013-5479_Presentation.pdf

There's also the more recent Boeing lander design you can see here:

http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/leag2013/presentations/klaus.pdf

[Skyler4856]

So large compared to the Apollo one.

Why so much larger, even with more landing option an three man crew I don't see why they need a landing stage more than 5 times the Apollo one.

Probably due to the fact that it could one, allow for heavier payloads to be deployed, and two, the Constellation program was centered around re-usability; meaning that, the lander couldn't be a several stage system.