http://openluna.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Aftercolumbia&feedformat=atomOpenLuna - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T08:15:11ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.20.3http://openluna.org/wiki/index.php?title=User:AftercolumbiaUser:Aftercolumbia2008-12-26T01:30:53Z<p>Aftercolumbia: project page pasted to user page</p>
<hr />
<div>That would be After Columbia Project, spoken for by Terry Wilson, residing at the following locations, in addition to this one:<br />
<br><br />
<br>http://aftercolumbia.tripod.com<br />
<br>http://aftercolumbiamars.blogspot.com<br />
<br>http://ascentroadmap.blogspot.com<br />
<br><br />
<br>After Columbia Mars Direction used to be the MarsDrive Mission Design...if anyone visiting over there ever wondered what happened to the focused, small-lander human mission architecture that MarsDrive was working on in early 2007, it was renamed After Columbia Mars Direction, which was still hosted by MarsDrive while we all (especially myself) wasted our time on the unfocused, uncoordinated, unskilled ramblings of something called "DRM 2". Whenever I tried to focus on something, I was ruthlessly flamed by the new team leader. I was finally given the boot in September 2008, had all my accounts deleted, became the exiled mission design team founder...because I tried to remain focused.</div>Aftercolumbiahttp://openluna.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:LanderTalk:Lander2008-12-16T21:45:27Z<p>Aftercolumbia: /* Gary!! */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>ubject:<br />
Re: Launch Vehicles<br />
From:<br />
Gary Snyder<br />
Date:<br />
Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:11:33 -0600 (MDT)<br />
To:<br />
Terry Wilson <br />
<br />
<br />
Hi Terry,<br />
I'll try to answer some questions in-line:<br />
<br />
> > Gary,<br />
> ><br />
> > Paul expresses that we are going to use the same lander type for all five<br />
> > missions to save on development. I don't think this is possible because<br />
> > they ask for requirements across an enormous scale (about two orders of<br />
> > magnitude.)<br />
<br />
<br />
Yep and nope. I've spent the last couple of days crawling (figuratively<br />
and literally) around the Micro-Space lander equipment. The is still much<br />
work to be done but the progress made is significant. The current<br />
reference design is a vehicle that can land 300 lbs (cargo) on the surface<br />
of the moon from LLO. Its dry/MT mass is about 50 lbs, 650 wet/loaded.<br />
This is assuming the Vac Isp delivered to be 300 sec. This motor spec is<br />
doable but not done. The tanks are in hand.<br />
<br />
A 300 lb payload for mission one is to large. (1)<br />
It would be about right for exploration/sample return mission. (2-3)<br />
It would require a Rendezvous (baselined) for a manned mission. (4)<br />
All bets are off on the Mission 5<br />
<br />
> > The mission I have the best information on is "Mission 5",<br />
> > the human one.<br />
<br />
which, unfortunately is the least defined at this stage. You win it :) <br />
Seriously, bringing passengers to the moon is a different game. The<br />
equipment in development is assuming a motivated pilot alone.<br />
<br />
> > Assuming, reasonably, that taking off from the moon, landing on<br />
> > the moon, and TLI, each multiply the mass of the next stage by three,<br />
<br />
Really dependent on performance. current tanks are *Very* good. Looks like<br />
a factor of two for LLO->LS or back. rendezvous in LLO for an additional<br />
300 lbs would get it home to earth. The GTO to LLO stage is a 2x<br />
multiplier also. How to get to GTO from the surface of the Earth is launch<br />
vehicle question. I am trying to see what proportion strap on tanks I will<br />
need to extend the GTO -> LLLO stage to make up assorted DeltaV needs from<br />
the launch vehicle. IE if we start an LEO we need Xlbs of payload, for<br />
every extra Y m/sec we can loose Z lbs of payload.<br />
<br />
> > even a<br />
> > minimal human mission gets very large by the standards of Mission 1.<br />
> > Assuming the returning entry mass is 300lb (the astronaut, his suit, an<br />
> > inflatable heatshield, parachute and survival kit), the mass that needs to<br />
> > ascend from the moon is 900lb,<br />
<br />
I do not,out of principle, agree with lunar Direct. I helped zubrin and<br />
know the (poor)logic.<br />
<br />
and the mass that needs to be sent<br />
> > translunar<br />
> > is 2700lb (Delta II level performance), with an equivalent LEO mass of<br />
> > 8100lb (also Delta II performance). So, Mission 5 is well beyond the<br />
> > capabilities of Falcon 1e.<br />
> ><br />
<br />
I see a bare minimum of 1500 lbs in LLO. which is 3klbs in GTO. much more<br />
than a Falcon. There is the matter of cost also. Speaking of cost, we are<br />
trying to get some grant money in the next 2-6 weeks, (Nasa-USAF). I<br />
apologize for not putting more up on the wiki. just a little swamped.<br />
<br />
<br />
> > Paul says it's your department.<br />
I'm always in need of help. It's all our project, It's all our departments.<br />
<br />
> ><br />
> > IMHO, the best plan for Mission 1 is to start with a single day rover<br />
> > (i.e.<br />
> > sunrise to sunset with overnight survival a secondary objective) landed on<br />
> > an overhead lander. The primary objectives would be to deliver the rover,<br />
> > have it depart and roam, and then have it come back to the lander and<br />
> > re-integrate. The lander would then hop west to a new landing site and<br />
> > extend the day the rover can operate. This would prove almost all the<br />
> > functionality required for the larger "PEZ candy" lander, which can then<br />
> > be<br />
> > scaled up from the original overhead lander (longer tanks, more motors.)<br />
> > The multiple rover mission would also add overnight survival as an<br />
> > objective. Multiple rover/sample return could then be built on the human<br />
> > lander architecture, which would need to ascend on a larger booster.<br />
<br />
I think we are already building on the human mission. The one thing the<br />
pez idea has is some mesh networking possibilities. The hopper with pez<br />
dispenser will rapidly hit multiple locations. (make hast while the sun<br />
shines, because the night is cold and long)<br />
<br />
> ><br />
> > If we're stuck with launch vehicles too large to bother with a single<br />
> > rover<br />
> > lander, we can put up a relay satellite to ease the communications<br />
> > problems<br />
> > on the same launch (a bit like Japan's *Hiten*). That relay would still<br />
> > be<br />
> > operational for the larger multi-rover and sample return landers, and<br />
> > hopefully long enough for even the human mission. The relay satellite<br />
> > would<br />
> > be bigger, and possibly could test the propulsion gear for the human<br />
> > mission. If that gear doesn't work, perhaps more than one Mission 1/Relay<br />
> > type launch would be required.<br />
<br />
Yea, Another idea that has been brought up with excess launch capacity is<br />
a test of the inflatable reentry vehicle. This would be a better test if<br />
done from GTO due to the higher loads.<br />
<br />
> ><br />
> > Anyway, I'd like to get a thread started on this.<br />
<br />
Here or on the wiki ? I think paul might like the wiki.<br />
<br />
(I'll see if I can hit the wiki today.)<br />
<br />
> ><br />
> > Terry<br />
> ><br />
<br />
On an aside:<br />
I'm not a very authoritarian person and I hope I don't sound like that in<br />
my typing. I appreciate and value your input. I think If we kick stuff<br />
around like this we may:<br />
a) change the plan -or-<br />
b) understand the plan better -or-<br />
c) which we could do a or b :) <br />
<br />
later,<br />
Gar,<br />
<br />
== Answering Page ==<br />
<br />
A good lunar lander reference: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apollolm.htm<br />
<br><br />
<br>Don't agree with losing the landing gear...we'll need dust rebound protection, although having the astronaut absorb the impact is hardly a big deal. Inertia is the big challenge carrying the lander as opposed to gravitational weight...also, it isn't going to be particularly light, with my estimate at 400kg for the ascent stage.<br />
<br><br />
<br>The caption for the last picture is incorrect...that lander is clearly fully loaded with four rovers and room for no more.<br />
<br><br />
<br>I want to get a Prochron email loop started with Richard Speck, since I'm hoping for commonality between Prochron and the lander. It may be possible to use his hardware directly in the Prochron booster.<br />
<br />
== Gary!! ==<br />
<br />
i hope you get this, since yer email is kinda (bleep)ed. Can we discuss the Prochron booster either here (this page discussion), or over at [http://ascentroadmap.blogspot.com | http://ascentroadmap.blogspot.com] comments page. Basically go there, and look for anything in the Archives on the right sidebar that has the word Prochron in it. I have AFAL updates, and my Prochron spreadsheet is shot (my Prochron OpenLuna spreadsheet is not...it is not as sensitive to changes in Isp, and the changes in Isp are relatively minor...you, on the other hand need a change in ISP...:really wide grin:)</div>Aftercolumbiahttp://openluna.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:LanderTalk:Lander2008-12-16T21:27:17Z<p>Aftercolumbia: /* Answering Page */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>ubject:<br />
Re: Launch Vehicles<br />
From:<br />
Gary Snyder<br />
Date:<br />
Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:11:33 -0600 (MDT)<br />
To:<br />
Terry Wilson <br />
<br />
<br />
Hi Terry,<br />
I'll try to answer some questions in-line:<br />
<br />
> > Gary,<br />
> ><br />
> > Paul expresses that we are going to use the same lander type for all five<br />
> > missions to save on development. I don't think this is possible because<br />
> > they ask for requirements across an enormous scale (about two orders of<br />
> > magnitude.)<br />
<br />
<br />
Yep and nope. I've spent the last couple of days crawling (figuratively<br />
and literally) around the Micro-Space lander equipment. The is still much<br />
work to be done but the progress made is significant. The current<br />
reference design is a vehicle that can land 300 lbs (cargo) on the surface<br />
of the moon from LLO. Its dry/MT mass is about 50 lbs, 650 wet/loaded.<br />
This is assuming the Vac Isp delivered to be 300 sec. This motor spec is<br />
doable but not done. The tanks are in hand.<br />
<br />
A 300 lb payload for mission one is to large. (1)<br />
It would be about right for exploration/sample return mission. (2-3)<br />
It would require a Rendezvous (baselined) for a manned mission. (4)<br />
All bets are off on the Mission 5<br />
<br />
> > The mission I have the best information on is "Mission 5",<br />
> > the human one.<br />
<br />
which, unfortunately is the least defined at this stage. You win it :) <br />
Seriously, bringing passengers to the moon is a different game. The<br />
equipment in development is assuming a motivated pilot alone.<br />
<br />
> > Assuming, reasonably, that taking off from the moon, landing on<br />
> > the moon, and TLI, each multiply the mass of the next stage by three,<br />
<br />
Really dependent on performance. current tanks are *Very* good. Looks like<br />
a factor of two for LLO->LS or back. rendezvous in LLO for an additional<br />
300 lbs would get it home to earth. The GTO to LLO stage is a 2x<br />
multiplier also. How to get to GTO from the surface of the Earth is launch<br />
vehicle question. I am trying to see what proportion strap on tanks I will<br />
need to extend the GTO -> LLLO stage to make up assorted DeltaV needs from<br />
the launch vehicle. IE if we start an LEO we need Xlbs of payload, for<br />
every extra Y m/sec we can loose Z lbs of payload.<br />
<br />
> > even a<br />
> > minimal human mission gets very large by the standards of Mission 1.<br />
> > Assuming the returning entry mass is 300lb (the astronaut, his suit, an<br />
> > inflatable heatshield, parachute and survival kit), the mass that needs to<br />
> > ascend from the moon is 900lb,<br />
<br />
I do not,out of principle, agree with lunar Direct. I helped zubrin and<br />
know the (poor)logic.<br />
<br />
and the mass that needs to be sent<br />
> > translunar<br />
> > is 2700lb (Delta II level performance), with an equivalent LEO mass of<br />
> > 8100lb (also Delta II performance). So, Mission 5 is well beyond the<br />
> > capabilities of Falcon 1e.<br />
> ><br />
<br />
I see a bare minimum of 1500 lbs in LLO. which is 3klbs in GTO. much more<br />
than a Falcon. There is the matter of cost also. Speaking of cost, we are<br />
trying to get some grant money in the next 2-6 weeks, (Nasa-USAF). I<br />
apologize for not putting more up on the wiki. just a little swamped.<br />
<br />
<br />
> > Paul says it's your department.<br />
I'm always in need of help. It's all our project, It's all our departments.<br />
<br />
> ><br />
> > IMHO, the best plan for Mission 1 is to start with a single day rover<br />
> > (i.e.<br />
> > sunrise to sunset with overnight survival a secondary objective) landed on<br />
> > an overhead lander. The primary objectives would be to deliver the rover,<br />
> > have it depart and roam, and then have it come back to the lander and<br />
> > re-integrate. The lander would then hop west to a new landing site and<br />
> > extend the day the rover can operate. This would prove almost all the<br />
> > functionality required for the larger "PEZ candy" lander, which can then<br />
> > be<br />
> > scaled up from the original overhead lander (longer tanks, more motors.)<br />
> > The multiple rover mission would also add overnight survival as an<br />
> > objective. Multiple rover/sample return could then be built on the human<br />
> > lander architecture, which would need to ascend on a larger booster.<br />
<br />
I think we are already building on the human mission. The one thing the<br />
pez idea has is some mesh networking possibilities. The hopper with pez<br />
dispenser will rapidly hit multiple locations. (make hast while the sun<br />
shines, because the night is cold and long)<br />
<br />
> ><br />
> > If we're stuck with launch vehicles too large to bother with a single<br />
> > rover<br />
> > lander, we can put up a relay satellite to ease the communications<br />
> > problems<br />
> > on the same launch (a bit like Japan's *Hiten*). That relay would still<br />
> > be<br />
> > operational for the larger multi-rover and sample return landers, and<br />
> > hopefully long enough for even the human mission. The relay satellite<br />
> > would<br />
> > be bigger, and possibly could test the propulsion gear for the human<br />
> > mission. If that gear doesn't work, perhaps more than one Mission 1/Relay<br />
> > type launch would be required.<br />
<br />
Yea, Another idea that has been brought up with excess launch capacity is<br />
a test of the inflatable reentry vehicle. This would be a better test if<br />
done from GTO due to the higher loads.<br />
<br />
> ><br />
> > Anyway, I'd like to get a thread started on this.<br />
<br />
Here or on the wiki ? I think paul might like the wiki.<br />
<br />
(I'll see if I can hit the wiki today.)<br />
<br />
> ><br />
> > Terry<br />
> ><br />
<br />
On an aside:<br />
I'm not a very authoritarian person and I hope I don't sound like that in<br />
my typing. I appreciate and value your input. I think If we kick stuff<br />
around like this we may:<br />
a) change the plan -or-<br />
b) understand the plan better -or-<br />
c) which we could do a or b :) <br />
<br />
later,<br />
Gar,<br />
<br />
== Answering Page ==<br />
<br />
A good lunar lander reference: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apollolm.htm<br />
<br><br />
<br>Don't agree with losing the landing gear...we'll need dust rebound protection, although having the astronaut absorb the impact is hardly a big deal. Inertia is the big challenge carrying the lander as opposed to gravitational weight...also, it isn't going to be particularly light, with my estimate at 400kg for the ascent stage.<br />
<br><br />
<br>The caption for the last picture is incorrect...that lander is clearly fully loaded with four rovers and room for no more.<br />
<br><br />
<br>I want to get a Prochron email loop started with Richard Speck, since I'm hoping for commonality between Prochron and the lander. It may be possible to use his hardware directly in the Prochron booster.</div>Aftercolumbiahttp://openluna.org/wiki/index.php?title=AftercolumbiaAftercolumbia2008-12-16T21:15:44Z<p>Aftercolumbia: New page: That would be After Columbia Project, spoken for by Terry Wilson, residing at the following locations, in addition to this one: <br> <br>http://aftercolumbia.tripod.com <br>http://aftercol...</p>
<hr />
<div>That would be After Columbia Project, spoken for by Terry Wilson, residing at the following locations, in addition to this one:<br />
<br><br />
<br>http://aftercolumbia.tripod.com<br />
<br>http://aftercolumbiamars.blogspot.com<br />
<br>http://ascentroadmap.blogspot.com<br />
<br><br />
<br>After Columbia Mars Direction used to be the MarsDrive Mission Design...if anyone visiting over there ever wondered what happened to the focused, small-lander human mission architecture that MarsDrive was working on in early 2007, it was renamed After Columbia Mars Direction, which was still hosted by MarsDrive while we all (especially myself) wasted our time on the unfocused, uncoordinated, unskilled ramblings of something called "DRM 2". Whenever I tried to focus on something, I was ruthlessly flamed by the new team leader. I was finally given the boot in September 2008, had all my accounts deleted, became the exiled mission design team founder...because I tried to remain focused.</div>Aftercolumbiahttp://openluna.org/wiki/index.php?title=Lunar_LanderLunar Lander2008-12-16T20:26:55Z<p>Aftercolumbia: added link to other Lander page</p>
<hr />
<div>aftercolumbia's Lander spreadsheet at http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pPW38BHXYUTlDPPe3cNIcPw<br />
Related [[Lander]]<br />
<br />
A lander vehicle has many of the same components as a space vehicle with several important additions:<br />
<br />
1) [[Lander Legs | Landing legs]] and [[Lander structure | structure]]. It is necessary to absorb landing shocks, maintain a stable configuration, and structurally support the vehicle in the desired landing area. <br />
<br />
2) [[Lander landing sensor | Landing "radar"]]. It may not be actual radar, but something needs to measure the distance from the surface and lateral velocity to execute a landing maneuver. additionally, some vehicles may be performing orbital rendezvous and the equipment may be asked to assist in these mission phases. <br />
Notional concepts include Radar, Lidar, Parallax, Video, UWB, Magnetics and other sensors. <br />
<br />
3) [[Lander Cargo | Cargo]] and [[Lander Cargo deployment | deployment]]. Most landers are built like a truck, it carries something and has a way of discharging its payload. <br />
Typical devices may include ramps, doors, cranes, tiedowns, latches, hardpoints, and more.<br />
<br />
4) [[Lander Engines | Advanced Propulsion]]. a lander probably needs the ability to vary the amount of thrust its engines are producing. Additionally, since a positive thrust to weight (not mass just weight) ratio is generally required, the engines need to be sized larger than on a simple spacecraft.<br />
<br />
5) [[Translational Maneuvering]]. Landers and rendezvousing spacecraft need the ability to translate in all three axis relative to a target. A simple spacecraft need to hold an attitude, but a lander needs to be able to stop lateral translations for final approach. Typical solutions are the ability to lean on the main engines (lean over the engines to translate the lander) and/or small auxiliary engines. (similar to RCS engines, always for prox ops.</div>Aftercolumbiahttp://openluna.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_PageMain Page2008-12-03T19:37:09Z<p>Aftercolumbia: Changed to Lunar Access Plan</p>
<hr />
<div><big>'''Welcome to the [http://www.openluna.org/index.shtml OpenLuna] wiki. '''</big> - ''"[[Because we've waited long enough!]]"'' - <br />
"Audentes Fortuna Juvat"<br />
<br />
This page is used to scratch out the notes that will become the mission. You are encouraged to contribute in any way possible. <br />
<br />
Consult the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents User's Guide] for information on using the wiki software.<br />
<br />
== About [http://www.openluna.org/index.shtml OpenLuna] ==<br />
<br />
''"The Moon Shines on all the Earth..."''<br />
<br />
The Open Luna Foundation aims to return mankind to the moon through private enterprise. Initial goals focus on a stepped program of robotic missions coupled with extensive public relations and outreach. Following these purely robotic missions, a short series of [[manned missions]] will construct a small, approximately 6 - 10 person [[outpost]] based on a location scouted by the robotic missions. This [[outpost]] will be open for anyone's use (private individuals to government agencies), provided they respect our [[ethical conduct]] and [[cultural heritage]] policies.<br />
<br />
== Mission Details ==<br />
For now, Look at the '''[[Mission_Plan]]''' and '''[[individual components]]'''. More to follow.<br />
<br />
== Getting started ==<br />
<br />
Please look at the [[People needed]] list as well. We certainly could use your help. Really, we could use ''your'' help, because this is ''[[your mission]]''... Not NASA, Not CSA, no big corporation, ''YOURS''.<br />
<br />
For more general discussion or question asking, look in the discussion page first. You should also read all of the existing pages before starting any new ones. (Start with '''[[Mission_Plan]]''') You should also look in the discussion pages before editing anything. (Edit with care. Read the '''[[Equipment design standards]]''' and the discussion pages and the [[Mission_Plan]] before editing anything.)<br />
<br />
You should also note that we are breaking out some '''[[individual components]]''' here.<br />
<br />
<br />
== About the Google Lunar X-Prize ==<br />
<br />
First note that we are not now, and do not ever plan on becoming a Google Lunar X-Prize team, even though we work with one. (and are open to working with others.) Having said that, The Google Lunar X PRIZE is a $30 million international competition to safely land a robot on the surface of the Moon, travel 500 meters over the lunar surface, and send images and data back to the Earth. Teams must be at least 90% privately funded and must be registered to compete by December 31, 2010. The first team to land on the Moon and complete the mission objectives will be awarded $20 million; the full first prize is available until December 31, 2012. After that date, the first prize will drop to $15 million. The second team to do so will be awarded $5 million. Another $5 million will awarded in bonus prizes. The final deadline for winning the prize is December 31, 2014. More can be found at [http://www.googlelunarxprize.org GLXP website]. In case they change the rules, see our plan to win as [[Mission_X]] But also see [[GLXP]] as to why we will not enter unless they do so.<br />
<br />
== Lunar Access Plan ==<br />
<br />
The means to access the Moon in terms of propulsion solutions. Includes the [[Launch Vehicle]], [[Lunar Lander]], [[Crew Vehicle]] and [[Entry Vehicle]].<br />
<br />
The [http://ascentroadmap.blogspot.com Ascent Roadmap]: plan to develop low-cost private access to space by After Columbia Project will provide its propulsion modules and launch vehicles for the Lunar Access Plan.<br />
<br />
== General Wiki How-To ==<br />
<br />
READ THE [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents User's Guide]!<br />
<br />
You must be a registered user to edit pages or read the discussion. Registration is free and easy, ([[Special:Userlogin]]) You should try it. I think you'll like it.<br />
<br />
* [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]<br />
* [http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce MediaWiki release mailing list]</div>Aftercolumbiahttp://openluna.org/wiki/index.php?title=Lunar_LanderLunar Lander2008-12-03T16:53:50Z<p>Aftercolumbia: Added spreadsheet link</p>
<hr />
<div>aftercolumbia's Lander spreadsheet at http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pPW38BHXYUTlDPPe3cNIcPw<br />
<br />
A lander vehicle has many of the same components as a space vehicle with several important additions:<br />
<br />
1) [[Lander Legs | Landing legs]] and [[Lander structure | structure]]. It is necessary to absorb landing shocks, maintain a stable configuration, and structurally support the vehicle in the desired landing area. <br />
<br />
2) [[Lander landing sensor | Landing "radar"]]. It may not be actual radar, but something needs to measure the distance from the surface and lateral velocity to execute a landing maneuver. additionally, some vehicles may be performing orbital rendezvous and the equipment may be asked to assist in these mission phases. <br />
Notional concepts include Radar, Lidar, Parallax, Video, UWB, Magnetics and other sensors. <br />
<br />
3) [[Lander Cargo | Cargo]] and [[Lander Cargo deployment | deployment]]. Most landers are built like a truck, it carries something and has a way of discharging its payload. <br />
Typical devices may include ramps, doors, cranes, tiedowns, latches, hardpoints, and more.<br />
<br />
4) [[Lander Engines | Advanced Propulsion]]. a lander probably needs the ability to vary the amount of thrust its engines are producing. Additionally, since a positive thrust to weight (not mass just weight) ratio is generally required, the engines need to be sized larger than on a simple spacecraft.<br />
<br />
5) [[Translational Maneuvering]]. Landers and rendezvousing spacecraft need the ability to translate in all three axis relative to a target. A simple spacecraft need to hold an attitude, but a lander needs to be able to stop lateral translations for final approach. Typical solutions are the ability to lean on the main engines (lean over the engines to translate the lander) and/or small auxiliary engines. (similar to RCS engines, always for prox ops.</div>Aftercolumbiahttp://openluna.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ascent_RoadmapAscent Roadmap2008-11-08T05:42:29Z<p>Aftercolumbia: Moved LOTC link here, added spacing</p>
<hr />
<div>I highly recommend this book...dang near required reading for low cost booster design...by John R. London III: <em>LEO On The Cheap</em>, http://www.dunnspace.com/leo-1-10.pdf (12.18MB please forgive the OCR glitches...it could do with a new scan by a program that knows how to look for the obvious alternative to the gibberish, "effikency". It is still very readable and informative.)<br />
<br><br />
<br>[[Prochron]]: Intended to launch 3kg (i.e.: a [[Cubesat]] to orbit, and, stripped of its upper stages, operate as an amateur sounding rocket under Canadian Association of Rocketry (Level 4) or National Association of Rocketry (Level 3). The payload is 0.1m square in diameter.<br />
<br><br />
<br>[[Symtex]]: A niche booster intended to span the gap between the Cubesat and [[Orbital's]] Pegasus, currently the smallest commercial orbital booster (20kg to 500kg). If followed in this order, the Ascent Roadmap follows the convention of using the core of the smaller booster, with modifications, as the strap-on stage for the next booster in the line. The diameter is 0.6m.<br />
<br><br />
<br>[[Kilder]]: This booster launches about 2000kg to 8000kg, and would be in competition with several existing boosters (Soyuz, Vega, Taurus, Delta II, and others.) It is 2.0m in diameter.<br />
<br><br />
<br>[[Lilmax]]: This booster launches from 20 to 60 tonnes to orbit, and has received the most attention because After Columbia Project, author of the Ascent Roadmap, has done Mars studies, to which this booster best applies. Its 4m diameter is the maximum possible highway transportable diameter. The fairing might be wider, and possibly some larger upper stages. The version that launches ACMD's Stampede Lander would have a 6.5m diameter fairing.<br />
<br><br />
<br>[[Bluestar]]: The oldest booster concept in the series has evolved the most since it was first examined. The only hard items are that it launches an 8000kg payload, is fully reusable and easy to operate by a potential vendor of charter space services. The payload envelope is required to be 3.0m by 8.0m, but may be a bit larger in the latest concept.<br />
<br><br />
<br>[[Freezerburn]]: The least well defined booster in the series launches 100 tonnes or more. Currently, the core is formed by linking four Lilmax modules together. Lilmax modules are then strapped onto the sides, while the upper stage and fairing are about 9m in diameter, leaving an 8m internal diameter available to the payload.</div>Aftercolumbiahttp://openluna.org/wiki/index.php?title=LilmaxLilmax2008-11-08T05:41:05Z<p>Aftercolumbia: Moving LOTC link</p>
<hr />
<div>I attempted the design of a rolled steel pressure-fed booster called Greenstar at this scale, which didn't work out because of total thrust pressure problems and taught me that "big dumb booster" is a pick-any-two situation as a result (btw, the same total thrust pressure issue explains the gracefully tapered shape of the Soyuz booster, derided by some as a result of "crude" engine design.) The next generation booster design (very incomplete) is Lilmax, a "big practical booster" with modular configuration similar to Falcon 9H, but bigger. The features planned are something like this:<br />
<br />
- The turbopump engine is borrowed from the next smaller booster in the Ascent Roadmap series, Kilder, and itself has these features: <br><br />
-- oxykerosene, approximately 2.40 mixture ratio and 320sec vacuum Isp, 290sec sea level (I don't have my AFAL numbers on me atm)<br><br />
-- turbopump impellers are dual-open-faced Barske impellers based on the Sundyne AnySpeed pump ("AnySpeed" is a Sundyne registered trademark) with on-shaft eye inducers <br><br />
-- turbine will probably be an 100% impulse turbine so we can have thick blades for active cooling and long engine life. <br><br />
-- cycle undecided, but open cycle gas generator is most likely <br><br />
-- "flow liner" style regenerative nozzle with non-stress-bearing channel liner relieves nozzle hot wall of thermally induced stresses, reduces stress cracking and leads to much longer engine life <br><br />
-- requires a relatively high inlet NPSHR due to high speed of turbopump and on-shaft impeller (i.e.: lack of boost pumps such as on SSME and RD-171.) <br><br />
<br><br />
- The first stage module has four engines, the upper stage has one with an extended nozzle (it is hoped that with a guided vernier-powered separation, the nozzle extension can be designed to catch on the core stage forward skirt for rapid and simple extension, and reduce the staging coast to 8 seconds.) <br><br />
<br><br />
- The tanks of the first stage are simple, cold rolled steel (like a submarine), tang-and-clevis segmented construction, of the widest diameter that is logistically practical (probably 4.0m. using a specially designed highway trailer) with no integral stiffening. If the tanks are unstable without pressure, they will be "jigged" when unpressurized, internally (using an insert) for transport, and externally for assembly (find a picture of an Atlas assembly line to see how this works.) <br><br />
<br><br />
- The tang-and-clevis joint envisioned is similar to the one that famously failed in SRB BI-26R's aft field joint, destroying the Shuttle Challenger and her crew on STS-33. Even with an identical joint design on Lilmax (unlikely, since we have lessons learned from STS-33), the burn-through type failure is impossible because:<br><br />
-- No hot gas involved, just liquid fuel and oxidizer; a leak will not lead to ongoing erosion as in a flame leak <br><br />
-- No ignition transient. Challenger's joints failed (BI-26R's forward field joint burned through after the stack broke up) because the booster casings were pressurized so rapidly (<600ms) that the O-rings did not have time to respond and did not seat properly, leaving the sealing job to an unreliable insulation putty, the reason why Challenger didn't blow up on the launch pad. Lilmax' tanks will be pressurized over a period of several seconds. <br><br />
-- Obviously Viton O-rings are not an option, since they will be brittle at LOX temperatures and flammable in the presence of high pressure GOX likely to be present at pressurization. Soft metal gaskets, compressed during assembly, placed in joint areas assured to be compressed as a result of joint rotation, will be used instead. These gaskets are in different places than the Shuttle's O-rings due to the lessons learned from Challenger <br><br />
-- The "capture feature" on the RSRM joint is not required <br><br />
<br><br />
- The tank pressure is about 200psia, very high for a turbopump booster, but well below that of pressure-feds and solid boosters (i.e.: SRB is 950psia.) MEOP is 200psig, test pressure is 300psig, and burst pressure is 400psig. These are standard aerospace safety margins (although lower ones have been used.) It may be possible to sell non-flight tanks as ASME Sec XII or Sec VII/2 pressure vessels with a MEOP of 130psig. This could provide additional revenue and production experience. <br><br />
<br><br />
- The high tank pressure provides the strength needed for recovery impact...a landing on desert rock is assumed. <br><br />
<br><br />
- The booster's recovery parachutes are carried in a piggyback pod (find a picture of Titan III or Titan IV and look for the strap-on booster's TVC nitrogen tetroxide tank to visualize how this will be installed.) This allows the booster to land nose first to save the engines. <br><br />
<br><br />
- Airbags? Probably. This will need to be traded with the tank's impact stress life and the size of the parachutes. It may be that the booster will not require nose airbags, but will require airbags on the aft skirt to protect the engines from the post-rotation impact. With the parachutes on one side of the booster, the initial impact will not be perfectly vertical, so rotation will be predictable. <br><br />
<br><br />
- Reuse is really easy with land recovery, and somewhat harder with ocean recovery. Describing land recovery reuse: <br><br />
-- Drive a purge truck up to the booster (could well be a Big Eagle truck from Calgary, to illustrate the off-the-shelf possibilities), vent the booster to the minimum transport pressure (probably about 20psig), and then while maintaining minimum transport pressure, purge the tanks with dry nitrogen to safety them. Venting the tanks to transport pressure will probably be done remotely or automatically. Gas monitors will ensure the booster is safe enough to approach prior to the purge. If it isn't, one of those big fans used to create fake storms on movie sets should be enough to make it so. (NASA has these for the Shuttle Orbiters on the runway...watch NASATV long enough after a landing to see them. Also, oxykerosene propellants are orders of magnitude less likely to create a dangerous situation than the Shuttle's toxic hypergols.) <br><br />
-- Pyros will be studiously avoided during Lilmax design for the precise reason that they are more dangerous during ground processing and recovery than are SADs (Spring Actuated Devices.) Safety switches and long poles can be used to discharge these safely, and they can be reused. If a faulty redundant SAD is really jammed that the safety switch doesn't work, a few well aimed rifle shots should be able to discharge it safely, although the resulting damage to the booster could get expensive. The danger to avoid in this situation is providing a spark for a flammable atmosphere. Of course, a dead non-redundant SAD would, at the very least, render the booster non-reusable. <br><br />
-- The booster's recovery trailer will pick it up like a roll-on bin and take it back to the launch site. <br><br />
-- The booster is pressure-tested, checked for leaks at MEOP after a few minutes at test pressure (this test uses water.) <br><br />
-- If it passes, it is simply refuelled and launched again <br><br />
-- If it fails at a joint, it is disassembled and reassembled, as most likely the gaskets are worn out. The proof test is repeated <br><br />
-- If it fails away from a joint, repeatedly fails at a joint, has reached the end of its service life, or is buckled, fractured, etc., it is disassembled, the gaskets are scraped off (if necessary), and it is cut up and sold as standard issue no. 2 ferrous scrap. <br><br />
<br><br />
- The upper stage is more sophisticated: <br><br />
-- It is expendable, high strength steel, welded construction, with a single engine (as the program matures, ones flown in first stages will be used instead of new ones), a set of pressure-fed verniers for separation, roll control during powered flight, LEO circularization and deorbit. <br><br />
-- Late during its operation, the undersized pressurization system will run out. The trottleable engine's thrust will be reduced so that its NPSHR will remain below the tanks NPSHA. This also eliminates burnout accelleration problems with light payloads (a big deal with solid fuelled upper stages like those on Delta II, Taurus, and Pegasus.) <br><br />
-- It will use a hydrogen peroxide RCS system...Soyuz still uses one that lasts six months, so it's obvious that one will be viable for a few hours. This will be a heck of a lot safer and cheaper than standard issue hydrazine. <br><br />
-- Pressurant and RCS tanks can be had, probably off the shelf or modification of existing designs, from Pressure Systems Incorporated. The first stage will probably use commercial grade pressurant tanks like Dynecell (from Dynetek), and do not require RCS. <br><br />
-- The guidance system can probably be knocked together from movie motion capture technology and Z80s (processors common in embedded systems and old video games)...if the Ascent Roadmap is followed in order, it'll date from the much smaller booster Symtex. Triple redundancy should be enough. The bugaboo of space computers is latchup from solar and cosmic radiation. The Lilmax guidance system will only be exposed to these levels of radiation for a few hours. Some get to Earth's surface, which means consumer electronic devices should occasionally take hits that cause latchups. I use consumer electronics quite a bit (my cell phone is on constantly), and encounter crashes that might be caused by radiation-induced latch up every couple of weeks (my cell phone has never crashed!) As with Shuttle (which has the smartest rocket guidance system flying, except maybe Falcon's, which I don't have the details of...made of IBM AP-101S computers much older than the Z80, which, despite its age, is still in production...or at least more recent versions of it are.) <br><br />
-- The payload adapter will use a motor driven Marmon clampband opener. These are common on all launch vehicles except the Delta II (which seems to be behind in a great many areas! It also has the dumbest guidance system on any booster currently in service...except the Delta IV, with which it is tied.) <br><br />
-- The upper stage can be stretched for bigger versions of Lilmax. <br><br />
<br><br />
- The booster fairing is expected to be relatively expensive, since it must be sealed prior to the rollout of the payload, and then must separate without generating any crap that might gum up cameras or other sensors on the payload (this happened to Mars Pathfinder's sun sensors...until the program was recalibrated, it was so lost only the solar cell currents assured mission controllers she wasn't going to die. The booster was a Delta II 7920 with the 2.95m aluminum biconic fairing.) It will also be wider than the booster segments, meaning it will need to be shipped by special aircrafts and other vehicles. <br><br />
<br><br />
- separation of the stages will be accomplished by SADs <br><br />
<br><br />
- Using Lilmax modules only, three first stage configurations are possible (1, 3, and 5 first stages), giving payload options from 20 to 60 tonnes LEO or LEO equivalent. <br><br />
<br><br />
- For 3 and 5 first stage configurations, crossfeed of booster propellants will keep the core first stage fully loaded until the first set of strap-on modules deplete. On 3 module configurations, there is only one set; on 5 module configurations, there are two. The core stage will throttle down after the first set on a 5 module configuration depletes. The core stage of a five module configuration might have a tough time during recovery, as it will wind up thousands of miles downrange, probably in deep water. Carbon steel hates salt, and chartering a blue water ship big enough to recover it won't be cheap...it might be better to sell it to a salvage company prior to launch! <br><br />
<br><br />
- The dry mass fraction is expected to be about 12% for the first stage...really heavy by orbital booster standards, but adequate for lower stages. This results from cost/mass tradeoffs on systems and materials: pyros vs. SADS, integral stiffening vs. high tank pressure, turbopump design vs. high tank pressure, expendable vs reusable, low density of oxykerosene relative to solids, segmented construction to ease logistics of factory-to-launch-site transport, crossfeed plumbing, serial vs. parallel arrangement, aluminum vs. steel, fancy heat treatments and integral stiffening vs. cold rolled steel and high tank pressure, etc.. <br><br />
<br><br />
- The dry mass fraction is expected to be about 8% for the upper stage...about the same as the Soyuz core. <br><br />
<br><br />
- The crossfeed plumbing will have a substantial impact on the tank design, so there wind up being three versions of the first stage: one that has no crossfeed plumbing (used as core for 1 module, and second set strap-on for 5 module), one that has crossfeed out (used as strap-on for 3 module, and first set strap-on for 5 module), one that has crossfeed in on two opposite sides (used as the core for 3 module and 5 module.) Except for the tank nozzles and crossfeed manifolds and pipes, these version will be substantially identical. <br><br />
<br><br />
- The forward skirt of any version first stage can accept either an interstage or a nose cone. These will be made as simple as possible since they will probably be written off by impact. (The nose cone is likely to be simply fibreglass...technically glass reinforced plastic (GRP)..."fibreglass" is derived from the "Fibrglas" trademarked insulation.) <br><br />
<br><br />
- stay frosty: the LOX tanks are uninsulated...probably (trade LOX boiloff during longest stay-tanked scrub turnaround...and its likelihood vs. the expense of adding some spray-foam. In the spray-foam scenario, it is fine if it comes off since there is nothing to hit that is weak enough to be damaged by it.) The spray foam application is unlikely, since it will be relatively easy to unload the booster propellants and reload them during a scrub turnaround lasting more than an hour.<br />
<br />
That's about all there is on Lilmax at the moment. The pressurization system is a major open item.</div>Aftercolumbiahttp://openluna.org/wiki/index.php?title=FreezerburnFreezerburn2008-11-08T05:28:51Z<p>Aftercolumbia: Freezerburn introduction...uses and clustering/crossfeed approach</p>
<hr />
<div>The Freezerburn...heavy lift <em>cheap</em>...here's how:<br />
<br><br />
<br>Saturn I style cluster tanking...'tis been done before.<br />
<br><br />
<br>The way <em>Freezerburn</em> does it, is by clustering four Lilmax modules into a big single core stage. Two end structures act to tie the modules together, and carry the extra-huge recovery system...which might include funky inflatable heatshields depending on how fast the core module gets going.<br />
<br><br />
<br>This (very unlike Saturn I), is strapped with ordinary Lilmax modules. Up to 12 such modules can be wrapped around such a core, often with strap-to-strap crossfeeding in the larger configurations.<br />
<br><br />
<br>The only all-new item is a huge (compared to existing) upper stage with a diameter of 9...perhaps even 10 metres. It is assumed that this upper stage is not recoverable, since its dry mass performance is paramount for most conceivable missions...however...like certain station proposals involving the S-IVB upper stage and Shuttle External tank, it would make an excellent pressure vessel to be reused in space, enjoying a long and fruitful service live without ever returning to the surface of its homeworld (although this doesn't rule out landing it on another world, like the Moon, for example.)<br />
<br><br />
<br>What the heck would you need such a huge booster for anyway? Why would you want to make it cheap?<br />
<br><br />
<br>The short answer is something that the Ascent Roadmap doesn't answer directly: <em>passenger</em> access to space. Space tourism is a high potential industry (can't say "booming" yet), and once these tourists start getting to orbit, they're going to want destinations for their cramped little shuttles, somewhere to go stretch their legs. They're going to want space hotels. What better to launch a luxurious space hotel than a cheap, reliable Freezerburn booster?<br />
<br><br />
<br>There are other potential markets too: Lunar, Martian, NEO, Libration zone construction. 5m diameter modules and flimsy inflatables eventually lose their appeal. Freezerburn will be needed eventually.</div>Aftercolumbiahttp://openluna.org/wiki/index.php?title=BluestarBluestar2008-11-08T05:04:35Z<p>Aftercolumbia: Filled things out a bit...added relative precedence levels vs. current boosters (semi-humorous)</p>
<hr />
<div>Bluestar has a long and varied history since I first started studying it in April 2001 (before Columbia's accident and the founding of After Columbia.) Initially, it was very similar to Saenger II, or David Ashford's Spacebus (http://www.bristolspaceplanes.com/projects/spacebus.shtml). That concept is dead because it is very difficult to accomplish. SSTO was never considered<br />
<br><br />
<br>As the concept evolved (off and on since 2001), it has slowly grown more ballistic, from the top down. The booster is still the same type of booster as the original concept, but it might yet be replaced by a stack of Lilmax modules (which are reusable.) A number of options have been looked at for the orbiter:<br />
<br><br />
<br>Shuttle-type orbiter (started April 2001): This had an HL-10 lifting body shape, dorsal payload bay, landng gear, and was very much like a Phase A Shuttle Orbiter. After looking at the Phase A and Phase B Shuttle designs critically, I realized that the required mass fraction for this orbiter could not be met, unless at extreme expense. I started to look for ways to cut down on mass.<br />
<br><br />
<br>Lifting Body Pond Lander (sometime in 2006): This running baseline is still "official", but is probably on its way out. The orbiter lacks a landing gear, but still retains the same type of payload bay as before, as well as a lifting body shape. For this craft, the lifting body provides lift only for the entry phase, and the craft deploys a parasol much like X-38's once it is subsonic. After this, it flies to a landing in a freshwater pond, where it is towed to dockside and lifted from the water using a crane. It also has better contingency options, being able to splashdown at sea or on land. The latter case would be preferable for the crew on board (assuming there is a crew on board, this is increasingly unlikely), since the orbiter will not be very seaworthy in any case.<br />
<br><br />
<br>Lilmax Bluestar (December 2006): This takes a pure ballistic approach to full reusability. Details about Lilmax lower stage reusability are on the [[Lilmax]] page. This orbiter is based around a biconic fairing, and would therefore have some crossrange, but nowhere near as much as the Shuttle. To enable a once around abort landing, it would need to launch due east from a tropical site, and polar missions would be restricted to high latitudes. The orbiter replaces the normally expendable upper stage of Lilmax:<br />
<br>-- The Lilmax portion of the ascent is highly conventional, except that the boosters have parachutes and can be recovered and reused.<br />
<br>-- The arrangement of the orbiter, at first, is conventional, except that the fairing is a single piece. The payload is inside the fairing, and the entire upper stage is behind it. The cross section looks really conventional, like Delta II, Altas V 4xx, Falcon 1, Delta IV, etc., etc..<br />
<br>-- At staging, the orbiter extends its main nozzle and lights its main engines. It has pressure-fed verniers similar to those on the expendable Lilmax upper stage. Still really conventional<br />
<br>-- The most obvious variation from a normal expendable initially is that the fairing is retained to orbit. Not conventional...although they used to do this way back in the '50s and '60s.<br />
<br>-- Once on orbit, the fairing is disengaged from its forward attaching plane and extended forward on a telescoping boom until it is clear of the payload. Comparatively exotic.<br />
<br>-- Once clear, the fairing is able to pivot laterally about its telescopic joint on the upper stage. Getting the fairing out of the way like this eliminates lateral payload integration, and makes it so that the payload can deport forward like it does on any expendable. Exotic, but not unprecedented...space station modules are swung around in even more exotic ways.<br />
<br>-- The payload is separated, the customer cheers, goes to the nearest pub and gets totally obliterated. Extremely traditional.<br />
<br>-- Once the payload is clear and the orbiter well separated from it, there are a couple of options to button up things for entry.<br />
<br>-- Forward fairing stowage. The fairing is rotated back to the forward position, the nozzle extension retracted, and the fairing is translated back well past its ascent position until the whole upper stage is inside it. In this configuration, it enters and lands much like the Pond Lander. Pretty exotic stuff...will the aft ring be strong enough? Plasma getting at the engine gentle enough?<br />
<br>-- Aft fairing stowage. The telescopic extension rotates the fairing until it is entirely behind the upper stage. Once there, the nozzle is retracted, along with the fairing itself, enclosing the upper stage in the position backwards relative to the fairing. It enters the fairing nose first (upper stage "backwards") and then lands much like the Pond Lander. More exotic than anything that's flown besides the Shuttle...there were early Shuttle concepts which stowed the engines like this.</div>Aftercolumbiahttp://openluna.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ascent_RoadmapAscent Roadmap2008-11-05T22:18:20Z<p>Aftercolumbia: Added diameters, and a couple details on Freezerburn</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Prochron]]: Intended to launch 3kg (i.e.: a [[Cubesat]] to orbit, and, stripped of its upper stages, operate as an amateur sounding rocket under Canadian Association of Rocketry (Level 4) or National Association of Rocketry (Level 3). The payload is 0.1m square in diameter.<br />
<br><br />
[[Symtex]]: A niche booster intended to span the gap between the Cubesat and [[Orbital's]] Pegasus, currently the smallest commercial orbital booster (20kg to 500kg). If followed in this order, the Ascent Roadmap follows the convention of using the core of the smaller booster, with modifications, as the strap-on stage for the next booster in the line. The diameter is 0.6m.<br />
<br><br />
[[Kilder]]: This booster launches about 2000kg to 8000kg, and would be in competition with several existing boosters (Soyuz, Vega, Taurus, Delta II, and others.) It is 2.0m in diameter.<br />
<br><br />
[[Lilmax]]: This booster launches from 20 to 60 tonnes to orbit, and has received the most attention because After Columbia Project, author of the Ascent Roadmap, has done Mars studies, to which this booster best applies. Its 4m diameter is the maximum possible highway transportable diameter. The fairing might be wider, and possibly some larger upper stages. The version that launches ACMD's Stampede Lander would have a 6.5m diameter fairing.<br />
<br><br />
[[Bluestar]]: The oldest booster concept in the series has evolved the most since it was first examined. The only hard items are that it launches an 8000kg payload, is fully reusable and easy to operate by a potential vendor of charter space services. The payload envelope is required to be 3.0m by 8.0m, but may be a bit larger in the latest concept.<br />
<br><br />
[[Freezerburn]]: The least well defined booster in the series launches 100 tonnes or more. Currently, the core is formed by linking four Lilmax modules together. Lilmax modules are then strapped onto the sides, while the upper stage and fairing are about 9m in diameter, leaving an 8m internal diameter available to the payload.</div>Aftercolumbiahttp://openluna.org/wiki/index.php?title=ProchronProchron2008-11-05T19:29:25Z<p>Aftercolumbia: Prochron first post</p>
<hr />
<div>Prochron is a booster intended to launch a single pod of CubeSat satellites (3kg) to an orbit of roughly 200km altitude at a recurring cost of about $10,000. The main challenge isn't technical, but whether the market is adequate to support a business producing and operating this booster. It is also available as a high performance amateur rocket, with two stages, or an exoatmospheric sounding rocket with three stages. The orbital version uses four stages.<br />
<br />
General Characteristics: Prochron is too small to be provided with an active stabilization system, such as larger rockets. While theoretically possible, it would be extremely expensive, as it is on large boosters, and even more difficult because smaller rockets with higher accellerations react to aerodynamic loads much more rapidly. Prochron is therefore designed to be stable passively, like any other amateur rocket. However, it is not possible to stabilize a rocket this way below a certain dynamic pressure, and an orbital booster must be guided in order to be inserted into orbit. The two situations where the dynamic pressure is insufficient to allow passively stable flight are immediately upon ignition, and after the booster leaves the atmosphere, when there won't be enough air to act on the fins to stabilize the booster. For the first phase, the booster is stabilized by a launch tower. High accelleration is provided by Stage One, allowing the rocket to gain enough speed by the time its aft end exits the 20m tall launch tower.<br />
<br />
Stage One: A series of existing amateur strap-on rockets based on 98mm high power rocket motors, each of which produces M class total impulse. (Hypertek hybrids is a leading contender.) It is likely that nine will be used. They surround Stage Two. Stage One is recoverable and reusable in all versions. See versions below for reusability of other stages, which depend on performance level.<br />
<br />
Stage Two: An oxyfuel core stage, very likely oxypropane with a linked helium pressurization system in the fuel section to equalize the injection pressure with a vapor pressurized LOX tank. The propellants are pressure-fed into a single motor.<br />
<br />
Stage Three: An oxyfuel stage, very likely oxypropane with a linked helium pressurization system in the fuel section to equalize the injection pressure witha vapor pressurized LOX tank. This stage is likely to be pressure stabilized in the orbital version to reduce mass. The propellants are pressure fed into a single motor.<br />
<br />
Stage Four: An oxyfuel stage, probably oxypropane with an aforementioned helium pressure system in the fuel section. The tanks are likely to be pressure stabilized, and the stage will probably be equipped with a nitrogen or sulfur hexaflouride cold gas RCS.<br />
<br />
Stage Two, the core stage, ignites before Stage One does. Its thrust alone is insufficient to move the rocket. Stage Two is activated by the on board launch timer, while Stage One is activated by the ground launch controller, manually. Stage One burns out after about six seconds, and its motors are are immediately separated...hopefully separation can be actuated by the strap-on's thrust dropping below a certain level. This moment is maximum dynamic pressure. Stage Two, at this point is barely able to overcome gravity and drag and maintain the speed of the booster, but as the air thins and the rocket lightens due to the consumption of propellant, it will again accellerate, but in the thinner air will soon find itself without the ability to keep stable. The rocket is free fin stabilized during the First Stage, and may also be free fin stabilized during the Second Stage, which depletes in less than one minute. If it is free fin stabilized, the aiming of the launch tower to achieve the proper arcing trajectory (or vertical trajectory if it is a sounding rocket version) will be required. It may be fin-stabilized with some positive guidance during the second stage, thus allowing a fixed launch tower. During Stage Three, the booster will be either spin stabilized or positively guided using thrust vector control and the RCS in the fourth stage for active roll stabilization. During the Fourth stage, the vehicle will be controlled by the RCS alone, as the fourth stage motor starts getting rather small for thrust vector control, also may be very close to the center of gravity of what little is left of the booster, and therefore extremely sensitive to thrust vector changes (alignment of a fixed nozzle on the ground might be tricky for the same reason.)<br />
<br />
Prochron versions:<br />
<br />
Two Stage Amateur Sounding Rocket: Performance goal is 120km altitude vertical flight. This rocket vehicle will be flyable as an NAR Level 3 or CAR Level 4 amateur rocket. As such, Ascent (i.e.: the as-yet-unformed business which would manufacture and market the Prochron and other Ascent Roadmap boosters) would sell the actual rocket, and the CAR/NAR certified rocketeer would fly it. In this version, Stage Two is recoverable.<br />
<br />
Three Stage Professional Sounding Rocket: Performance goal is 600km vertical flight. This version would be operated by Ascent, or an Ascent authorized professional sounding rocket service (to which it would sell the boosters.) In this version, Stage Three will almost certainly be spin stabilized and not recoverable. Stage Two will probably be recoverable. It is an open question whether this vehicle would need positive guidance.<br />
<br />
Four Stage Orbital Booster: Performance goal is a 200km circular orbit in a single maneuver, direct ascent terminating within line-of-sight of the launch pad or a tracking station in its immediate vicinity. Stages Two, Three, and Four are probably not recoverable (although Stage Two is likely to hit the surface intact.) Stage Three may be either spin-stabilized or guided via thrust vector control from the Fourth stage guidance platform (if the latter, Prochron will need two versions of Stage Three: one with spin-up rockets and yo-yo despin, and one with thrust vector control gimbal, actuators, and batteries.) Stage Four contains the guidance platform and radar transponder/receiver.<br />
<br />
Range Safety of the Amateur and Professional Sounding Rocket versions are provided as they are with existing rockets: make sure they don't leave the range hazard area. Professional and Orbital versions are likely to have a beam-riding flight termination system. This is, the radar tracker is aimed at them at all times. If the radar receiver on board the rocket quits getting radar signals, it shuts the booster down and initiates payload separation. The radar receiver termination system may also have a heartbeat monitor on the guidance system for the Orbital Booster. If the guidance system crashed, the flight termination controller would no longer pick up the guidance heartbeat and shut down, responding to radar pings with a tone that indicates whether the guidance system heartbeat is operating or not. The guidance system may transmit telemetry on a separate (non-radar) channel, and an onboard video system may yet use a third. The radar receiver flight termination system on the Orbital Booster might be used to control normal booster cutoff. It is likely that ground radar will have a better picture of where the Fourth Stage is than the Fourth Stage itself (whose guidance system accuracy and reliability is likely to be compromized for cost considerations...compared to that of a typical orbital booster, that is.) Precise cutoff would require tuning of the radar pulse rate. In this case, the last pulse would be transmitted at an exact inteval before cutoff, representing the time it takes the flight termination system to flag because of loss of signal (which is probably triple the pulse interval to prevent cutoff due to casual interference with the radar.)</div>Aftercolumbiahttp://openluna.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_PageMain Page2008-11-02T02:29:51Z<p>Aftercolumbia: Moved Ascent Roadmap Concept summaries to a new page.</p>
<hr />
<div><big>'''Welcome to the [http://www.openluna.org/index.shtml OpenLuna] wiki. '''</big> - ''"[[Because we've waited long enough!]]"'' - <br />
"Audentes Fortuna Juvat"<br />
<br />
This page is used to scratch out the notes that will become the mission. You are encouraged to contribute in any way possible. <br />
<br />
Consult the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents User's Guide] for information on using the wiki software.<br />
<br />
== About [http://www.openluna.org/index.shtml OpenLuna] ==<br />
<br />
''"The Moon Shines on all the Earth..."''<br />
<br />
The Open Luna Foundation aims to return mankind to the moon through private enterprise. Initial goals focus on a stepped program of robotic missions coupled with extensive public relations and outreach. Following these purely robotic missions, a short series of [[manned missions]] will construct a small, approximately 6 - 10 person [[outpost]] based on a location scouted by the robotic missions. This [[outpost]] will be open for anyone's use (private individuals to government agencies), provided they respect our [[ethical conduct]] and [[cultural heritage]] policies.<br />
<br />
== Mission Details ==<br />
For now, Look at the '''[[Mission_Plan]]''' and '''[[individual components]]'''. More to follow.<br />
<br />
== Getting started ==<br />
<br />
Please look at the [[People needed]] list as well. We certainly could use your help. Really, we could use ''your'' help, because this is ''[[your mission]]''... Not NASA, Not CSA, no big corporation, ''YOURS''.<br />
<br />
For more general discussion or question asking, look in the discussion page first. You should also read all of the existing pages before starting any new ones. (Start with '''[[Mission_Plan]]''') You should also look in the discussion pages before editing anything. (Edit with care. Read the '''[[Equipment design standards]]''' and the discussion pages and the [[Mission_Plan]] before editing anything.)<br />
<br />
You should also note that we are breaking out some '''[[individual components]]''' here.<br />
<br />
<br />
== About the Google Lunar X-Prize ==<br />
<br />
First note that we are not now, and do not ever plan on becoming a Google Lunar X-Prize team, even though we work with one. (and are open to working with others.) Having said that, The Google Lunar X PRIZE is a $30 million international competition to safely land a robot on the surface of the Moon, travel 500 meters over the lunar surface, and send images and data back to the Earth. Teams must be at least 90% privately funded and must be registered to compete by December 31, 2010. The first team to land on the Moon and complete the mission objectives will be awarded $20 million; the full first prize is available until December 31, 2012. After that date, the first prize will drop to $15 million. The second team to do so will be awarded $5 million. Another $5 million will awarded in bonus prizes. The final deadline for winning the prize is December 31, 2014. More can be found at [http://www.googlelunarxprize.org GLXP website]. In case they change the rules, see our plan to win as [[Mission_X]] But also see [[GLXP]] as to why we will not enter unless they do so.<br />
<br />
== Ascent Roadmap ==<br />
<br />
The [[Ascent Roadmap]]: plan to develop low-cost private access to space<br />
<br />
== General Wiki How-To ==<br />
<br />
READ THE [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents User's Guide]!<br />
<br />
You must be a registered user to edit pages or read the discussion. Registration is free and easy, ([[Special:Userlogin]]) You should try it. I think you'll like it.<br />
<br />
* [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]<br />
* [http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce MediaWiki release mailing list]</div>Aftercolumbiahttp://openluna.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ascent_RoadmapAscent Roadmap2008-11-02T01:10:09Z<p>Aftercolumbia: The Ascent Roadmap: plan to develop cheap private access to space.</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Prochron]]: Intended to launch 3kg (i.e.: a [[Cubesat]] to orbit, and, stripped of its upper stages, operate as an amateur sounding rocket under Canadian Association of Rocketry (Level 4) or National Association of Rocketry (Level 3).<br />
<br><br />
[[Symtex]]: A niche booster intended to span the gap between the Cubesat and [[Orbital's]] Pegasus, currently the smallest commercial orbital booster (20kg to 500kg). If followed in this order, the Ascent Roadmap follows the convention of using the core of the smaller booster, with modifications, as the strap-on stage for the next booster in the line.<br />
<br><br />
[[Kilder]]: This booster launches about 2000kg to 8000kg, and would be in competition with several existing boosters (Soyuz, Vega, Taurus, Delta II, and others.)<br />
<br><br />
[[Lilmax]]: This booster launches from 20 to 60 tonnes to orbit, and has received the most attention because After Columbia Project, author of the Ascent Roadmap, has done Mars studies, to which this booster best applies.<br />
<br><br />
[[Bluestar]]: The oldest booster concept in the series has evolved the most since it was first examined. The only hard items are that it launches an 8000kg payload, is fully reusable and easy to operate by a potential vendor of charter space services.<br />
<br><br />
[[Freezerburn]]: The least well defined booster in the series launches 100 tonnes or more.</div>Aftercolumbiahttp://openluna.org/wiki/index.php?title=CubesatCubesat2008-10-25T03:23:05Z<p>Aftercolumbia: </p>
<hr />
<div>Cubesats are basically the size of a milk carton, an inteface standard produced by CalPoly for four standard sizes of satellite, 0.5U, 1U, 2U, and 3U. Each U is a kg and a L. The height and width are always 10cm, each U is 10cm of length. This standard is based on how the deployer pods work (there are more than the well known P-POD in service.) The satellite rides out of the deployer pod on corner rails; it is fired out by a spring pusher, very similar to the way a Nerf (tm) gun works. The 3kg payload of the deployer pod is the basis for Prochron's payload objective.<br />
<br><br><br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubeSat <br><br />
http://cubesat.atl.calpoly.edu/ <br><br />
http://www.cubesatkit.com/ <br></div>Aftercolumbiahttp://openluna.org/wiki/index.php?title=CubesatCubesat2008-10-25T03:22:32Z<p>Aftercolumbia: Cubesat Links</p>
<hr />
<div>Cubesats are basically the size of a milk carton, an inteface standard produced by CalPoly for four standard sizes of satellite, 0.5U, 1U, 2U, and 3U. Each U is a kg and a L. The height and width are always 10cm, each U is 10cm of length. This standard is based on how the deployer pods work (there are more than the well known P-POD in service.) The satellite rides out of the deployer pod on corner rails; it is fired out by a spring pusher, very similar to the way a Nerf (tm) gun works. The 3kg payload of the deployer pod is the basis for Prochron's payload objective.<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubeSat<br />
http://cubesat.atl.calpoly.edu/<br />
http://www.cubesatkit.com/</div>Aftercolumbiahttp://openluna.org/wiki/index.php?title=BluestarBluestar2008-10-24T23:55:18Z<p>Aftercolumbia: New page: Bluestar has a long and varied history since I first started studying it in April 2001 (before Columbia's accident and the founding of After Columbia.) Initially, it was very similar to S...</p>
<hr />
<div>Bluestar has a long and varied history since I first started studying it in April 2001 (before Columbia's accident and the founding of After Columbia.) Initially, it was very similar to Saenger II, or David Ashford's Spacebus (http://www.bristolspaceplanes.com/projects/spacebus.shtml). That concept is dead because it is very difficult to accomplish. SSTO was never considered<br />
<br />
As the concept evolved (off and on since 2001), it has slowly grown more ballistic, from the top down. The booster is still the same type of booster as the original concept, but it might yet be replaced by a stack of Lilmax modules (which are reusable.) A number of options have been looked at for the orbiter:<br />
<br />
Shuttle-type orbiter: This had an HL-10 lifting body shape, dorsal payload bay, landng gear, and was very much like a Phase A Shuttle Orbiter. After looking at the Phase A and Phase B Shuttle designs critically, I realized that the required mass fraction for this orbiter could not be met, unless at extreme expense. I started to look for ways to cut down on mass.<br />
<br />
Lifting Body Pond Lander: This running baseline is still "official", but is probably on its way out. The orbiter lacks a landing gear, but still retains the same type of payload bay as before, as well as a lifting body shape. For this craft, the lifting body provides lift only for the entry phase, and the craft deploys a parasol much like X-38's once it is subsonic. After this, it flies to a landing in a freshwater pond, where it is towed to dockside and lifted from the water using a crane. It also has better contingency options, being able to splashdown at sea or on land. The latter case would be preferable for the crew on board (assuming there is a crew on board, this is increasingly unlikely), since the orbiter will not be very seaworthy in any case.<br />
<br />
Lilmax Bluestar: This takes a pure ballistic approach to full reusability. Details about Lilmax lower stage reusability are on the [[Lilmax]] page. This orbiter is based around a biconic fairing, and would therefore have some crossrange, but nowhere near as much as the Shuttle. To enable a once around abort landing, it would need to launch due east from a tropical site, and polar missions would be restricted to high latitudes. The orbiter replaces the normally expendable upper stage of Lilmax:<br />
-- The Lilmax portion of the ascent is highly conventional, except that the boosters have parachutes and can be recovered and reused.<br />
-- The arrangement of the orbiter, at first, is conventional, except that the fairing is a single piece. The payload is inside the fairing, and the entire upper stage is behind it.<br />
-- At staging, the orbiter extends its main nozzle and lights its main engines. It has pressure-fed verniers similar to those on the expendable Lilmax upper stage.<br />
-- The most obvious variation from a normal expendable initially is that the fairing is retained to orbit.<br />
-- Once on orbit, the fairing is disengaged from its forward attaching plane and extended forward on a telescoping boom until it is clear of the payload.<br />
-- Once clear, the fairing is able to pivot laterally about its telescopic joint on the upper stage. Getting the fairing out of the way like this eliminates lateral payload integration, and makes it so that the payload can deport forward like it does on any expendable.<br />
-- The payload is separated, the customer cheers, goes to the nearest pub and gets obliterated.<br />
-- Once the payload is clear and the orbiter well separated from it, there are a couple of options to button up things for entry.<br />
-- Forward fairing stowage. The fairing is rotated back to the forward position, the nozzle extension retracted, and the fairing is translated back well past its ascent position until the whole upper stage is inside it. In this configuration, it enters and lands much like the Pond Lander.<br />
-- Aft fairing stowage. The telescopic extension rotates the fairing until it is entirely behind the upper stage. Once there, the nozzle is retracted, along with the fairing itself, enclosing the upper stage in the position backwards relative to the fairing. It enters the fairing nose first (upper stage "backwards") and then lands much like the Pond Lander.</div>Aftercolumbiahttp://openluna.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:PropellantsTalk:Propellants2008-10-24T23:15:17Z<p>Aftercolumbia: AFAL download link</p>
<hr />
<div>Just two questions here: <br />
1)Does anyone happen to know how to calculate the specific impulse of a given propellant combination? I'm thinking Propellant-grade hydrogen peroxide and alcohol for a lunar lander, but I'm not sure about calculating the Isp for that particular combination. <br />
<br />
2)The other thing regards unmanned cargo landers: Anyone looking into solid propellants for landing? Perhaps a 'rough-rider' system that came down like a semi-controlled bomb and used solids to brake velocity even with high acceleration loads. . . ?<br />
<br />
<br />
--------------<br />
Yes and Yes,<br />
90% peroxide (90 parts H2O2 10 parts H2O) burned with 21 parts C2H5Oh or CH3OH (Ethanol or Methanol) <br />
at 300 psi, with a 40:1 expansion ration has a vacuum ISP of about 300. :)<br />
<br />
Well surveyor was a solid lander- mostly. It is nearly impossible to do without a controllable/throttlible descent engine (I've tried)<br />
but Surveyor dumped most of it's orbital velocity with a solid that it ejected before landing. (3 vernier N2O4/N2H4 and 6 cold gas jets) <br />
<br />
-Gary<br />
--------------<br />
For calculating Isp, download the AFAL tool from http://www.dunnspace.com/isp2001.zip</div>Aftercolumbiahttp://openluna.org/wiki/index.php?title=LilmaxLilmax2008-10-24T23:07:11Z<p>Aftercolumbia: Lilmax Booster technical details</p>
<hr />
<div>I highly recommend this book...dang near required reading for low cost booster design...by John R. London III: <em>LEO On The Cheap</em>, http://www.dunnspace.com/leo-1-10.pdf (12.18MB please forgive the OCR glitches...it could do with a new scan by a program that knows how to look for the obvious alternative to the gibberish, "effikency". It is still very readable and informative.)<br />
<br />
After I read this book, I attempted the design of a booster called Greenstar, which didn't work out because of total thrust pressure problems and taught me that "big dumb booster" is a pick-any-two situation as a result (btw, the same total thrust pressure issue explains the gracefully tapered shape of the Soyuz booster, derided by some as a result of "crude" engine design.) The next generation booster design (very incomplete) is Lilmax, a "big practical booster" with modular configuration similar to Falcon 9H, but bigger. The features planned are something like this:<br />
<br />
- The turbopump engine is borrowed from the next smaller booster in the Ascent Roadmap series, Kilder, and itself has these features: <br><br />
-- oxykerosene, approximately 2.40 mixture ratio and 320sec vacuum Isp, 290sec sea level (I don't have my AFAL numbers on me atm)<br><br />
-- turbopump impellers are dual-open-faced Barske impellers based on the Sundyne AnySpeed pump ("AnySpeed" is a Sundyne registered trademark) with on-shaft eye inducers <br><br />
-- turbine will probably be an 100% impulse turbine so we can have thick blades for active cooling and long engine life. <br><br />
-- cycle undecided, but open cycle gas generator is most likely <br><br />
-- "flow liner" style regenerative nozzle with non-stress-bearing channel liner relieves nozzle hot wall of thermally induced stresses, reduces stress cracking and leads to much longer engine life <br><br />
-- requires a relatively high inlet NPSHR due to high speed of turbopump and on-shaft impeller (i.e.: lack of boost pumps such as on SSME and RD-171.) <br><br />
<br><br />
- The first stage module has four engines, the upper stage has one with an extended nozzle (it is hoped that with a guided vernier-powered separation, the nozzle extension can be designed to catch on the core stage forward skirt for rapid and simple extension, and reduce the staging coast to 8 seconds.) <br><br />
<br><br />
- The tanks of the first stage are simple, cold rolled steel (like a submarine), tang-and-clevis segmented construction, of the widest diameter that is logistically practical (probably 4.0m. using a specially designed highway trailer) with no integral stiffening. If the tanks are unstable without pressure, they will be "jigged" when unpressurized, internally (using an insert) for transport, and externally for assembly (find a picture of an Atlas assembly line to see how this works.) <br><br />
<br><br />
- The tang-and-clevis joint envisioned is similar to the one that famously failed in SRB BI-26R's aft field joint, destroying the Shuttle Challenger and her crew on STS-33. Even with an identical joint design on Lilmax (unlikely, since we have lessons learned from STS-33), the burn-through type failure is impossible because:<br><br />
-- No hot gas involved, just liquid fuel and oxidizer; a leak will not lead to ongoing erosion as in a flame leak <br><br />
-- No ignition transient. Challenger's joints failed (BI-26R's forward field joint burned through after the stack broke up) because the booster casings were pressurized so rapidly (<600ms) that the O-rings did not have time to respond and did not seat properly, leaving the sealing job to an unreliable insulation putty, the reason why Challenger didn't blow up on the launch pad. Lilmax' tanks will be pressurized over a period of several seconds. <br><br />
-- Obviously Viton O-rings are not an option, since they will be brittle at LOX temperatures and flammable in the presence of high pressure GOX likely to be present at pressurization. Soft metal gaskets, compressed during assembly, placed in joint areas assured to be compressed as a result of joint rotation, will be used instead. These gaskets are in different places than the Shuttle's O-rings due to the lessons learned from Challenger <br><br />
-- The "capture feature" on the RSRM joint is not required <br><br />
<br><br />
- The tank pressure is about 200psia, very high for a turbopump booster, but well below that of pressure-feds and solid boosters (i.e.: SRB is 950psia.) MEOP is 200psig, test pressure is 300psig, and burst pressure is 400psig. These are standard aerospace safety margins (although lower ones have been used.) It may be possible to sell non-flight tanks as ASME Sec XII or Sec VII/2 pressure vessels with a MEOP of 130psig. This could provide additional revenue and production experience. <br><br />
<br><br />
- The high tank pressure provides the strength needed for recovery impact...a landing on desert rock is assumed. <br><br />
<br><br />
- The booster's recovery parachutes are carried in a piggyback pod (find a picture of Titan III or Titan IV and look for the strap-on booster's TVC nitrogen tetroxide tank to visualize how this will be installed.) This allows the booster to land nose first to save the engines. <br><br />
<br><br />
- Airbags? Probably. This will need to be traded with the tank's impact stress life and the size of the parachutes. It may be that the booster will not require nose airbags, but will require airbags on the aft skirt to protect the engines from the post-rotation impact. With the parachutes on one side of the booster, the initial impact will not be perfectly vertical, so rotation will be predictable. <br><br />
<br><br />
- Reuse is really easy with land recovery, and somewhat harder with ocean recovery. Describing land recovery reuse: <br><br />
-- Drive a purge truck up to the booster (could well be a Big Eagle truck from Calgary, to illustrate the off-the-shelf possibilities), vent the booster to the minimum transport pressure (probably about 20psig), and then while maintaining minimum transport pressure, purge the tanks with dry nitrogen to safety them. Venting the tanks to transport pressure will probably be done remotely or automatically. Gas monitors will ensure the booster is safe enough to approach prior to the purge. If it isn't, one of those big fans used to create fake storms on movie sets should be enough to make it so. (NASA has these for the Shuttle Orbiters on the runway...watch NASATV long enough after a landing to see them. Also, oxykerosene propellants are orders of magnitude less likely to create a dangerous situation than the Shuttle's toxic hypergols.) <br><br />
-- Pyros will be studiously avoided during Lilmax design for the precise reason that they are more dangerous during ground processing and recovery than are SADs (Spring Actuated Devices.) Safety switches and long poles can be used to discharge these safely, and they can be reused. If a faulty redundant SAD is really jammed that the safety switch doesn't work, a few well aimed rifle shots should be able to discharge it safely, although the resulting damage to the booster could get expensive. The danger to avoid in this situation is providing a spark for a flammable atmosphere. Of course, a dead non-redundant SAD would, at the very least, render the booster non-reusable. <br><br />
-- The booster's recovery trailer will pick it up like a roll-on bin and take it back to the launch site. <br><br />
-- The booster is pressure-tested, checked for leaks at MEOP after a few minutes at test pressure (this test uses water.) <br><br />
-- If it passes, it is simply refuelled and launched again <br><br />
-- If it fails at a joint, it is disassembled and reassembled, as most likely the gaskets are worn out. The proof test is repeated <br><br />
-- If it fails away from a joint, repeatedly fails at a joint, has reached the end of its service life, or is buckled, fractured, etc., it is disassembled, the gaskets are scraped off (if necessary), and it is cut up and sold as standard issue no. 2 ferrous scrap. <br><br />
<br><br />
- The upper stage is more sophisticated: <br><br />
-- It is expendable, high strength steel, welded construction, with a single engine (as the program matures, ones flown in first stages will be used instead of new ones), a set of pressure-fed verniers for separation, roll control during powered flight, LEO circularization and deorbit. <br><br />
-- Late during its operation, the undersized pressurization system will run out. The trottleable engine's thrust will be reduced so that its NPSHR will remain below the tanks NPSHA. This also eliminates burnout accelleration problems with light payloads (a big deal with solid fuelled upper stages like those on Delta II, Taurus, and Pegasus.) <br><br />
-- It will use a hydrogen peroxide RCS system...Soyuz still uses one that lasts six months, so it's obvious that one will be viable for a few hours. This will be a heck of a lot safer and cheaper than standard issue hydrazine. <br><br />
-- Pressurant and RCS tanks can be had, probably off the shelf or modification of existing designs, from Pressure Systems Incorporated. The first stage will probably use commercial grade pressurant tanks like Dynecell (from Dynetek), and do not require RCS. <br><br />
-- The guidance system can probably be knocked together from movie motion capture technology and Z80s (processors common in embedded systems and old video games)...if the Ascent Roadmap is followed in order, it'll date from the much smaller booster Symtex. Triple redundancy should be enough. The bugaboo of space computers is latchup from solar and cosmic radiation. The Lilmax guidance system will only be exposed to these levels of radiation for a few hours. Some get to Earth's surface, which means consumer electronic devices should occasionally take hits that cause latchups. I use consumer electronics quite a bit (my cell phone is on constantly), and encounter crashes that might be caused by radiation-induced latch up every couple of weeks (my cell phone has never crashed!) As with Shuttle (which has the smartest rocket guidance system flying, except maybe Falcon's, which I don't have the details of...made of IBM AP-101S computers much older than the Z80, which, despite its age, is still in production...or at least more recent versions of it are.) <br><br />
-- The payload adapter will use a motor driven Marmon clampband opener. These are common on all launch vehicles except the Delta II (which seems to be behind in a great many areas! It also has the dumbest guidance system on any booster currently in service...except the Delta IV, with which it is tied.) <br><br />
-- The upper stage can be stretched for bigger versions of Lilmax. <br><br />
<br><br />
- The booster fairing is expected to be relatively expensive, since it must be sealed prior to the rollout of the payload, and then must separate without generating any crap that might gum up cameras or other sensors on the payload (this happened to Mars Pathfinder's sun sensors...until the program was recalibrated, it was so lost only the solar cell currents assured mission controllers she wasn't going to die. The booster was a Delta II 7920 with the 2.95m aluminum biconic fairing.) It will also be wider than the booster segments, meaning it will need to be shipped by special aircrafts and other vehicles. <br><br />
<br><br />
- separation of the stages will be accomplished by SADs <br><br />
<br><br />
- Using Lilmax modules only, three first stage configurations are possible (1, 3, and 5 first stages), giving payload options from 20 to 60 tonnes LEO or LEO equivalent. <br><br />
<br><br />
- For 3 and 5 first stage configurations, crossfeed of booster propellants will keep the core first stage fully loaded until the first set of strap-on modules deplete. On 3 module configurations, there is only one set; on 5 module configurations, there are two. The core stage will throttle down after the first set on a 5 module configuration depletes. The core stage of a five module configuration might have a tough time during recovery, as it will wind up thousands of miles downrange, probably in deep water. Carbon steel hates salt, and chartering a blue water ship big enough to recover it won't be cheap...it might be better to sell it to a salvage company prior to launch! <br><br />
<br><br />
- The dry mass fraction is expected to be about 12% for the first stage...really heavy by orbital booster standards, but adequate for lower stages. This results from cost/mass tradeoffs on systems and materials: pyros vs. SADS, integral stiffening vs. high tank pressure, turbopump design vs. high tank pressure, expendable vs reusable, low density of oxykerosene relative to solids, segmented construction to ease logistics of factory-to-launch-site transport, crossfeed plumbing, serial vs. parallel arrangement, aluminum vs. steel, fancy heat treatments and integral stiffening vs. cold rolled steel and high tank pressure, etc.. <br><br />
<br><br />
- The dry mass fraction is expected to be about 8% for the upper stage...about the same as the Soyuz core. <br><br />
<br><br />
- The crossfeed plumbing will have a substantial impact on the tank design, so there wind up being three versions of the first stage: one that has no crossfeed plumbing (used as core for 1 module, and second set strap-on for 5 module), one that has crossfeed out (used as strap-on for 3 module, and first set strap-on for 5 module), one that has crossfeed in on two opposite sides (used as the core for 3 module and 5 module.) Except for the tank nozzles and crossfeed manifolds and pipes, these version will be substantially identical. <br><br />
<br><br />
- The forward skirt of any version first stage can accept either an interstage or a nose cone. These will be made as simple as possible since they will probably be written off by impact. (The nose cone is likely to be simply fibreglass...technically glass reinforced plastic (GRP)..."fibreglass" is derived from the "Fibrglas" trademarked insulation.) <br><br />
<br><br />
- stay frosty: the LOX tanks are uninsulated...probably (trade LOX boiloff during longest stay-tanked scrub turnaround...and its likelihood vs. the expense of adding some spray-foam. In the spray-foam scenario, it is fine if it comes off since there is nothing to hit that is weak enough to be damaged by it.) The spray foam application is unlikely, since it will be relatively easy to unload the booster propellants and reload them during a scrub turnaround lasting more than an hour.<br />
<br />
That's about all there is on Lilmax at the moment. The pressurization system is a major open item.</div>Aftercolumbiahttp://openluna.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_PageMain Page2008-10-24T22:20:32Z<p>Aftercolumbia: /* Ascent Roadmap */</p>
<hr />
<div><big>'''Welcome to the [http://www.openluna.org/index.shtml OpenLuna] wiki. '''</big> - ''"[[Because we've waited long enough!]]"'' - <br />
"Audentes Fortuna Juvat"<br />
<br />
This page is used to scratch out the notes that will become the mission. You are encouraged to contribute in any way possible. <br />
<br />
Consult the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents User's Guide] for information on using the wiki software.<br />
<br />
== About [http://www.openluna.org/index.shtml OpenLuna] ==<br />
<br />
''"The Moon Shines on all the Earth..."''<br />
<br />
The Open Luna Foundation aims to return mankind to the moon through private enterprise. Initial goals focus on a stepped program of robotic missions coupled with extensive public relations and outreach. Following these purely robotic missions, a short series of [[manned missions]] will construct a small, approximately 6 - 10 person [[outpost]] based on a location scouted by the robotic missions. This [[outpost]] will be open for anyone's use (private individuals to government agencies), provided they respect our [[ethical conduct]] and [[cultural heritage]] policies.<br />
<br />
== Mission Details ==<br />
For now, Look at the '''[[Mission_Plan]]''' and '''[[individual components]]'''. More to follow.<br />
<br />
== Getting started ==<br />
<br />
Please look at the [[People needed]] list as well. We certainly could use your help. Really, we could use ''your'' help, because this is ''[[your mission]]''... Not NASA, Not CSA, no big corporation, ''YOURS''.<br />
<br />
For more general discussion or question asking, look in the discussion page first. You should also read all of the existing pages before starting any new ones. (Start with '''[[Mission_Plan]]''') You should also look in the discussion pages before editing anything. (Edit with care. Read the '''[[Equipment design standards]]''' and the discussion pages and the [[Mission_Plan]] before editing anything.)<br />
<br />
You should also note that we are breaking out some '''[[individual components]]''' here.<br />
<br />
<br />
== About the Google Lunar X-Prize ==<br />
<br />
First note that we are not now, and do not ever plan on becoming a Google Lunar X-Prize team, even though we work with one. (and are open to working with others.) Having said that, The Google Lunar X PRIZE is a $30 million international competition to safely land a robot on the surface of the Moon, travel 500 meters over the lunar surface, and send images and data back to the Earth. Teams must be at least 90% privately funded and must be registered to compete by December 31, 2010. The first team to land on the Moon and complete the mission objectives will be awarded $20 million; the full first prize is available until December 31, 2012. After that date, the first prize will drop to $15 million. The second team to do so will be awarded $5 million. Another $5 million will awarded in bonus prizes. The final deadline for winning the prize is December 31, 2014. More can be found at [http://www.googlelunarxprize.org GLXP website]. In case they change the rules, see our plan to win as [[Mission_X]] But also see [[GLXP]] as to why we will not enter unless they do so.<br />
<br />
== Ascent Roadmap ==<br />
[[Prochron]]: Intended to launch 3kg (i.e.: a [[Cubesat]] to orbit, and, stripped of its upper stages, operate as an amateur sounding rocket under Canadian Association of Rocketry (Level 4) or National Association of Rocketry (Level 3).<br />
<br><br />
[[Symtex]]: A niche booster intended to span the gap between the Cubesat and [[Orbital's]] Pegasus, currently the smallest commercial orbital booster (20kg to 500kg). If followed in this order, the Ascent Roadmap follows the convention of using the core of the smaller booster, with modifications, as the strap-on stage for the next booster in the line.<br />
<br><br />
[[Kilder]]: This booster launches about 2000kg to 8000kg, and would be in competition with several existing boosters (Soyuz, Vega, Taurus, Delta II, and others.)<br />
<br><br />
[[Lilmax]]: This booster launches from 20 to 60 tonnes to orbit, and has received the most attention because After Columbia Project, author of the Ascent Roadmap, has done Mars studies, to which this booster best applies.<br />
<br><br />
[[Bluestar]]: The oldest booster concept in the series has evolved the most since it was first examined. The only hard items are that it launches an 8000kg payload, is fully reusable and easy to operate by a potential vendor of charter space services.<br />
<br><br />
[[Freezerburn]]: The least well defined booster in the series launches 100 tonnes or more.<br />
<br />
== General Wiki How-To ==<br />
<br />
READ THE [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents User's Guide]!<br />
<br />
You must be a registered user to edit pages or read the discussion. Registration is free and easy, ([[Special:Userlogin]]) You should try it. I think you'll like it.<br />
<br />
* [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]<br />
* [http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce MediaWiki release mailing list]</div>Aftercolumbiahttp://openluna.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_PageMain Page2008-10-24T18:50:50Z<p>Aftercolumbia: </p>
<hr />
<div><big>'''Welcome to the [http://www.openluna.org/index.shtml OpenLuna] wiki. '''</big> - ''"[[Because we've waited long enough!]]"'' - <br />
"Audentes Fortuna Juvat"<br />
<br />
This page is used to scratch out the notes that will become the mission. You are encouraged to contribute in any way possible. <br />
<br />
Consult the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents User's Guide] for information on using the wiki software.<br />
<br />
== About [http://www.openluna.org/index.shtml OpenLuna] ==<br />
<br />
''"The Moon Shines on all the Earth..."''<br />
<br />
The Open Luna Foundation aims to return mankind to the moon through private enterprise. Initial goals focus on a stepped program of robotic missions coupled with extensive public relations and outreach. Following these purely robotic missions, a short series of [[manned missions]] will construct a small, approximately 6 - 10 person [[outpost]] based on a location scouted by the robotic missions. This [[outpost]] will be open for anyone's use (private individuals to government agencies), provided they respect our [[ethical conduct]] and [[cultural heritage]] policies.<br />
<br />
== Mission Details ==<br />
For now, Look at the '''[[Mission_Plan]]''' and '''[[individual components]]'''. More to follow.<br />
<br />
== Getting started ==<br />
<br />
Please look at the [[People needed]] list as well. We certainly could use your help. Really, we could use ''your'' help, because this is ''[[your mission]]''... Not NASA, Not CSA, no big corporation, ''YOURS''.<br />
<br />
For more general discussion or question asking, look in the discussion page first. You should also read all of the existing pages before starting any new ones. (Start with '''[[Mission_Plan]]''') You should also look in the discussion pages before editing anything. (Edit with care. Read the '''[[Equipment design standards]]''' and the discussion pages and the [[Mission_Plan]] before editing anything.)<br />
<br />
You should also note that we are breaking out some '''[[individual components]]''' here.<br />
<br />
<br />
== About the Google Lunar X-Prize ==<br />
<br />
First note that we are not now, and do not ever plan on becoming a Google Lunar X-Prize team, even though we work with one. (and are open to working with others.) Having said that, The Google Lunar X PRIZE is a $30 million international competition to safely land a robot on the surface of the Moon, travel 500 meters over the lunar surface, and send images and data back to the Earth. Teams must be at least 90% privately funded and must be registered to compete by December 31, 2010. The first team to land on the Moon and complete the mission objectives will be awarded $20 million; the full first prize is available until December 31, 2012. After that date, the first prize will drop to $15 million. The second team to do so will be awarded $5 million. Another $5 million will awarded in bonus prizes. The final deadline for winning the prize is December 31, 2014. More can be found at [http://www.googlelunarxprize.org GLXP website]. In case they change the rules, see our plan to win as [[Mission_X]] But also see [[GLXP]] as to why we will not enter unless they do so.<br />
<br />
== Ascent Roadmap ==<br />
[[Prochron]]: Intended to launch 3kg (i.e.: a [[Cubesat]] to orbit, and, stripped of its upper stages, operate as an amateur sounding rocket under Canadian Association of Rocketry (Level 4) or National Association of Rocketry (Level 3).<br />
[[Symtex]]: A niche booster intended to span the gap between the Cubesat and [[Orbital's]] Pegasus, currently the smallest commercial orbital booster (20kg to 500kg). If followed in this order, the Ascent Roadmap follows the convention of using the core of the smaller booster, with modifications, as the strap-on stage for the next booster in the line.<br />
[[Kilder]]: This booster launches about 2000kg to 8000kg, and would be in competition with several existing boosters (Soyuz, Vega, Taurus, Delta II, and others.)<br />
[[Lilmax]]: This booster launches from 20 to 60 tonnes to orbit, and has received the most attention because After Columbia Project, author of the Ascent Roadmap has done Mars studies, to which this booster best applies.<br />
<br />
== General Wiki How-To ==<br />
<br />
READ THE [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents User's Guide]!<br />
<br />
You must be a registered user to edit pages or read the discussion. Registration is free and easy, ([[Special:Userlogin]]) You should try it. I think you'll like it.<br />
<br />
* [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]<br />
* [http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce MediaWiki release mailing list]</div>Aftercolumbiahttp://openluna.org/wiki/index.php?title=Launch_VehicleLaunch Vehicle2008-08-17T04:58:58Z<p>Aftercolumbia: New page: Mission One is, of course, not set in stone, but for preliminary estimates, we can come up with some ground rules for figuring out what our launch vehicle is going to be like: 1. LEO to L...</p>
<hr />
<div>Mission One is, of course, not set in stone, but for preliminary estimates, we can come up with some ground rules for figuring out what our launch vehicle is going to be like:<br />
<br />
1. LEO to Lunar Transfer (3000m/s delta-v): Uses up 2/3 of the booster's LEO payload, or multiplies required Lunar Transfer mass by 3.<br />
<br />
2. Landing (2600m/s delta-v, plus landing gear): Uses up 2/3 of the payload taken to Lunar Transfer, or multiplies Landing mass by 3. (Therefore, a booster's LEO payload can be divided by 9 to estimate how much we can get to the surface of the Moon.)<br />
<br />
3. The Rover: 20kg based on Sojourner Truth, the rover that went to Mars with Pathfinder in 1997, should be close enough for first estimates.<br />
<br />
4. The Docking Port: 5kg, a conservative guess<br />
<br />
5. A Hop (delta-v 1/10 of exhaust speed): Adds 1/8 mass to whatever mass we are hopping<br />
<br />
Baseline: 3 Rovers, landed at three different site separated by Hops:<br />
<br />
Rovers: 60kg<br />
<br />
Docking Ports: 15kg<br />
<br />
Hops: one at 35kg (40kg before hop), one at 65kg (73kg before hop)<br />
<br />
Mass at Landing: 93kg (13kg hopping system)<br />
<br />
Mass at Lunar Transfer: 279kg<br />
<br />
Mass at LEO: 837kg<br />
<br />
The baseline is probably a perfect fit for Falcon 1e, except that Falcon 1e wouldn't be able to inject directly to Lunar Transfer, so we'd need to procure an upper stage.<br />
<br />
<br />
Single Rover Option: 1 Rover, 2 Hops<br />
<br />
Rovers: 20kg<br />
<br />
Docking Ports: 5kg<br />
<br />
Nervous Factor: 10kg (somehow 25kg final mass seems too light)<br />
<br />
Hops: one at 35kg (40kg before hop), one at 40kg (46kg before hop)<br />
<br />
Mass at Landing: 46kg<br />
<br />
Mass at Lunar Transfer: 138kg<br />
<br />
Mass at LEO: 414kg<br />
<br />
<br />
The Launch Options for both possibilities:<br />
<br />
SpaceX Falcon 1e (can't inject directly to Lunar Transfer)<br />
<br />
Orbital Pegasus (can't inject directly to Lunar Transfer)<br />
<br />
Orbital Minotaur (can't inject directly to Lunar Transfer)<br />
<br />
Orbital Minotaur IV (can't inject directly to Lunar Transfer)<br />
<br />
Orbital Taurus (can inject directly to Lunar Transfer, but non-<br />
standard service)<br />
<br />
Piggyback on big booster (might be cheapest, but we'd most likely wind up on a GTO...not quite Lunar Transfer...ad 20% to Lunar Transfer Mass)<br />
<br />
Something New: One of our team members is working on a new, pressure-fed liquid fuelled small booster family embodying most of the recommendations from USAF Lt. Col. John R. London III's [http://www.dunnspace.com/leo_on_the_cheap.htm LEO On The Cheap]. If successful, a dedicated launch service could be provided below the minimum capacities (and well below the prices of) the above listed boosters. Such a booster would have no immediate competition. The first step in moving ahead with this booster is figuring out if there is enough of a market for its services for it to be a worthwhile investment.</div>Aftercolumbiahttp://openluna.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_PageMain Page2008-08-17T04:20:43Z<p>Aftercolumbia: </p>
<hr />
<div><big>'''Welcome to the [http://www.openluna.org/index.shtml OpenLuna] wiki. '''</big> - ''"[[Because we've waited long enough!]]"''<br />
<br />
<br />
This page is used to scratch out the notes that will become the mission. You are encouraged to contribute in any way possible. <br />
<br />
Consult the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents User's Guide] for information on using the wiki software.<br />
<br />
For more general discussion or question asking, look in the discussion page first. You should also read all of the existing pages before starting any new ones. (Start with [[Mission_Plan]]) You should also look in the discussion pages before editing anything. (Edit with care. Read the [[Equipment design standards]] and the discussion pages and the [[Mission_Plan]] before editing anything.)<br />
<br />
== Getting started ==<br />
<br />
READ THE [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents User's Guide]!<br />
<br />
You must be a registered user to edit pages or read the discussion. Registration is free and easy, ([[Special:Userlogin]]) You should try it. I think you'll like it.<br />
<br />
* [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]<br />
* [http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce MediaWiki release mailing list]<br />
<br />
Please look at the [[People needed]] list as well. We certainly could use your help.<br />
<br />
<br />
== About [http://www.openluna.org/index.shtml OpenLuna] ==<br />
<br />
''"The Moon Shines on all the Earth..."''<br />
<br />
The Open Luna Foundation aims to return mankind to the moon through private enterprise. Initial goals focus on a stepped program of robotic missions coupled with extensive public relations and outreach. Following these purely robotic missions, a short series of [[manned missions]] will construct a small, approximately 6 person [[outpost]] based on a location scouted by the robotic missions. This [[outpost]] will be open for anyone's use (private individuals to government agencies), provided they respect our [[ethical conduct]] and [[cultural heritage]] policies.<br />
<br />
[http://www.openluna.org/wiki/index.php/Mission_Plan Mission Plan]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== About the Google Lunar X-Prize ==<br />
<br />
First note that we are not now, and do not ever plan on becoming a Google Lunar X-Prize team, even though we work with one. (and are open to working with others.) Having said that, The Google Lunar X PRIZE is a $30 million international competition to safely land a robot on the surface of the Moon, travel 500 meters over the lunar surface, and send images and data back to the Earth. Teams must be at least 90% privately funded and must be registered to compete by December 31, 2010. The first team to land on the Moon and complete the mission objectives will be awarded $20 million; the full first prize is available until December 31, 2012. After that date, the first prize will drop to $15 million. The second team to do so will be awarded $5 million. Another $5 million will awarded in bonus prizes. The final deadline for winning the prize is December 31, 2014. More can be found at [http://www.googlelunarxprize.org GLXP website]. In case they change the rules, see our plan to win as [[Mission_X]] But also see [[GLXP]] as to why we will not enter unless they do so.</div>Aftercolumbiahttp://openluna.org/wiki/index.php?title=GLXPGLXP2008-08-16T05:24:17Z<p>Aftercolumbia: </p>
<hr />
<div>We are not now, nor have any intention of becoming a Google Lunar X-Prize team.<br />
<br />
Why? you might ask. <br />
<br />
Simple, we might answer. First off, We are very excited about the [http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/ GLXP], and we applaud [http://google.con Google] for taking this very forward thinking step. We are also very happy that the [http://www.xprize.org/ XPF] is taking this venture on. This really makes our job so much easier. It has allowed the general public to finally believe that space can be for everyone, and that regular people can go to the moon, not just one elite governments entire efforts. <br />
<br />
They are helping others believe the dream! <br />
<br />
But, simply, they are not for us. We are more than happy to work with GLXP teams, (and indeed are working with GLXP team, "Microspace") and if something we are working on will benefit them, they can have it. Likewise, if they have something that will help us in our ventures, we would appreciate their help as well. <br />
<br />
Why aren't they for us? There are quite a few very good reasons, (and the team personally knows of one team that didn't enter for some of the same reasons, and of at least two teams that left for similar reasons,) and they go, in approximate order of severity; (NOTE! The quotes below are from a draft marked "Draft Copy Only - Non Binding - For Public Comment and Review Only" and does not constitute current management policy or complete their thinking on the subject! You are free to add your own, but be responsible.)<br />
<br />
Exclusive rights: "The TEAM shall make the provision of all data ... exclusive to<br />
[http://www.xprize.org/ XPF] and XPF-identified Partners" (followed by a page and a half of legalese to make sure.) That's the basic reason. They want them all with complete exclusivity. We need some to operate. I understand the need for them to sponsor the prize, but we are not particularly excited about the process, the payout method, the closeness of the system. We are very unhappy about having to give the [http://www.xprize.org/ XPF] exclusive rights to footage that all by itself will be worth more than the prize. (all of the initial landing/first day footage.)<br />
<br />
Micromanagement: "This total distance [500m] traveled may be ... a series of waypoints approved by the Google Lunar X PRIZE Judging Panel prior to movement." "The TEAM may not purchase heritage hardware when such hardware is unique and non-reproducible." We don't need to be told what technologies we can or can't use. We don't need to be told who are sponsors could or may not be. We don't want to run every decision past this nameless XPF board before implementing them. <br />
<br />
Stability concerns: We don't like the vagueness of the rules and how long it will take to narrow down simple points.<br />
<br />
Having said all of that, We do have a plan to compete in the [http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/ GLXP], and win it simply named [[Mission X]] should the [http://www.xprize.org/ XPF] change the rules and alleviate our concerns. We are open for discussion on this.</div>Aftercolumbia