| User | Post |
|
1:01 am January 22, 2010
| Rocket-To-The-Moon
| | Altus, Oklahoma, USA | |
| Member | posts 685 | |
|
|
The way that I have envisioned the lander's control system is for it to be 90% computer controlled with about 10% manual intervention for steering. The computer would fly a descent program that would automatically get the lander in general position to land. The astronaut would then be able to "fly" the lander to a safe landing point (visually clear of obstructions), but everything would be stabilized by the computer so that it is impossible to crash (i.e. flight envelope protection). The computer would take the radio altimeter into account so that it can fine tune its descent profile (descent rate as a function of height above lunar surface).
|
Main Workgroups: Propulsion & Spacecraft Engineering
|
|
|
1:09 am January 22, 2010
| Luke Maurits
| | Adelaide, Australia | |
| Admin
| posts 1483 | |
|
|
I have thought the same way and agree wholeheartedly. It should definitely be possible to have the descent be almost completely automated, and we should strive for that. Where manual intervention is absolutely necessary, it should be very user friendly fly-by-wire stuff that is, like you said, essentially impossible to crash. Radar altimeter(s) combined with inertial navigation should be enough for this to be possible.
|
Main CLLARE workgroups: Mission Planning, Navigation and Guidance. I do maths, physics, C, Python and Java.
|
|
|
2:37 am January 22, 2010
| Luke Maurits
| | Adelaide, Australia | |
| Admin
| posts 1483 | |
|
|
Let's try to get a rough mass estimate for this lander.
The original 4 legged square lander design had a structural mass of 103 kg, based on the density of aluminium and the total length of tubing required. This lander, having only 3 legs, is probably a little lighter, let's go with 80 kg for now.
Surely we could get an appropriate seat that was 20 kg or less?
We'll need a power supply. Two regular lead acid car batteries might be the stupidest way to go about this from a mass perspective, and would weigh about 30 kg, so this is an absolute upper limit.
Total avionics mass surely couldn't exceed 20 kg? It would just be a few IMUs (1.6 kg each), a software-defined radio board or two, a BeagleBoard-esque computer or two and an altimeter or two.
I actually have no idea what the mass of the engine might be. 50 kg?
So far this is 200 kg and we still need to account for tank masses.
Put on a 75 kg astronaut in a 100 kg EVA suit (including life support) and we're up to 375 kg.
For a total descent-ascent delta-v of 4700 m/s (rough equal to Apollo) and a Isp of 425s (modest for LOX/LH2), the rocket equation gives a fuelled mass of 1159 kg, i.e. 784 kg of propellant. Using a 6:1 LOX:LH2 ratio and Air Liquide's online gas encyclopedia, this will consume about 2.2 cubic metres. How light can a tank of this capacity get? We would of course then have to add some extra mass to account for the extra fuel to carry the tank.
Hmm. 2.2 cubic metres is rather a lot of volume. For a single cylindrical tank to hold that much, if it were 1m in diameter, it would have to be 2.8 m tall. That's a lot larger than I'd envisioned. Is there an error of some sort above or is my intuition on how large the tank should need to be just wrong?
|
Main CLLARE workgroups: Mission Planning, Navigation and Guidance. I do maths, physics, C, Python and Java.
|
|
|
10:47 am January 22, 2010
| brmj
| | Rochester, New York, United States | |
| Member | posts 402 | |
|
|
Surely we could get an appropriate seat that was 20 kg or less?
Substanially less, I expect.
We'll need a power supply. Two regular lead acid car batteries might be the stupidest way to go about this from a mass perspective, and would weigh about 30 kg, so this is an absolute upper limit.
Total avionics mass surely couldn't exceed 20 kg? It would just be a few IMUs (1.6 kg each), a software-defined radio board or two, a BeagleBoard-esque computer or two and an altimeter or two.
Those look like reasonable upper estimates.
I actually have no idea what the mass of the engine might be. 50 kg?
I have no clue as well, but we might want to assume a bit more than that.
Put on a 75 kg astronaut in a 100 kg EVA suit (including life support) and we're up to 375 kg.
I think we can make our space suit considerably lighter is we go with a mechanical counterpressure design.
Hmm. 2.2 cubic metres is rather a lot of volume. For a single cylindrical tank to hold that much, if it were 1m in diameter, it would have to be 2.8 m tall. That's a lot larger than I'd envisioned. Is there an error of some sort above or is my intuition on how large the tank should need to be just wrong?
Your mass numbers sound good, but your volume numbers sound bogus. Take a look at this. It looks like the early light lander concepts didn't allocate all that much space for tanks, and they were heavier than our design. What sort of numbers are you using for density?
|
Main work groups: Propulsion (booster), Spacecraft Engineering, Computer Systems, Navigation and Guidance (software)
|
|
|
3:08 pm January 22, 2010
| brmj
| | Rochester, New York, United States | |
| Member | posts 402 | |
|
|
Another thought: We might want to allocate some extra mass, if we can spare it, to mission specific equipment or aditional breathing gasses. It might be nice to make the design expandable as well. If our design had reasonable spots a dirivative could add one or more additional engines and the fuel tanks could be enlarged, a dirivative of our stack could do amazing things given the extra lifitng capacity of a Falcon 9 Heavy. It would be a shame to build this whole infurstructure and be unable to do anything with it other than quick flag planting missions.
|
Main work groups: Propulsion (booster), Spacecraft Engineering, Computer Systems, Navigation and Guidance (software)
|
|
|
5:39 am January 23, 2010
| Luke Maurits
| | Adelaide, Australia | |
| Admin
| posts 1483 | |
|
|
brmj said:Another thought: We might want to allocate some extra mass, if we can spare it, to mission specific equipment or aditional breathing gasses. It might be nice to make the design expandable as well. If our design had reasonable spots a dirivative could add one or more additional engines and the fuel tanks could be enlarged, a dirivative of our stack could do amazing things given the extra lifitng capacity of a Falcon 9 Heavy. It would be a shame to build this whole infurstructure and be unable to do anything with it other than quick flag planting missions.
This is really something we should think about. Lately I have been feeling a little unhappy about how single purpose the CLLARE core hardware is. I discovered a concept for a manned capsule that the Japanese floated back around 2001, called "Fuji", which never received funding and remained purely a concept. There's a Wikipedia article, but it's clearly been written by a Japanese person with imperfect English, although you can certainly get the gist of it. The strongest impression, though, comes from this apparent fanpage, which has a lot of wallpapers of concept art showing just how flexible a system it was. They had separate propulsion modules, living space modules, robotic manipulator arm modules – even an inflatable viewing balloon attachment for space tourism. Some of the pictures show what appear to be entire space stations built by docking together huge numbers of simple modular units. I was quite impressed and disappointed it was never actually made. In stark contrast there's not too much you can do with a CLLARE CM except send one person somewhere. We don't have a generic docking ability with an airlock/transit tunnel to allow using the CM for transfer to spacestations, etc. (of course, EVA transfer would be possible). Still, CLLARE was originally conceived as a bare-bones, simple and cheap as possible moon mission, so maybe this isn't surprising. If CLLARE actually happens, then I'm sure CSTART's next manned project will be a much more flexible system.
The best approach that I can think of, for extended CLLARE applications, would be to go back to the idea of having a "hanger" module inbetween the CM and the PM. These could be made fairly large, to store more complex landers, or multiple simple landers, etc.
I've also thought before that it may be appealing, the first time we test an automated descent of our lander on the actual moon (obvioulsy we shouldn't have an astronaut on there the first time we try it), to make use of the spare mass (which will probably be at least 100 kg if we end up using a very light weight elastic space suit and possible more if we dont) by putting a robotic rover on a modified version of the lander. We could replace the astronaut's seat with a shielded holding bay for the rover, and replace the stairs/ladder with a ramp, and just have the rover roll down the ramp once the lander has landed.
|
Main CLLARE workgroups: Mission Planning, Navigation and Guidance. I do maths, physics, C, Python and Java.
|
|
|
3:53 am April 21, 2010
| pokemeng
| | |
| Member | posts 3 | |
|
|
if we had a good mathematical model of the conditions on the moon we should be able to compute a control that will land autonomously. We just would use laser sensors or distance sensors of some sort not affected by the moon conditions to monitor the altitude and pitch of our lander to feedback to our thrust control and control the velocity of descent.
For all this though good models would be needed of the environment and the thrusting equipment.
|
|