Design History Thread
Forwarded Conversation
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft
Design]
------------------------
From: Jeroen Lapre' <jeroen@ilm.com>
Date: Fri, Nov 4, 2005 at 6:07 PM
Attachments: ExcaliburMainLogo.jpg, LunarVehiclejpg.jpg,
AscentSys.jpg
Hi Michael,
here is my research with my friends at NASA on the rescue craft design
for our inde project.
Let me know what you think!
thanks!
-Jeroen
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: RogerARno@comcast.net
To: "Jeroen
Lapre'" <jeroen@ilm.com>,
Lisa Chu-Thielbar
<Lisa.Chu-Thielbar@nasa.gov>,
Roger Arno
<RogerArno@comcast.net>,
Ken Galal
<kgalal@mail.arc.nasa.gov>,
Susmita Mohanty
<susmita.mohanty@moonfront.com>,
Jay Trimble
<jtrimble@arc.nasa.gov>,
Michael H Sims
<Michael.H.Sims@nasa.gov>,
Joel Hagen <jhagen@ainet.com>,
Paul Van Susante <paulvans@mines.edu>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:55:38 +0000
Subject: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
Jeroen,
I like the Excalibur logo. It should look great in the movie.
About the rescue vehicle:
Under
some conditions the electromagnetic rail might provide a rescue
capability. However, since the rail itself appears to be faulty,
it would not be a good backup. Furthermore, the alignment of the
rail and the orbit of the astronaut would shift with time as the moon
rotatates. So additional propulsion capability would be required.
Any
reasonable base design would, I think, use an independent (rocket)
launch capability for a variety of purposes, both emergency and
non-emergency. Such devices could be small, like the Apollo
lander ascent module, for placing small payloads to lunar orbit.
Larger vehicles could place systems on another part of the moon,
or send larger payloads directly to Earth or other destinations (e.g.,
an asteroid or Mars, etc.).
I envision a first stage propulsion
section to get into lunar orbit (or beyond), topped by a payload
module that would also have propulsion for orbit adjustments and/or
retro firing rockets for rendezvous, Earth entry, etc. This kind
of vehicle would probably be used to link up with a lunar or Earth
stations, especially at times when the rail is not ready or not
optimally oriented.
As with the Apollo system, because of the
lack of lunar atmosphere, the first stage rocket and payload need not
be aerodynamic -- except the landing component, when Earth entry is
involved. So, a cluster of tanks, nozzle(s), batteries,
computer, communications systems, etc., held together by sufficient
structure, would do. Antenna, docking adapters, etc., could
protrude, as long as they were strong enough to take the g-loads of of
the rocket firings. Ideally, the first stage would return to base
for reuse. The upper payload elements would hopefully be reusable
also.
Just a reminder (unnecessary I'm sure): The rescue
vehicle needs to match the altitude, speed, and direction of the
astronaut's orbit in order to carry out the rescue. Hence it
needs the propusion to do that. The vehicle must then be able to
leave that orbit and either dock with a lunar station or land back on
the surface (also requiring propulsion, landing legs, or docking
capability. It is not impossible, but a rare senario, in which
the rescue craft would go on the Earth.
A real consideration,
though maybe not that important to the movie, is that a quick reaction
rescue vehicle (or any emergency vehicle) would most certainly use
storable fuels. Solid rockets might be used on the first stage,
although they don't allow much decision making on total thrust and
velocity. There are liquid fuels and oxidizers that are not solid
or cryogenic. Cryogenics pose another problem.
Non-cryogenics are not as efficient, but fortunately we are
dealing with far less gravity here. (Liquid oxygen and liquid
hydrogen are cryogenic and would be impractical to store on the
vehicle.) The second stage, or payload section, would
definitely not uses solids, scince control of the burn is
necessary to make velocity (speed and direction) adjustments.
I
guess the bottom line here is don't use anything that looks like a
solid rocket on the rescue vehicle upper or lower sections. Use
tanks (e.g., spheres). You don't need to explain the fuel isn't
cryogenic.
If this doesn't make sense, let me know.
Ken
Galal can probably give you an idea of the timing of the launch and the
total time involved in performing the rescue maneuver.
Roger
> Dear Maelstrom II Consultants,
>
> I am very pleased to inform you that aerospace company
ManSat/Excalibur
> has given me permission to use their Excalibur logo on the rescue
craft
> in Maelstrom II!
>
> http://www.mansat.com/
>
> Now I need to design and build the Maelstrom II rescue craft!
>
> Roger, I seem to recall from our previous discussions that the
rescue
> craft would be one of the VTOL craft that you proposed:
>
http://home.comcast.net/~jeroen-lapre/ArthurCClarke/MaelstromII/PolarBase.html
>
http://home.comcast.net/~jeroen-lapre/ArthurCClarke/MaelstromII/BaseLayout675.jp
> g
>
> i.e. the craft you labelled cargo carrier.
>
> Would the rescue craft most likely be a cargo carrier, a VTOL
> Lunar-L1passenger craft, or something else?
>
> Cheers
> -Jeroen
>
>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Jeroen Lapre'" <
jeroen@ilm.com>
To: Lisa
Chu-Thielbar <Lisa.Chu-Thielbar@nasa.gov>,
Roger Arno
<RogerArno@comcast.net>,
Ken Galal
<kgalal@mail.arc.nasa.gov>,
Susmita Mohanty
<susmita.mohanty@moonfront.com>,
Jay Trimble
<jtrimble@arc.nasa.gov>,
Michael H Sims
<Michael.H.Sims@nasa.gov>,
Joel Hagen <jhagen@ainet.com>,
Paul Van Susante <paulvans@mines.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 21:26:58 +0000
Subject: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: RogerArno@comcast.net
To: "Jeroen Lapre'" <jeroen@ilm.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:03:26 +0000
Subject: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
Jeroen,
Yes,
in prinicple, the figures you found on the web (two attached) is what I
was trying to describe. There are a number of differences
possible with the Leyland rescue vehicle.
First, note the wide
stance legs, indicating that the entire vehicle has been landed on the
lunar surface, and not assembled there. Such a configuration
would be appropriate if the rescue vehicle were to return to the
suface. Note, too, that you would still have to get from
the lander to the base somehow (perhaps a pressurized rover).
Depending upon the size of the fuel and oxidizer tanks that there
could be enough propellant to land the whole system and take off again,
although the pictures indicate that this an Apollo-style system, and
the bottom portion stays on the ground.
The part that takes off
(last of the four web pictures0 shows that, Like Apollo, only the
top portion of the craft leaves the surface. The larger tanks (of
the lifted portion) provide the energy to get to orbit or perform lunar
escape. A second set of tanks and thrusters are in
the cyliner under the Apollo capsue. They provide the lunar orbit
rendezvous energy and/or the Earth entry retro capability. Again,
if the craft is to return to the lunar surface, larger tanks, more
tanks, and legs would be required.
The Apollo-like
capsue on the top indicates that the payload capsule is intended for a
direct Earth entry, not a lunar orbit rendezvous. We, of course
don't need this. So, the topmost portion would be more of a
sphere, box, or cylinder with a port, airlock, or hatch of some sort --
not only to perform the rescue, but dock at a station, etc.
The
time required to accomplish the rescue depends on several things.
Under normal conditions, the rocket engines and tanks are
sized to reach orbit with smooth arcs and minimum energy -- in
about the time of one lunar orbit. With larger rocket systems,
you could power yourself to orbit, and then apply retro
rockets to match speed and direction of Leyland's orbit is
a shorter time. If we assumed that the rescue vehicle was
designed for heavier payloads, the propulsion capability would probably
be there. My orbit mechanics are pretty rusty, so Ken is
the one to verify the time requirements. I think five hours is
well within the realm of possibility, but remember there will be
some prep time before liftoff.
Roger
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ken Galal <Ken.Galal@nasa.gov>
To: "Jeroen Lapre'" < jeroen@ilm.com>,
RogerArno@comcast.net
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:03:10 -0700
Subject: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
Hi Jeroen,
Sorry, I've been out of town the last couple of weeks and have been
digging
though my email.
It's been a while since I've looked at the screen play, so I need to go
back and refresh my mind as to what the exact sequence was that you
were
looking at. Based on the work I did a while back on Earth-Moon L1
orbits,
I found that the cheapest transfers (in terms of energy for launching at
the moon and capturing into an L1 orbit) took about 10 days to get from
the
moon to the L1 location ... which might make sense for a tug, but not so
much for human cargo. In any case, even if you send something
from L1 in a
less efficient trajectory, I'm pretty sure launching from the moon to
intercept the freight capsule would be faster. Let me think about
it over
the weekend.
Ken G.
At 10:52 AM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
>Roger,
>
>Wonderful! Thanks for pointing out the differences between a
>return-to-Earth and a return-to-L1 craft shape-design.
>
>Dear Ken,
>
>I know you are most probably busy, but any feedback regarding the
orbital
>mechanicals of the rescue would be much appreciated!
>
>Cheers :-)
>-Jeroen
>
>RogerArno@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>Jeroen,
>>
>>Yes, in prinicple, the figures you found on the web (two
attached) is
>>what I was trying to describe. There are a number of
differences
>>possible with the Leyland rescue vehicle.
>>
>>First, note the wide stance legs, indicating that the entire
vehicle has
>>been landed on the lunar surface, and not assembled there.
Such a
>>configuration would be appropriate if the rescue vehicle
were to return
>>to the suface. Note, too, that you would still have
to get from the
>>lander to the base somehow (perhaps a pressurized rover).
Depending upon
>>the size of the fuel and oxidizer tanks that there could be
enough
>>propellant to land the whole system and take off again,
although the
>>pictures indicate that this an Apollo-style system, and the
bottom
>>portion stays on the ground.
>>
>>The part that takes off (last of the four web pictures0 shows
that,
>>Like Apollo, only the top portion of the craft leaves the
surface. The
>>larger tanks (of the lifted portion) provide the energy to get
to orbit
>>or perform lunar escape. A second set of tanks
and thrusters are in
>>the cyliner under the Apollo capsue. They provide the
lunar orbit
>>rendezvous energy and/or the Earth entry retro capability.
Again, if the
>>craft is to return to the lunar surface, larger tanks, more
tanks, and
>>legs would be required.
>>
>>The Apollo-like capsue on the top indicates that the payload
capsule is
>>intended for a direct Earth entry, not a lunar orbit
rendezvous. We, of
>>course don't need this. So, the topmost portion would
be more of a
>>sphere, box, or cylinder with a port, airlock, or hatch of some
sort --
>>not only to perform the rescue, but dock at a station, etc.
>>
>>The time required to accomplish the rescue depends on several
>>things. Under normal conditions, the rocket engines
and tanks
>>are sized to reach orbit with smooth arcs and minimum
energy -- in about
>>the time of one lunar orbit. With larger rocket systems,
you could power
>>yourself to orbit, and then apply retro rockets to
match speed and
>>direction of Leyland's orbit is a shorter time. If
we assumed that the
>>rescue vehicle was designed for heavier payloads, the
propulsion
>>capability would probably be there. My orbit mechanics
are pretty
>>rusty, so Ken is the one to verify the time requirements.
I think five
>>hours is well within the realm of possibility, but
remember there will
>>be some prep time before liftoff.
>>
>>Roger
>>
>>
>
>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ken Galal <
Ken.Galal@nasa.gov>
To: "Jeroen Lapre'" <jeroen@ilm.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:53:32 -0700
Subject: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
Hi Jeroen,
Yes, it depends on the trajectory you take to get from the moon to L1.
The
distance is about 58,000 km, but you wouldn't necessarily want to go
directly to L1 since when you got there you would need to slow yourself
down and speed up in a different direction to stay about the L1 point.
The
most efficient way would be an indirect route to that would take you
out to
the edge of the gravitational sphere of influence of the moon, and let
the
Earth/lunar gravity pull you toward the L1 point in the direction you
want
to be going for a stable orbit. It all depends on how much
propellant is
available to use.
In any case, since the 5 hr period orbit we are talking about goes out
to a
max distance of 5115 km from the moon, it should be faster to initiate a
rescue from the moon, rather than from an L1 station.
If we are assuming a south pole launch of a rescue vehicle, I would
think
the best way to intercept is to wait until Cliff has passed by (to make
sure he has safely cleared the mountain first and that a rescue is
indeed
necessary!) then launching the rescue vehicle along Cliff's orbit
plane. Since in the 5 hrs it takes Cliff to come around, the moon
has
rotated about 2.75 deg, one possibility is to use the catapult to launch
the rescue craft, in which case you could either rotate the entire
catapult
2.75 deg or launch from the original orientation (into Cliff's 5-hr
orbit)
and perform a ~100 m/s maneuver to adjust the plane and intercept Cliff
at
some point down range. Alternatively, you could also perform a
conventional launch of a rocket directly into the correct plane.
The screen play calls for a rendezvous 55 minutes after Cliff passes the
base, which seems a little ambitious, but not impossible.
Ken G.
p.s. looking at the screen play over the weekend, I found some
minor
wording changes that you may want to consider making. I'll try to
get
those to you in the next couple of days.
At 02:21 PM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
>Hi Ken,
>
>so are you saying that even though a successful electromagnetic
rail
>launch at 2 to 3 km per second, it would still take 10 days to get
to L1?
>I assume you mean it depends on the shape of the orbit.
>
>So as you say, it sounds like a launch from the moon would be a
faster
>rescue strategy.
>
>I look forward to hearing more from you next week!
>
>Much thanks :-)
>
>-Jeroen
>
>Ken Galal wrote:
>
>>Hi Jeroen,
>>
>>Sorry, I've been out of town the last couple of weeks and have
been
>>digging though my email.
>>
>>It's been a while since I've looked at the screen play, so I
need to go
>>back and refresh my mind as to what the exact sequence was that
you were
>>looking at. Based on the work I did a while back on
Earth-Moon L1
>>orbits, I found that the cheapest transfers (in terms of energy
for
>>launching at the moon and capturing into an L1 orbit) took
about 10 days
>>to get from the moon to the L1 location ... which might make
sense for a
>>tug, but not so much for human cargo. In any case, even
if you send
>>something from L1 in a less efficient trajectory, I'm pretty
sure
>>launching from the moon to intercept the freight capsule would
be
>>faster. Let me think about it over the weekend.
>>
>>Ken G.
>>
>>
>>
>>At 10:52 AM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
>>
>>>Roger,
>>>
>>>Wonderful! Thanks for pointing out the differences between
a
>>>return-to-Earth and a return-to-L1 craft shape-design.
>>>
>>>Dear Ken,
>>>
>>>I know you are most probably busy, but any feedback
regarding the
>>>orbital mechanicals of the rescue would be much
appreciated!
>>>
>>>Cheers :-)
>>>-Jeroen
>>>
>>>RogerArno@comcast.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jeroen,
>>>>
>>>>Yes, in prinicple, the figures you found on the web
(two attached) is
>>>>what I was trying to describe. There are a number
of differences
>>>>possible with the Leyland rescue vehicle.
>>>>
>>>>First, note the wide stance legs, indicating that the
entire vehicle
>>>>has been landed on the lunar surface, and not assembled
there. Such a
>>>>configuration would be appropriate if the rescue
vehicle were to
>>>>return to the suface. Note, too, that you would
still have to get
>>>>from the lander to the base somehow (perhaps a
pressurized rover).
>>>>Depending upon the size of the fuel and oxidizer tanks
that there could
>>>>be enough propellant to land the whole system and take
off again,
>>>>although the pictures indicate that this an
Apollo-style system, and
>>>>the bottom portion stays on the ground.
>>>>
>>>>The part that takes off (last of the four web pictures0
shows that,
>>>>Like Apollo, only the top portion of the craft
leaves the surface.
>>>>The larger tanks (of the lifted portion) provide the
energy to get to
>>>>orbit or perform lunar escape. A second
set of tanks and thrusters
>>>>are in the cyliner under the Apollo capsue. They
provide the lunar
>>>>orbit rendezvous energy and/or the Earth entry retro
>>>>capability. Again, if the craft is to return to
the lunar surface,
>>>>larger tanks, more tanks, and legs would be
required.
>>>>
>>>>The Apollo-like capsue on the top indicates that the
payload capsule is
>>>>intended for a direct Earth entry, not a lunar orbit
rendezvous.
>>>>We, of course don't need this. So, the topmost
portion would be more
>>>>of a sphere, box, or cylinder with a port, airlock, or
hatch of some
>>>>sort -- not only to perform the rescue, but dock at a
station, etc.
>>>>
>>>>The time required to accomplish the rescue depends on
several
>>>>things. Under normal conditions, the rocket
engines and tanks are
>>>>sized to reach orbit with smooth arcs and minimum
energy -- in about
>>>>the time of one lunar orbit. With larger rocket
systems, you could
>>>>power yourself to orbit, and then apply retro
rockets to match speed
>>>>and direction of Leyland's orbit is a shorter
time. If we assumed
>>>>that the rescue vehicle was designed for heavier
payloads, the
>>>>propulsion capability would probably be there. My
orbit mechanics are
>>>>pretty rusty, so Ken is the one to verify the time
requirements. I
>>>>think five hours is well within the realm of
possibility, but remember
>>>>there will be some prep time before liftoff.
>>>>
>>>>Roger
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: RogerArno@comcast.net
To: Ken Galal <Ken.Galal@nasa.gov>,
"Jeroen Lapre'" <
jeroen@ilm.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:39:05 +0000
Subject: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
Ken,
Would
you hazard a guess at the size of the tanks (storable propellants) for
a 55 minute rendezvous with Cliff Leyland, assuming a conventional
rocket launch from the lunar surface?
Roger
> Hi Jeroen,
>
> Yes, it depends on the trajectory you take to get from the moon to
L1. The
> distance is about 58,000 km, but you wouldn't necessarily want to
go
> directly to L1 since when you got there you would need to slow
yourself
> down and speed up in a different direction to stay about the L1
point. The
> most efficient way would be an indirect route to that would take
you out to
> the edge of the gravitational sphere of influence of the moon, and
let the
> Earth/lunar gravity pull you toward the L1 point in the direction
you want
> to be going for a stable orbit. It all depends on how much
propellant is
> available to use.
>
> In any case, since the 5 hr period orbit we are talking about goes
out to a
> max distance of 5115 km from the moon, it should be faster to
initiate a
> rescue from the moon, rather than from an L1 station.
>
> If we are assuming a south pole launch of a rescue vehicle, I
would think
> the best way to intercept is to wait until Cliff has passed by (to
make
> sure he has safely cleared the mountain first and that a rescue is
indeed
> necessary!) then launching the rescue vehicle along Cliff's orbit
> plane. Since in the 5 hrs it takes Cliff to come around, the
moon has
> rotated about 2.75 deg, one possibility is to use the catapult to
launch
> the rescue craft, in which case you could either rotate the entire
catapult
> 2.75 deg or launch from the original orientation (into Cliff's
5-hr orbit)
> and perform a ~100 m/s maneuver to adjust the plane and intercept
Cliff at
> some point down range. Alternatively, you could also perform
a
> conventional launch of a rocket directly into the correct plane.
>
> The screen play calls for a rendezvous 55 minutes after Cliff
passes the
> base, which seems a little ambitious, but not impossible.
>
> Ken G.
>
> p.s. looking at the screen play over the weekend, I found
some minor
> wording changes that you may want to consider making. I'll
try to get
> those to you in the next couple of days.
>
>
> At 02:21 PM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
> >Hi Ken,
> >
> >so are you saying that even though a successful
electromagnetic rail
> >launch at 2 to 3 km per second, it would still take 10 days to
get to L1?
> >I assume you mean it depends on the shape of the orbit.
> >
> >So as you say, it sounds like a launch from the moon would be
a faster
> >rescue strategy.
> >
> >I look forward to hearing more from you next week!
> >
> >Much thanks :-)
> >
> >-Jeroen
> >
> >Ken Galal wrote:
> >
> >>Hi Jeroen,
> >>
> >>Sorry, I've been out of town the last couple of weeks and
have been
> >>digging though my email.
> >>
> >>It's been a while since I've looked at the screen play, so
I need to go
> >>back and refresh my mind as to what the exact sequence was
that you were
> >>looking at. Based on the work I did a while back on
Earth-Moon L1
> >>orbits, I found that the cheapest transfers (in terms of
energy for
> >>launching at the moon and capturing into an L1 orbit) took
about 10 days
> >>to get from the moon to the L1 location ... which might
make sense for a
> >>tug, but not so much for human cargo. In any case,
even if you send
> >>something from L1 in a less efficient trajectory, I'm
pretty sure
> >>launching from the moon to intercept the freight capsule
would be
> >>faster. Let me think about it over the weekend.
> >>
> >>Ken G.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>At 10:52 AM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
> >>
> >>>Roger,
> >>>
> >>>Wonderful! Thanks for pointing out the differences
between a
> >>>return-to-Earth and a return-to-L1 craft shape-design.
> >>>
> >>>Dear Ken,
> >>>
> >>>I know you are most probably busy, but any feedback
regarding the
> >>>orbital mechanicals of the rescue would be much
appreciated!
> >>>
> >>>Cheers :-)
> >>>-Jeroen
> >>>
> >>>RogerArno@comcast.net wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Jeroen,
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes, in prinicple, the figures you found on the
web (two attached) is
> >>>>what I was trying to describe. There are a
number of differences
> >>>>possible with the Leyland rescue vehicle.
> >>>>
> >>>>First, note the wide stance legs, indicating that
the entire vehicle
> >>>>has been landed on the lunar surface, and not
assembled there. Such a
> >>>>configuration would be appropriate if the rescue
vehicle were to
> >>>>return to the suface. Note, too, that you
would still have to get
> >>>>from the lander to the base somehow (perhaps a
pressurized rover).
> >>>>Depending upon the size of the fuel and oxidizer
tanks that there could
> >>>>be enough propellant to land the whole system and
take off again,
> >>>>although the pictures indicate that this an
Apollo-style system, and
> >>>>the bottom portion stays on the ground.
> >>>>
> >>>>The part that takes off (last of the four web
pictures0 shows that,
> >>>>Like Apollo, only the top portion of the
craft leaves the surface.
> >>>>The larger tanks (of the lifted portion) provide
the energy to get to
> >>>>orbit or perform lunar escape. A second
set of tanks and thrusters
> >>>>are in the cyliner under the Apollo capsue.
They provide the lunar
> >>>>orbit rendezvous energy and/or the Earth entry
retro
> >>>>capability. Again, if the craft is to return
to the lunar surface,
> >>>>larger tanks, more tanks, and legs would
be required.
> >>>>
> >>>>The Apollo-like capsue on the top indicates that
the payload capsule is
> >>>>intended for a direct Earth entry, not a lunar
orbit rendezvous.
> >>>>We, of course don't need this. So, the
topmost portion would be more
> >>>>of a sphere, box, or cylinder with a port,
airlock, or hatch of some
> >>>>sort -- not only to perform the rescue, but dock
at a station, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>>The time required to accomplish the rescue depends
on several
> >>>>things. Under normal conditions, the rocket
engines and tanks are
> >>>>sized to reach orbit with smooth arcs and minimum
energy -- in about
> >>>>the time of one lunar orbit. With larger
rocket systems, you could
> >>>>power yourself to orbit, and then apply
retro rockets to match speed
> >>>>and direction of Leyland's orbit is a
shorter time. If we assumed
> >>>>that the rescue vehicle was designed for heavier
payloads, the
> >>>>propulsion capability would probably be there.
My orbit mechanics are
> >>>>pretty rusty, so Ken is the one to verify the time
requirements. I
> >>>>think five hours is well within the realm of
possibility, but remember
> >>>>there will be some prep time before liftoff.
> >>>>
> >>>>Roger
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ken Galal < Ken.Galal@nasa.gov>
To: RogerArno@comcast.net,
"Jeroen Lapre'" <jeroen@ilm.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 08:52:47 -0700
Subject: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
Roger,
I would guess they would need to be somewhat larger than the Apollo
Lunar
Lander tanks. The Lunar Lander had to land on the moon and part
of it had
to take off and reach low lunar orbit (total DV of about 3.4 km/s, not
including reserves and gravity losses). Cliff's rescue vehicle
also has to
take off, land, reach/insert/return from the L1 station orbit (total DV
of
perhaps about 5.4 km/s not including reserves and gravity losses).
Also,
since Cliff's rescue vehicle is probably a little more substantial than
the
Apollo Lander, I would start with at least double the size of the
Apollo
Lander tanks.
Ken G.
At 10:39 PM 8/8/05 +0000, RogerArno@comcast.net wrote:
>Ken,
>
>Would you hazard a guess at the size of the tanks (storable
propellants)
>for a 55 minute rendezvous with Cliff Leyland, assuming a
conventional
>rocket launch from the lunar surface?
>
>Roger
>
>
> > Hi Jeroen,
> >
> > Yes, it depends on the trajectory you take to get from the
moon to
> L1. The
> > distance is about 58,000 km, but you wouldn't necessarily
want to go
> > directly to L1 since when you got there you would need to
slow yourself
> > down and speed up in a different direction to stay about the
L1
> point. The
> > most efficient way would be an indirect route to that would
take you
> out to
> > the edge of the gravitational sphere of influence of the
moon, and let the
> > Earth/lunar gravity pull you toward the L1 point in the
direction you want
> > to be going for a stable orbit. It all depends on how
much propellant is
> > available to use.
> >
> > In any case, since the 5 hr period orbit we are talking about
goes out
> to a
> > max distance of 5115 km from the moon, it should be faster to
initiate a
> > rescue from the moon, rather than from an L1 station.
> >
> > If we are assuming a south pole launch of a rescue vehicle, I
would think
> > the best way to intercept is to wait until Cliff has passed
by (to make
> > sure he has safely cleared the mountain first and that a
rescue is indeed
> > necessary!) then launching the rescue vehicle along Cliff's
orbit
> > plane. Since in the 5 hrs it takes Cliff to come
around, the moon has
> > rotated about 2.75 deg, one possibility is to use the
catapult to launch
> > the rescue craft, in which case you could either rotate the
entire
> catapult
> > 2.75 deg or launch from the original orientation (into
Cliff's 5-hr orbit)
> > and perform a ~100 m/s maneuver to adjust the plane and
intercept Cliff at
> > some point down range. Alternatively, you could also
perform a
> > conventional launch of a rocket directly into the correct
plane.
> >
> > The screen play calls for a rendezvous 55 minutes after Cliff
passes the
> > base, which seems a little ambitious, but not impossible.
> >
> > Ken G.
> >
> > p.s. looking at the screen play over the weekend, I
found some minor
> > wording changes that you may want to consider making.
I'll try to get
> > those to you in the next couple of days.
> >
> >
> > At 02:21 PM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
> > >Hi Ken,
> > >
> > >so are you saying that even though a successful
electromagnetic rail
> > >launch at 2 to 3 km per second, it would still take 10
days to get to L1?
> > >I assume you mean it depends on the shape of the orbit.
> > >
> > >So as you say, it sounds like a launch from the moon
would be a faster
> > >rescue strategy.
> > >
> > >I look forward to hearing more from you next week!
> > >
> > >Much thanks :-)
> > >
> > >-Jeroen
> > >
> > >Ken Galal wrote:
> > >
> > >>Hi Jeroen,
> > >>
> > >>Sorry, I've been out of town the last couple of weeks
and have been
> > >>digging though my email.
> > >>
> > >>It's been a while since I've looked at the screen
play, so I need to go
> > >>back and refresh my mind as to what the exact
sequence was that you were
> > >>looking at. Based on the work I did a while
back on Earth-Moon L1
> > >>orbits, I found that the cheapest transfers (in terms
of energy for
> > >>launching at the moon and capturing into an L1 orbit)
took about 10 days
> > >>to get from the moon to the L1 location ... which
might make sense for a
> > >>tug, but not so much for human cargo. In any
case, even if you send
> > >>something from L1 in a less efficient trajectory, I'm
pretty sure
> > >>launching from the moon to intercept the freight
capsule would be
> > >>faster. Let me think about it over the weekend.
> > >>
> > >>Ken G.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>At 10:52 AM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Roger,
> > >>>
> > >>>Wonderful! Thanks for pointing out the
differences between a
> > >>>return-to-Earth and a return-to-L1 craft
shape-design.
> > >>>
> > >>>Dear Ken,
> > >>>
> > >>>I know you are most probably busy, but any
feedback regarding the
> > >>>orbital mechanicals of the rescue would be much
appreciated!
> > >>>
> > >>>Cheers :-)
> > >>>-Jeroen
> > >>>
> > >>> RogerArno@comcast.net wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>Jeroen,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Yes, in prinicple, the figures you found on
the web (two attached) is
> > >>>>what I was trying to describe. There
are a number of differences
> > >>>>possible with the Leyland rescue vehicle.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>First, note the wide stance legs, indicating
that the entire vehicle
> > >>>>has been landed on the lunar surface, and not
assembled there. Such a
> > >>>>configuration would be appropriate if the
rescue vehicle were to
> > >>>>return to the suface. Note, too, that
you would still have to get
> > >>>>from the lander to the base somehow (perhaps
a pressurized rover).
> > >>>>Depending upon the size of the fuel and
oxidizer tanks that there
> could
> > >>>>be enough propellant to land the whole system
and take off again,
> > >>>>although the pictures indicate that this an
Apollo-style system, and
> > >>>>the bottom portion stays on the ground.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>The part that takes off (last of the four web
pictures0 shows that,
> > >>>>Like Apollo, only the top portion of
the craft leaves the surface.
> > >>>>The larger tanks (of the lifted portion)
provide the energy to get to
> > >>>>orbit or perform lunar escape. A
second set of tanks and thrusters
> > >>>>are in the cyliner under the Apollo capsue.
They provide the lunar
> > >>>>orbit rendezvous energy and/or the Earth
entry retro
> > >>>>capability. Again, if the craft is to
return to the lunar surface,
> > >>>>larger tanks, more tanks, and legs
would be required.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>The Apollo-like capsue on the top indicates
that the payload
> capsule is
> > >>>>intended for a direct Earth entry, not a
lunar orbit rendezvous.
> > >>>>We, of course don't need this. So, the
topmost portion would be more
> > >>>>of a sphere, box, or cylinder with a port,
airlock, or hatch of some
> > >>>>sort -- not only to perform the rescue, but
dock at a station, etc.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>The time required to accomplish the rescue
depends on several
> > >>>>things. Under normal conditions, the
rocket engines and tanks are
> > >>>>sized to reach orbit with smooth arcs and
minimum energy -- in about
> > >>>>the time of one lunar orbit. With
larger rocket systems, you could
> > >>>>power yourself to orbit, and then apply
retro rockets to match speed
> > >>>>and direction of Leyland's orbit is a
shorter time. If we assumed
> > >>>>that the rescue vehicle was designed for
heavier payloads, the
> > >>>>propulsion capability would probably be
there. My orbit
> mechanics are
> > >>>>pretty rusty, so Ken is the one to verify the
time requirements. I
> > >>>>think five hours is well within the
realm of possibility, but
> remember
> > >>>>there will be some prep time before liftoff.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Roger
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
|
--------
From: Jeroen Lapre' <jeroen.lapre@gmail.com >
Date: Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 2:38 PM
Attachments: ExcaliburMainLogo.jpg, LunarVehiclejpg.jpg,
AscentSys.jpg
Hi Jay,
here is my research on the rescue space craft for Maelstrom II.
Please refer to attached images from NASA "lander on steroids".
Any feedback and/or input would be gratefully appreciated!
As you said, form can be functional and aesthetically pleasing at the
same time!
Looking foward to your ideas.
cheers
-Jeroen
[Quoted text hidden]
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: RogerARno@comcast.net
To:
"Jeroen Lapre'" <jeroen@ilm.com>,
Lisa Chu-Thielbar
<Lisa.Chu-Thielbar@nasa.gov>,
Roger Arno
<RogerArno@comcast.net>,
Ken Galal
<kgalal@mail.arc.nasa.gov>,
Susmita Mohanty
<susmita.mohanty@moonfront.com>,
Jay Trimble
<jtrimble@arc.nasa.gov>,
Michael H Sims
<Michael.H.Sims@nasa.gov>,
Joel Hagen <
jhagen@ainet.com>,
Paul Van Susante <paulvans@mines.edu>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:55:38 +0000
Subject: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
Jeroen,
I like the Excalibur logo. It should look great in the
movie.
About the rescue vehicle:
Under
some conditions the electromagnetic rail might provide a rescue
capability. However, since the rail itself appears to be
faulty, it would not be a good backup. Furthermore, the
alignment of the rail and the orbit of the astronaut would shift with
time as the moon rotatates. So additional propulsion
capability would be required.
Any reasonable base design would,
I think, use an independent (rocket) launch capability for a variety of
purposes, both emergency and non-emergency. Such devices
could be small, like the Apollo lander ascent module, for
placing small payloads to lunar orbit. Larger vehicles could
place systems on another part of the moon, or send larger payloads
directly to Earth or other destinations (e.g., an asteroid or Mars,
etc.).
I envision a first stage propulsion section to get into
lunar orbit (or beyond), topped by a payload module that
would also have propulsion for orbit adjustments and/or retro firing
rockets for rendezvous, Earth entry, etc. This kind of
vehicle would probably be used to link up with a lunar or Earth
stations, especially at times when the rail is not ready or not
optimally oriented.
As with the Apollo system, because of the
lack of lunar atmosphere, the first stage rocket and payload need not
be aerodynamic -- except the landing component, when Earth entry
is involved. So, a cluster of tanks, nozzle(s),
batteries, computer, communications systems, etc., held together by
sufficient structure, would do. Antenna, docking
adapters, etc., could protrude, as long as they were strong enough to
take the g-loads of of the rocket firings. Ideally, the
first stage would return to base for reuse. The upper
payload elements would hopefully be reusable also.
Just a
reminder (unnecessary I'm sure): The rescue vehicle needs to
match the altitude, speed, and direction of the astronaut's orbit in
order to carry out the rescue. Hence it needs the propusion
to do that. The vehicle must then be able to leave that
orbit and either dock with a lunar station or land back on the surface
(also requiring propulsion, landing legs, or docking
capability. It is not impossible, but a rare senario, in
which the rescue craft would go on the Earth.
A real
consideration, though maybe not that important to the movie, is that a
quick reaction rescue vehicle (or any emergency vehicle) would most
certainly use storable fuels. Solid rockets might be used on
the first stage, although they don't allow much decision making on
total thrust and velocity. There are liquid fuels and
oxidizers that are not solid or cryogenic. Cryogenics pose
another problem. Non-cryogenics are not as efficient, but
fortunately we are dealing with far less gravity
here. (Liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen are cryogenic and
would be impractical to store on the vehicle.) The second
stage, or payload section, would definitely not uses solids,
scince control of the burn is necessary to make velocity (speed and
direction) adjustments.
I guess the bottom line here is don't
use anything that looks like a solid rocket on the rescue vehicle upper
or lower sections. Use tanks (e.g.,
spheres). You don't need to explain the fuel isn't cryogenic.
If this doesn't make sense, let me know.
Ken
Galal can probably give you an idea of the timing of the launch and the
total time involved in performing the rescue maneuver.
Roger
> Dear Maelstrom II Consultants,
>
> I am very pleased to inform you that aerospace company
ManSat/Excalibur
> has given me permission to use their Excalibur logo on the rescue
craft
> in Maelstrom II!
>
> http://www.mansat.com/
>
> Now I need to design and build the Maelstrom II rescue craft!
>
> Roger, I seem to recall from our previous discussions that the
rescue
> craft would be one of the VTOL craft that you proposed:
>
http://home.comcast.net/~jeroen-lapre/ArthurCClarke/MaelstromII/PolarBase.html
> http://home.comcast.net/~jeroen-lapre/ArthurCClarke/MaelstromII/BaseLayout675.jp
> g
>
> i.e. the craft you labelled cargo carrier.
>
> Would the rescue craft most likely be a cargo carrier, a VTOL
> Lunar-L1passenger craft, or something else?
>
> Cheers
> -Jeroen
>
>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Jeroen Lapre'" <jeroen@ilm.com>
To:
Lisa Chu-Thielbar <Lisa.Chu-Thielbar@nasa.gov>,
Roger Arno
<RogerArno@comcast.net>,
Ken Galal
<kgalal@mail.arc.nasa.gov>,
Susmita Mohanty
<susmita.mohanty@moonfront.com>,
Jay Trimble
<jtrimble@arc.nasa.gov>,
Michael H Sims
<Michael.H.Sims@nasa.gov>,
Joel Hagen <
jhagen@ainet.com>,
Paul Van Susante <paulvans@mines.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 21:26:58 +0000
Subject: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: RogerArno@comcast.net
To: "Jeroen Lapre'" <
jeroen@ilm.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:03:26 +0000
Subject: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
Jeroen,
Yes,
in prinicple, the figures you found on the web (two attached) is what I
was trying to describe. There are a number of differences
possible with the Leyland rescue vehicle.
First, note the wide
stance legs, indicating that the entire vehicle has been landed on the
lunar surface, and not assembled there. Such a configuration
would be appropriate if the rescue vehicle were to return to
the suface. Note, too, that you would still have
to get from the lander to the base somehow (perhaps a pressurized
rover). Depending upon the size of the fuel and oxidizer
tanks that there could be enough propellant to land the whole system
and take off again, although the pictures indicate that this an
Apollo-style system, and the bottom portion stays on the ground.
The
part that takes off (last of the four web pictures0 shows that,
Like Apollo, only the top portion of the craft leaves the
surface. The larger tanks (of the lifted portion) provide
the energy to get to orbit or perform lunar escape. A
second set of tanks and thrusters are in the
cyliner under the Apollo capsue. They provide the lunar
orbit rendezvous energy and/or the Earth entry retro
capability. Again, if the craft is to return to the lunar
surface, larger tanks, more tanks, and legs
would be required.
The Apollo-like capsue on the top
indicates that the payload capsule is intended for a direct Earth
entry, not a lunar orbit rendezvous. We, of course don't
need this. So, the topmost portion would be more
of a sphere, box, or cylinder with a port, airlock, or hatch of some
sort -- not only to perform the rescue, but dock at a station, etc.
The
time required to accomplish the rescue depends on several
things. Under normal conditions, the rocket
engines and tanks are sized to reach orbit with
smooth arcs and minimum energy -- in about the time of one lunar
orbit. With larger rocket systems, you could power yourself
to orbit, and then apply retro rockets to match
speed and direction of Leyland's orbit is a shorter
time. If we assumed that the rescue vehicle was designed for
heavier payloads, the propulsion capability would probably be
there. My orbit mechanics are pretty rusty, so
Ken is the one to verify the time requirements. I think five
hours is well within the realm of possibility, but remember
there will be some prep time before liftoff.
Roger
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ken Galal <
Ken.Galal@nasa.gov>
To: "Jeroen Lapre'" < jeroen@ilm.com>,
RogerArno@comcast.net
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:03:10 -0700
Subject: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
Hi Jeroen,
Sorry, I've been out of town the last couple of weeks and have been
digging
though my email.
It's been a while since I've looked at the screen play, so I need to go
back and refresh my mind as to what the exact sequence was that you
were
looking at. Based on the work I did a while back on
Earth-Moon L1 orbits,
I found that the cheapest transfers (in terms of energy for launching at
the moon and capturing into an L1 orbit) took about 10 days to get from
the
moon to the L1 location ... which might make sense for a tug, but not so
much for human cargo. In any case, even if you send
something from L1 in a
less efficient trajectory, I'm pretty sure launching from the moon to
intercept the freight capsule would be faster. Let me think
about it over
the weekend.
Ken G.
At 10:52 AM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
>Roger,
>
>Wonderful! Thanks for pointing out the differences between a
>return-to-Earth and a return-to-L1 craft shape-design.
>
>Dear Ken,
>
>I know you are most probably busy, but any feedback regarding the
orbital
>mechanicals of the rescue would be much appreciated!
>
>Cheers :-)
>-Jeroen
>
>RogerArno@comcast.net
wrote:
>
>>Jeroen,
>>
>>Yes, in prinicple, the figures you found on the web (two
attached) is
>>what I was trying to describe. There are a number of
differences
>>possible with the Leyland rescue vehicle.
>>
>>First, note the wide stance legs, indicating that the entire
vehicle has
>>been landed on the lunar surface, and not assembled
there. Such a
>>configuration would be appropriate if the rescue
vehicle were to return
>>to the suface. Note, too, that you
would still have to get from the
>>lander to the base somehow (perhaps a pressurized
rover). Depending upon
>>the size of the fuel and oxidizer tanks that there could be
enough
>>propellant to land the whole system and take off again,
although the
>>pictures indicate that this an Apollo-style system, and the
bottom
>>portion stays on the ground.
>>
>>The part that takes off (last of the four web pictures0 shows
that,
>>Like Apollo, only the top portion of the craft
leaves the surface. The
>>larger tanks (of the lifted portion) provide the energy to get
to orbit
>>or perform lunar escape. A second set of
tanks and thrusters are in
>>the cyliner under the Apollo capsue. They provide
the lunar orbit
>>rendezvous energy and/or the Earth entry retro
capability. Again, if the
>>craft is to return to the lunar surface, larger tanks,
more tanks, and
>>legs would be required.
>>
>>The Apollo-like capsue on the top indicates that the payload
capsule is
>>intended for a direct Earth entry, not a lunar orbit
rendezvous. We, of
>>course don't need this. So, the topmost portion
would be more of a
>>sphere, box, or cylinder with a port, airlock, or hatch of some
sort --
>>not only to perform the rescue, but dock at a station, etc.
>>
>>The time required to accomplish the rescue depends on several
>>things. Under normal conditions, the rocket
engines and tanks
>>are sized to reach orbit with smooth arcs and
minimum energy -- in about
>>the time of one lunar orbit. With larger rocket
systems, you could power
>>yourself to orbit, and then
apply retro rockets to match speed and
>>direction of Leyland's orbit is a shorter
time. If we assumed that the
>>rescue vehicle was designed for heavier payloads, the propulsion
>>capability would probably be there. My orbit
mechanics are pretty
>>rusty, so Ken is the one to verify the time
requirements. I think five
>>hours is well within the realm of possibility, but
remember there will
>>be some prep time before liftoff.
>>
>>Roger
>>
>>
>
>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ken Galal <
Ken.Galal@nasa.gov>
To: "Jeroen Lapre'" < jeroen@ilm.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:53:32 -0700
Subject: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
Hi Jeroen,
Yes, it depends on the trajectory you take to get from the moon to
L1. The
distance is about 58,000 km, but you wouldn't necessarily want to go
directly to L1 since when you got there you would need to slow yourself
down and speed up in a different direction to stay about the L1
point. The
most efficient way would be an indirect route to that would take you
out to
the edge of the gravitational sphere of influence of the moon, and let
the
Earth/lunar gravity pull you toward the L1 point in the direction you
want
to be going for a stable orbit. It all depends on how much
propellant is
available to use.
In any case, since the 5 hr period orbit we are talking about goes out
to a
max distance of 5115 km from the moon, it should be faster to initiate
a
rescue from the moon, rather than from an L1 station.
If we are assuming a south pole launch of a rescue vehicle, I would
think
the best way to intercept is to wait until Cliff has passed by (to make
sure he has safely cleared the mountain first and that a rescue is
indeed
necessary!) then launching the rescue vehicle along Cliff's orbit
plane. Since in the 5 hrs it takes Cliff to come around, the
moon has
rotated about 2.75 deg, one possibility is to use the catapult to
launch
the rescue craft, in which case you could either rotate the entire
catapult
2.75 deg or launch from the original orientation (into Cliff's 5-hr
orbit)
and perform a ~100 m/s maneuver to adjust the plane and intercept Cliff
at
some point down range. Alternatively, you could also perform
a
conventional launch of a rocket directly into the correct plane.
The screen play calls for a rendezvous 55 minutes after Cliff passes the
base, which seems a little ambitious, but not impossible.
Ken G.
p.s. looking at the screen play over the weekend, I found
some minor
wording changes that you may want to consider making. I'll
try to get
those to you in the next couple of days.
At 02:21 PM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
>Hi Ken,
>
>so are you saying that even though a successful electromagnetic rail
>launch at 2 to 3 km per second, it would still take 10 days to get
to L1?
>I assume you mean it depends on the shape of the orbit.
>
>So as you say, it sounds like a launch from the moon would be a
faster
>rescue strategy.
>
>I look forward to hearing more from you next week!
>
>Much thanks :-)
>
>-Jeroen
>
>Ken Galal wrote:
>
>>Hi Jeroen,
>>
>>Sorry, I've been out of town the last couple of weeks and have
been
>>digging though my email.
>>
>>It's been a while since I've looked at the screen play, so I
need to go
>>back and refresh my mind as to what the exact sequence was that
you were
>>looking at. Based on the work I did a while back on
Earth-Moon L1
>>orbits, I found that the cheapest transfers (in terms of energy
for
>>launching at the moon and capturing into an L1 orbit) took
about 10 days
>>to get from the moon to the L1 location ... which might make
sense for a
>>tug, but not so much for human cargo. In any case,
even if you send
>>something from L1 in a less efficient trajectory, I'm pretty
sure
>>launching from the moon to intercept the freight capsule would
be
>>faster. Let me think about it over the weekend.
>>
>>Ken G.
>>
>>
>>
>>At 10:52 AM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
>>
>>>Roger,
>>>
>>>Wonderful! Thanks for pointing out the differences between a
>>>return-to-Earth and a return-to-L1 craft shape-design.
>>>
>>>Dear Ken,
>>>
>>>I know you are most probably busy, but any feedback
regarding the
>>>orbital mechanicals of the rescue would be much appreciated!
>>>
>>>Cheers :-)
>>>-Jeroen
>>>
>>>
RogerArno@comcast.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jeroen,
>>>>
>>>>Yes, in prinicple, the figures you found on the web
(two attached) is
>>>>what I was trying to describe. There are a
number of differences
>>>>possible with the Leyland rescue vehicle.
>>>>
>>>>First, note the wide stance legs, indicating that the
entire vehicle
>>>>has been landed on the lunar surface, and not assembled
there. Such a
>>>>configuration would be appropriate if the rescue
vehicle were to
>>>>return to the suface. Note, too, that you
would still have to get
>>>>from the lander to the base somehow (perhaps a
pressurized rover).
>>>>Depending upon the size of the fuel and oxidizer tanks
that there could
>>>>be enough propellant to land the whole system and take
off again,
>>>>although the pictures indicate that this an
Apollo-style system, and
>>>>the bottom portion stays on the ground.
>>>>
>>>>The part that takes off (last of the four web pictures0
shows that,
>>>>Like Apollo, only the top portion of the
craft leaves the surface.
>>>>The larger tanks (of the lifted portion) provide the
energy to get to
>>>>orbit or perform lunar escape. A
second set of tanks and thrusters
>>>>are in the cyliner under the Apollo
capsue. They provide the lunar
>>>>orbit rendezvous energy and/or the Earth entry retro
>>>>capability. Again, if the craft is to return
to the lunar surface,
>>>>larger tanks, more tanks, and legs
would be required.
>>>>
>>>>The Apollo-like capsue on the top indicates that the
payload capsule is
>>>>intended for a direct Earth entry, not a lunar orbit
rendezvous.
>>>>We, of course don't need this. So, the
topmost portion would be more
>>>>of a sphere, box, or cylinder with a port, airlock, or
hatch of some
>>>>sort -- not only to perform the rescue, but dock at a
station, etc.
>>>>
>>>>The time required to accomplish the rescue depends on
several
>>>>things. Under normal conditions, the rocket
engines and tanks are
>>>>sized to reach orbit with smooth arcs and minimum
energy -- in about
>>>>the time of one lunar orbit. With larger
rocket systems, you could
>>>>power yourself to orbit, and then
apply retro rockets to match speed
>>>>and direction of Leyland's orbit is a
shorter time. If we assumed
>>>>that the rescue vehicle was designed for heavier
payloads, the
>>>>propulsion capability would probably be
there. My orbit mechanics are
>>>>pretty rusty, so Ken is the one to verify the time
requirements. I
>>>>think five hours is well within the realm of
possibility, but remember
>>>>there will be some prep time before liftoff.
>>>>
>>>>Roger
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: RogerArno@comcast.net
To: Ken Galal <
Ken.Galal@nasa.gov>, "Jeroen Lapre'" <
jeroen@ilm.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:39:05 +0000
Subject: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
Ken,
Would
you hazard a guess at the size of the tanks (storable propellants) for
a 55 minute rendezvous with Cliff Leyland, assuming a conventional
rocket launch from the lunar surface?
Roger
> Hi Jeroen,
>
> Yes, it depends on the trajectory you take to get from the moon to
L1. The
> distance is about 58,000 km, but you wouldn't necessarily want to
go
> directly to L1 since when you got there you would need to slow
yourself
> down and speed up in a different direction to stay about the L1
point. The
> most efficient way would be an indirect route to that would take
you out to
> the edge of the gravitational sphere of influence of the moon, and
let the
> Earth/lunar gravity pull you toward the L1 point in the direction
you want
> to be going for a stable orbit. It all depends on how
much propellant is
> available to use.
>
> In any case, since the 5 hr period orbit we are talking about goes
out to a
> max distance of 5115 km from the moon, it should be faster to
initiate a
> rescue from the moon, rather than from an L1 station.
>
> If we are assuming a south pole launch of a rescue vehicle, I
would think
> the best way to intercept is to wait until Cliff has passed by (to
make
> sure he has safely cleared the mountain first and that a rescue is
indeed
> necessary!) then launching the rescue vehicle along Cliff's orbit
> plane. Since in the 5 hrs it takes Cliff to come
around, the moon has
> rotated about 2.75 deg, one possibility is to use the catapult to
launch
> the rescue craft, in which case you could either rotate the entire
catapult
> 2.75 deg or launch from the original orientation (into Cliff's
5-hr orbit)
> and perform a ~100 m/s maneuver to adjust the plane and intercept
Cliff at
> some point down range. Alternatively, you could also
perform a
> conventional launch of a rocket directly into the correct plane.
>
> The screen play calls for a rendezvous 55 minutes after Cliff
passes the
> base, which seems a little ambitious, but not impossible.
>
> Ken G.
>
> p.s. looking at the screen play over the weekend, I
found some minor
> wording changes that you may want to consider
making. I'll try to get
> those to you in the next couple of days.
>
>
> At 02:21 PM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
> >Hi Ken,
> >
> >so are you saying that even though a successful
electromagnetic rail
> >launch at 2 to 3 km per second, it would still take 10 days to
get to L1?
> >I assume you mean it depends on the shape of the orbit.
> >
> >So as you say, it sounds like a launch from the moon would be
a faster
> >rescue strategy.
> >
> >I look forward to hearing more from you next week!
> >
> >Much thanks :-)
> >
> >-Jeroen
> >
> >Ken Galal wrote:
> >
> >>Hi Jeroen,
> >>
> >>Sorry, I've been out of town the last couple of weeks and
have been
> >>digging though my email.
> >>
> >>It's been a while since I've looked at the screen play, so
I need to go
> >>back and refresh my mind as to what the exact sequence was
that you were
> >>looking at. Based on the work I did a while
back on Earth-Moon L1
> >>orbits, I found that the cheapest transfers (in terms of
energy for
> >>launching at the moon and capturing into an L1 orbit) took
about 10 days
> >>to get from the moon to the L1 location ... which might
make sense for a
> >>tug, but not so much for human cargo. In any
case, even if you send
> >>something from L1 in a less efficient trajectory, I'm
pretty sure
> >>launching from the moon to intercept the freight capsule
would be
> >>faster. Let me think about it over the weekend.
> >>
> >>Ken G.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>At 10:52 AM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
> >>
> >>>Roger,
> >>>
> >>>Wonderful! Thanks for pointing out the differences
between a
> >>>return-to-Earth and a return-to-L1 craft shape-design.
> >>>
> >>>Dear Ken,
> >>>
> >>>I know you are most probably busy, but any feedback
regarding the
> >>>orbital mechanicals of the rescue would be much
appreciated!
> >>>
> >>>Cheers :-)
> >>>-Jeroen
> >>>
> >>>RogerArno@comcast.net
wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Jeroen,
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes, in prinicple, the figures you found on the
web (two attached) is
> >>>>what I was trying to describe. There
are a number of differences
> >>>>possible with the Leyland rescue vehicle.
> >>>>
> >>>>First, note the wide stance legs, indicating that
the entire vehicle
> >>>>has been landed on the lunar surface, and not
assembled there. Such a
> >>>>configuration would be appropriate if the rescue
vehicle were to
> >>>>return to the suface. Note, too, that
you would still have to get
> >>>>from the lander to the base somehow (perhaps a
pressurized rover).
> >>>>Depending upon the size of the fuel and oxidizer
tanks that there could
> >>>>be enough propellant to land the whole system and
take off again,
> >>>>although the pictures indicate that this an
Apollo-style system, and
> >>>>the bottom portion stays on the ground.
> >>>>
> >>>>The part that takes off (last of the four web
pictures0 shows that,
> >>>>Like Apollo, only the top portion of
the craft leaves the surface.
> >>>>The larger tanks (of the lifted portion) provide
the energy to get to
> >>>>orbit or perform lunar escape. A
second set of tanks and thrusters
> >>>>are in the cyliner under the Apollo
capsue. They provide the lunar
> >>>>orbit rendezvous energy and/or the Earth entry
retro
> >>>>capability. Again, if the craft is to
return to the lunar surface,
> >>>>larger tanks, more tanks, and legs
would be required.
> >>>>
> >>>>The Apollo-like capsue on the top indicates that
the payload capsule is
> >>>>intended for a direct Earth entry, not a lunar
orbit rendezvous.
> >>>>We, of course don't need this. So, the
topmost portion would be more
> >>>>of a sphere, box, or cylinder with a port,
airlock, or hatch of some
> >>>>sort -- not only to perform the rescue, but dock
at a station, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>>The time required to accomplish the rescue depends
on several
> >>>>things. Under normal conditions, the
rocket engines and tanks are
> >>>>sized to reach orbit with smooth arcs and minimum
energy -- in about
> >>>>the time of one lunar orbit. With
larger rocket systems, you could
> >>>>power yourself to orbit, and then
apply retro rockets to match speed
> >>>>and direction of Leyland's orbit is a
shorter time. If we assumed
> >>>>that the rescue vehicle was designed for heavier
payloads, the
> >>>>propulsion capability would probably be
there. My orbit mechanics are
> >>>>pretty rusty, so Ken is the one to verify the time
requirements. I
> >>>>think five hours is well within
the realm of possibility, but remember
> >>>>there will be some prep time before liftoff.
> >>>>
> >>>>Roger
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ken Galal <
Ken.Galal@nasa.gov
>
To: RogerArno@comcast.net,
"Jeroen Lapre'" <
jeroen@ilm.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 08:52:47 -0700
Subject: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
Roger,
I would guess they would need to be somewhat larger than the Apollo
Lunar
Lander tanks. The Lunar Lander had to land on the moon and
part of it had
to take off and reach low lunar orbit (total DV of about 3.4 km/s, not
including reserves and gravity losses). Cliff's rescue
vehicle also has to
take off, land, reach/insert/return from the L1 station orbit (total DV
of
perhaps about 5.4 km/s not including reserves and gravity
losses). Also,
since Cliff's rescue vehicle is probably a little more substantial than
the
Apollo Lander, I would start with at least double the size of the Apollo
Lander tanks.
Ken G.
At 10:39 PM 8/8/05 +0000, RogerArno@comcast.net
wrote:
>Ken,
>
>Would you hazard a guess at the size of the tanks (storable
propellants)
>for a 55 minute rendezvous with Cliff Leyland, assuming a
conventional
>rocket launch from the lunar surface?
>
>Roger
>
>
> > Hi Jeroen,
> >
> > Yes, it depends on the trajectory you take to get from the
moon to
> L1. The
> > distance is about 58,000 km, but you wouldn't necessarily
want to go
> > directly to L1 since when you got there you would need to
slow yourself
> > down and speed up in a different direction to stay about the
L1
> point. The
> > most efficient way would be an indirect route to that would
take you
> out to
> > the edge of the gravitational sphere of influence of the
moon, and let the
> > Earth/lunar gravity pull you toward the L1 point in the
direction you want
> > to be going for a stable orbit. It all depends on
how much propellant is
> > available to use.
> >
> > In any case, since the 5 hr period orbit we are talking about
goes out
> to a
> > max distance of 5115 km from the moon, it should be faster to
initiate a
> > rescue from the moon, rather than from an L1 station.
> >
> > If we are assuming a south pole launch of a rescue vehicle, I
would think
> > the best way to intercept is to wait until Cliff has passed
by (to make
> > sure he has safely cleared the mountain first and that a
rescue is indeed
> > necessary!) then launching the rescue vehicle along Cliff's
orbit
> > plane. Since in the 5 hrs it takes Cliff to come
around, the moon has
> > rotated about 2.75 deg, one possibility is to use the
catapult to launch
> > the rescue craft, in which case you could either rotate the
entire
> catapult
> > 2.75 deg or launch from the original orientation (into
Cliff's 5-hr orbit)
> > and perform a ~100 m/s maneuver to adjust the plane and
intercept Cliff at
> > some point down range. Alternatively, you could
also perform a
> > conventional launch of a rocket directly into the correct
plane.
> >
> > The screen play calls for a rendezvous 55 minutes after Cliff
passes the
> > base, which seems a little ambitious, but not impossible.
> >
> > Ken G.
> >
> > p.s. looking at the screen play over the weekend,
I found some minor
> > wording changes that you may want to consider
making. I'll try to get
> > those to you in the next couple of days.
> >
> >
> > At 02:21 PM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
> > >Hi Ken,
> > >
> > >so are you saying that even though a successful
electromagnetic rail
> > >launch at 2 to 3 km per second, it would still take 10
days to get to L1?
> > >I assume you mean it depends on the shape of the orbit.
> > >
> > >So as you say, it sounds like a launch from the moon
would be a faster
> > >rescue strategy.
> > >
> > >I look forward to hearing more from you next week!
> > >
> > >Much thanks :-)
> > >
> > >-Jeroen
> > >
> > >Ken Galal wrote:
> > >
> > >>Hi Jeroen,
> > >>
> > >>Sorry, I've been out of town the last couple of weeks
and have been
> > >>digging though my email.
> > >>
> > >>It's been a while since I've looked at the screen
play, so I need to go
> > >>back and refresh my mind as to what the exact
sequence was that you were
> > >>looking at. Based on the work I did a
while back on Earth-Moon L1
> > >>orbits, I found that the cheapest transfers (in terms
of energy for
> > >>launching at the moon and capturing into an L1 orbit)
took about 10 days
> > >>to get from the moon to the L1 location ... which
might make sense for a
> > >>tug, but not so much for human cargo. In
any case, even if you send
> > >>something from L1 in a less efficient trajectory, I'm
pretty sure
> > >>launching from the moon to intercept the freight
capsule would be
> > >>faster. Let me think about it over the
weekend.
> > >>
> > >>Ken G.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>At 10:52 AM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Roger,
> > >>>
> > >>>Wonderful! Thanks for pointing out the
differences between a
> > >>>return-to-Earth and a return-to-L1 craft
shape-design.
> > >>>
> > >>>Dear Ken,
> > >>>
> > >>>I know you are most probably busy, but any
feedback regarding the
> > >>>orbital mechanicals of the rescue would be much
appreciated!
> > >>>
> > >>>Cheers :-)
> > >>>-Jeroen
> > >>>
> > >>>
RogerArno@comcast.net wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>Jeroen,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Yes, in prinicple, the figures you found on
the web (two attached) is
> > >>>>what I was trying to
describe. There are a number of differences
> > >>>>possible with the Leyland rescue vehicle.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>First, note the wide stance legs, indicating
that the entire vehicle
> > >>>>has been landed on the lunar surface, and not
assembled there. Such a
> > >>>>configuration would be appropriate if the
rescue vehicle were to
> > >>>>return to the suface. Note, too,
that you would still have to get
> > >>>>from the lander to the base somehow (perhaps
a pressurized rover).
> > >>>>Depending upon the size of the fuel and
oxidizer tanks that there
> could
> > >>>>be enough propellant to land the whole system
and take off again,
> > >>>>although the pictures indicate that this an
Apollo-style system, and
> > >>>>the bottom portion stays on the ground.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>The part that takes off (last of the four web
pictures0 shows that,
> > >>>>Like Apollo, only the top portion
of the craft leaves the surface.
> > >>>>The larger tanks (of the lifted portion)
provide the energy to get to
> > >>>>orbit or perform lunar escape. A
second set of tanks and thrusters
> > >>>>are in the cyliner under the Apollo
capsue. They provide the lunar
> > >>>>orbit rendezvous energy and/or the Earth
entry retro
> > >>>>capability. Again, if the craft is
to return to the lunar surface,
> > >>>>larger tanks, more tanks, and legs
would be required.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>The Apollo-like capsue on the top indicates
that the payload
> capsule is
> > >>>>intended for a direct Earth entry, not a
lunar orbit rendezvous.
> > >>>>We, of course don't need this. So,
the topmost portion would be more
> > >>>>of a sphere, box, or cylinder with a port,
airlock, or hatch of some
> > >>>>sort -- not only to perform the rescue, but
dock at a station, etc.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>The time required to accomplish the rescue
depends on several
> > >>>>things. Under normal conditions,
the rocket engines and tanks are
> > >>>>sized to reach orbit with smooth arcs and
minimum energy -- in about
> > >>>>the time of one lunar orbit. With
larger rocket systems, you could
> > >>>>power yourself to orbit, and then
apply retro rockets to match speed
> > >>>>and direction of Leyland's orbit
is a shorter time. If we assumed
> > >>>>that the rescue vehicle was designed for
heavier payloads, the
> > >>>>propulsion capability would probably be
there. My orbit
> mechanics are
> > >>>>pretty rusty, so Ken is the one to verify the
time requirements. I
> > >>>>think five hours is well within
the realm of possibility, but
> remember
> > >>>>there will be some prep time before liftoff.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Roger
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
|
--------
From: Jeroen Lapre' <jeroen.lapre@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Attachments: ExcaliburMainLogo.jpg, LunarVehiclejpg.jpg,
AscentSys.jpg
Hi Stanley,
here is my Maelstrom II Recue Craft design email thread from NASA
consultants.
Please let me know what you think.
My thinking is can we strike a balance between function and aesthetic
form.
Jay Trimble from NASA Ames would like it to look more sleek.
As you many know, this has been a 95% voluntary effort.
So unfortunately I can only offer screen credits, an invitation to the
premier screening at ILM,
and a copy of the DVD, in return for any 3D work.
Please let me know what you think.
Cheers
-jeroen
[Quoted text hidden]
--
-jeroen lapre
www.distant-galaxy.com
making science compelling |
--------
|
