Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Lockheed Martin reveals its new lunar lander


UM-Bot
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

I'm surprised we don't have a base there yet. I know China and Russia are probably working towards it now. It's been almost 60 years since an American set foot, well at least that's what were told. Maybe we did go back between that time

Edited by AllPossible
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AllPossible, the reason USA hasn't gone back is because the space budget keeps getting cut, over and over. Also, we're leery about risking human lives, as we should be. It's amazing that all Apollo astronauts returned safely from an astonishingly dangerous activity.

We know much more about space and space vehicles now so we can make a moonship much safer than before. All we need is the national decision and the huge amount of money needed to make it happen. There are plenty of brave and dedicated people eager to work on such a project.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Blizno Wasn't another reason NASA didn't have any reusable manned vehicles other than the Shuttles?  I guess the Shuttles could have been used if they were given VTOL capabilities, but that would probably use more fuel than the craft could carry and still have a big enough payload to be feasible/coat effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, paperdyer said:

@Blizno Wasn't another reason NASA didn't have any reusable manned vehicles other than the Shuttles?  I guess the Shuttles could have been used if they were given VTOL capabilities, but that would probably use more fuel than the craft could carry and still have a big enough payload to be feasible/coat effective.

Absolutely impossible to convert the shuttles to VTOL crafts, by design. With the engines at the tail, he whole structure of the shuttles was designed to get accelerated in longitudinal direction. Accelerated, in theory, in the vertical axis with a single center engine at the bottom, the whole structure would crack within seconds.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, paperdyer said:

@Blizno Wasn't another reason NASA didn't have any reusable manned vehicles other than the Shuttles?  I guess the Shuttles could have been used if they were given VTOL capabilities, but that would probably use more fuel than the craft could carry and still have a big enough payload to be feasible/coat effective.

The shuttles were too well built for lunar work, too heavy and designed to work in Earth gravity. A lunar lander can be built much lighter as there is no moon atmosphere to cope with on re entry and the gravity is only 17%. It would work between the moon and the new gatway.

Some specs from the new lander - 

The craft can accommodate four people, carry one metric ton of equipment, and stay on the moon for up to two weeks without refuelling before returning to the orbiting the station.The lander would have a dry mass of 22 metric tons, or 62 metric tons when fully fuelled and is 14 meters tall. Engines,  Aerojet Rocketdyne’s RL10 or Blue Origin’s BE-3 could be used on this system, which requires engines to be deeply throttable to land efficiently.

 

https://spacenews.com/lockheed-martin-unveils-lunar-lander-concept/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it really worth it to send humans again* though? Robots can get pretty much any job done, cost less, won't risk lives, and will get better at various jobs as the tech evolves. Robots are already arguably better than people at collecting objective data. Lastly, when weight and volume of equipment is at a serious premium, what's more important? Experiments and data collection, or sending a select few fragile meatbags? Honestly, the only time I see humans returning to the moon will be when the billionaire class wants (and can achieve) the exclusivity of being in the super-duper select club of space tourists.

*Yes, I believe we did actually go there. Back in the 60's and 70's though, robots weren't up to the task yet and there was a cold war space race so we were willing to spend the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd send a bulldozer and a JCB first. I'd use them to bury the base to protect it from Coronal Mass Ejections. I wouldn't like to be in a space station orbiting the moon if a big one suddenly came their way. Also I'd send skips full of moon soil and rocks back to Earth and sell the stuff. We the west definitely need boots on the moon too. With guns. The way China and some other far Eastern countries behave sometimes I wouldn't put it past them ripping the Apollo stuff to bits and reusing the parts. That stuff is as precious to the Human race as the coming of Jesus Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2018 at 1:56 PM, cyclopes500 said:

I'd send a bulldozer and a JCB first. I'd use them to bury the base to protect it from Coronal Mass Ejections. I wouldn't like to be in a space station orbiting the moon if a big one suddenly came their way. Also I'd send skips full of moon soil and rocks back to Earth and sell the stuff. We the west definitely need boots on the moon too. With guns. The way China and some other far Eastern countries behave sometimes I wouldn't put it past them ripping the Apollo stuff to bits and reusing the parts. That stuff is as precious to the Human race as the coming of Jesus Christ.

i totally agree. we need to militarize space NOW, before the other countries do it and we need to have a war to get them out. military base on the moon with powerful moon tanks to stop any other nation from visiting it. 

the moon is the united states' property, its ours. china and russia stay away. in fact we should bomb their islands they are building and contain them because they are an existential threat to every free man in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2018 at 10:13 AM, L.A.T.1961 said:

The shuttles were too well built for lunar work, too heavy and designed to work in Earth gravity. A lunar lander can be built much lighter as there is no moon atmosphere to cope with on re entry and the gravity is only 17%. It would work between the moon and the new gatway.

Some specs from the new lander - 

The craft can accommodate four people, carry one metric ton of equipment, and stay on the moon for up to two weeks without refuelling before returning to the orbiting the station.The lander would have a dry mass of 22 metric tons, or 62 metric tons when fully fuelled and is 14 meters tall. Engines,  Aerojet Rocketdyne’s RL10 or Blue Origin’s BE-3 could be used on this system, which requires engines to be deeply throttable to land efficiently.

 

https://spacenews.com/lockheed-martin-unveils-lunar-lander-concept/

the shuttle could have been used with a runway and more directional control jets. after it landed it could have used the runway, jets to push it down, and then after enough speed was built up jets under the front to push the nose up and then full throttle. they would have landed by standing it on its tail and then dropping the front slowly as it decended

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pbarosso said:

the shuttle could have been used with a runway and more directional control jets. after it landed it could have used the runway, jets to push it down, and then after enough speed was built up jets under the front to push the nose up and then full throttle. they would have landed by standing it on its tail and then dropping the front slowly as it decended

And where to put the needed 1350 tons of external tanks and propellants, where to put the landing gear, genius?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, toast said:

And where to put the needed 1350 tons of external tanks and propellants, where to put the landing gear, genius?

what do you need those for at 17%G? not to mention if there was a moon base they would build it where there was water so they could manufacture rocket fuel. you lack proper imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 minute ago, pbarosso said:

what do you need those for at 17%G? not to mention if there was a moon base they would build it where there was water so they could manufacture rocket fuel. you lack proper imagination.

Sorry my bad, I`ve overseen that your "idea" was for a lunar module, but anyway, its nonsense because the shuttle wasnt designed&build (propellant capacity) to reach the second cosmic speed so it would never reach the Moon anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, toast said:

Sorry my bad, I`ve overseen that your "idea" was for a lunar module, but anyway, its nonsense because the shuttle wasnt designed&build (propellant capacity) to reach the second cosmic speed so it would never reach the Moon anyway.

i wonder if they built a fuel tank in the cargo bay would that be enough fuel to get it to leave earth orbit

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, pbarosso said:

i wonder if they built a fuel tank in the cargo bay would that be enough fuel to get it to leave earth orbit

Will not do the trick because the Shuttle had a limited payload of 24tons, to low orbit, only.

Edited by toast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 tons of extra fuel isnt enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, pbarosso said:

24 tons of extra fuel isnt enough?

No. The 24tons would be eaten by the main engines within 16 seconds (or so) and that wouldnt be enough to reach the second cosmic speed.

Edited by toast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, toast said:

No. The 24tons would be eaten by the main engines within 16 seconds (or so) and that wouldnt be enough to reach the second cosmic speed.

wow. thats insane

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.