Discussion Lunar lander design

[K_Jameson]

For a current-near tech large lunar lander, which is, in your opinon, the best design?

 

[Wishbone]

It depends on whether the designer can draw the vehicle in the horizontal position. Usually one gets sleepy this way, and hence this is not very productive.

P.S. Seriously, this is a survey, so extra attention should be paid to wording the options. What do you mean by VERTICAL DESIGN?

 

[K_Jameson]

Vertical design: a vertical-stacked vehicle, like Apollo LM; Altair
Horizontal design: something like a real-world version of the Space 1999 Eagle :lol:

 

[Wishbone]

For landing at unprepared spots - vertical. For landing at and takeoff from clean leveled pads when roll-on-roll-off mode is used for unloading - horizontal. Y'see, it really depends

 

[4throck]

Horizontal with a good view to the surface bellow, with the pilot / crew module in the center of the structure.

 

[Ghostrider]

Why not have the crew lying belly-down with a viewport in the floor of the lander, and the engines on the sides? You could even dispense with the pressurized cabin and have them fly in their suits, saves mass...

 

[Ripley]

Like the glass-bottomed tourist boats, which sail around to watch tropical fishes...

 

[Chub777]

I'd have to go with vertical.

 

[fausto]

If the lander is a lunar habitat (but unmanned in the descent phase) i think the best to be horizontal, because it's more adaptable fr surface operations.. and to reach it on the surface i think a vertical taxi lander to be the best.

 

[Urwumpe]

Vertical is better because it permits simpler structures and lower mass, but horizontal could permit better access to payloads.

 

[RangerPL]

Vertical, it's more realistic (no "horizontal" landers have been developed/conceived yet)

 

[Ghostrider]

Vertical, it's more realistic (no "horizontal" landers have been developed/conceived yet)

Well, it's no reason to not do it...

Why not have an "open" lander?

 

[Grover]

it would certainly save mass, but the crew wouldn't like it having to be in suits... and for that matter, an open spacecraft in orbit isnt the best idea, its a disaster waiting to happen

 

[Ghostrider]

an open spacecraft in orbit isnt the best idea, its a disaster waiting to happen

Unless you secure it to the main spacecraft, so that you only have to spacewalk to it, detach and land. If you're using the mothership to do most of the delta-V intensive maneouvers, you only have to use the lander to go down and up - may be interesting if all you want to do is to ferry crew and cargo to and from the surface and you have a shelter on the ground.

 

[TJohns]

I assume a horizontal lander would require multiple landing engines due to its distributed mass. This means a more complicated thrust control system (engine performance balance, etc) as well as serious thought about the possibility of an engine failure (sudden roll/pitch imbalance - do they need ejector seats now?)

 

[Grover]

Ejector seats AND turbopacks

Unless you secure it to the main spacecraft, so that you only have to spacewalk to it, detach and land. If you're using the mothership to do most of the delta-V intensive maneouvers, you only have to use the lander to go down and up - may be interesting if all you want to do is to ferry crew and cargo to and from the surface and you have a shelter on the ground.

you mean you arent actually in the spacecraft, and for the 5-10 minuted that you're descending, you have the pleasure of decellerating from 1.7km/s +, knowing that if you fall off, you're going to hit the moon at near orbital velocity

and before you say that that wont hapen, remember that during a spacewalk at the ISS, the entire left side of an astronaut's SAFER came detatched during freeflight, rendering it useless :facepalm: anything can happen in spaceflight

 

[Ghostrider]

you mean you arent actually in the spacecraft, and for the 5-10 minuted that you're descending, you have the pleasure of decellerating from 1.7km/s +, knowing that if you fall off, you're going to hit the moon at near orbital velocity

Why? You would be in a harness and secured through multiple restraints. I'm not advocating a surftable approach, but a cabin-less craft. You can even dispense with the readouts and consoles, because they could be replaced by a HMD and HOTAS controls.

 

[K_Jameson]

no "horizontal" landers have been developed/conceived yet

developed and realized, no; studied, yes. :thumbup:

 

[C3PO]

I assume a horizontal lander would require multiple landing engines due to its distributed mass. This means a more complicated thrust control system (engine performance balance, etc) as well as serious thought about the possibility of an engine failure (sudden roll/pitch imbalance - do they need ejector seats now?)

You could have a central engine and cargo slots front and back. but I think the real reason for vertical designed landers is that having a ascent stage on a horizontal lander would be harder to construct.

 

[Grover]

Why? You would be in a harness and secured through multiple restraints. I'm not advocating a surftable approach, but a cabin-less craft. You can even dispense with the readouts and consoles, because they could be replaced by a HMD and HOTAS controls.

did you read my post? there have been worse blunders than that in spaceflight already, i think poor harness construction is nothing compared to stranded EVA, destroyed heatshield and exploded SM, all of which we have already seen in spaceflight