Prototype Lander Test Scorecard
NASA’s ‘Mighty Eagle’ Robotic Prototype Lander Finds Its Target, NASA
“NASA’s “Mighty Eagle” successfully found its target during a 32-second free flight Aug. 16 at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. This small, versatile robotic lander prototype demonstrates technologies applicable for the final descent of an autonomous controlled landing on the moon, asteroids or other celestial bodies.”
Masten Video: Xombie 650m Mars EDL Divert Trajectory, Masten,
“Building on the success of the 500 meter downrange flight on July 25, we’re excited to announce the completion of a flight that reached 476.5 meters in altitude and translated 650 meters downrange on August 9, 2012.”
NASA’s Morpheus Lander Crashes During First Free Flight Attempt, Earlier post
“During its first attempt at free flight today at Kennedy Space Center in Florida, NASA’s Morpheus lander crashed and caught on fire.”
Can’t wait for the “This is not a fair comparison, JSC doesn’t have the same experience with this.” claims
This is not a fair comparison, reigning Lunar Lander Challenge champs like Masten should have a handicap !
I’m simply glad these programs haven’t been de-funded. We are still blazing a trail, even if we’re doing it way too slowly.
Nassau Goi,
Actually, I don’t think the comparison applies. I find that people tend to treat landers too much as a one-size-fits-all situation. The different landers (finally) being developed by the various centers and companies are not alternative choices, seeing who wins the lander selection contest. They all have different purposes and therefore different characteristics and capabilities. Even in the case where two of them look much the same, they are not interchangeable. It’s just a matter of form fits function. I’m assuming that there will be a lot of people who don’t buy this argument because we don’t have any current mission requirements to measure a lander against, but those same people would never consider Orion and Dragon to be the same thing, or Falcon 9 and Liberty, except very distantly.
Steve
This is not a fair comparison, JSC doesn’t have the same experience with this
The Masten vehicle (with support from JPL) was impressive. However I think there remain a lot of strategies to be investigated in reusable rocketry. Although competition is an incentive, I hope all the US developers (government and commercial) will also work together to exchange ideas and accelerate development.
What (support from JPL) would this be? They were tracking waypoints provided by JPL. Is that what you mean?
The details weren’t given, it was just what I read. At least there seems to be some exchange of information.
I’m happy to see multiple vehicles.
This is not a fair comparison. JSC doesn’t have the same experience. The arsenal in Alabama is at a higher latitude than the arsenal in Florida. Easier to lift off.
Seems is if this is another task in “redeveloping the wheel” here. We’ve done this with Ranger,Surveyor and the Mars landers. The data from these programs
should be applied to the development of advanced vehicles for exploration,not appearing to be starting over to “step one”. The future vehicles should be in a more advanced stage development and ready for flight.
Huh? No lander has ever attempted to land at a target that I’m aware of. Could you please site an example of where this has been done previously?
Apollo 12 attempted to set down next to the Surveyor-3 lander. succeeded admirably.
DC-X attempted, and succeeded, in landing back on its concrete pad several times.
Apollo 12 was manned. These new landers are unmanned.
The LM was designed to land autonomously, but the astronauts being astronauts always took over on P64 (or was it P63?) (though no to do precision landing as defined nowadays)
What about the X-prize Lunar Lander Challenge?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
Also MSL/Curiosity had a target ellipse (smallest yet on Mars) and boulder avoidance, though didn’t land on a predetermined target.
On the surface, this would seem to make sense and since I see comments like this again and again, it would appear to be a common theme. However, there are different goals for these different programs. For example, “Mighty Eagle” is targeting airless bodies (unlike Mars). Morpheus is targeting missions that require higher mass (Mighty Eagle = 700 lbs and Morpheus = 2300 lbs — sorry, Wikipedia didn’t have metric units 😉 Both projects are using or will use advanced landing algorithms. If after sitting on the reviews for these programs someone reaches a conclusion they shouldn’t be funded, that’s one thing. If that decision is reached based on that they look like something that’s come before, I don’t think that’s fair to those working on the program.
Bobby,
Just for the record, I would say that developing a capability that has been done before (or similar), but only with decades-old, no-longer-available hardware, which required many times more electrical power, heat dissipation, mass, physical size, etc., and used only specially designed hardware with nowhere near the performance or reliability of today’s alternatives, qualifies as a valid program and is not reinventing the wheel. Would you rather have a 1960’s computer on your desk or the one you have at home now?
Steve
The problem with Morpheus is they think “lean development” means cutting corners on engineering (a similar mind-set at KSC). Lean development means letting experienced people get the job done without a lot of formal process and overhead, but they MUST be experienced and know what they are doing. Such is not the case with Morpheus.
Soo .. only experienced people should be allowed to do “lean” development ?
Inexperienced ones should spend about 40 years filing ten hardcopies of every CAD model and subroutine, vetting them at MDRs and ARTTD reviews ? ( “Morning Coffee Readiness” and “About the Right Time to Take a Dump” )
Perhaps inexperienced people should work with experienced people? The best training occurs when the newbie makes the decisions – but if he makes a mistake the old hand is there beside him to take over before something bad happens.
Here’s the official NASA scorecard:
Mighty Eagle: PASS
Xombie: PASS
Morpheus: FAIL
Morpheus has not failed until it is cancelled. Currently it is troubled. Very troubled.
Can’t wait till Mighty Eagle scales up their lander to Morpheus class size.
it appears Mighty Eagle used RCS thrusters rather than TVC on the video, anyone have insight on this? What did the LM do for attitude control under thrust?
Some thoughts and questions of a future possible human moon landing?
The Tick Pilot Chronicles
Steve
I’m writing to you from 2032. Mr. C sent me on this journey, to this parallel universe with his answer to Tinker about how much we fear doing space walks at ISS. Lol I’m using Googles new internet parallel dimension search and messaging system to send this message to your time. It says right here WARNING do not send messages to the past because you could change history lol, Screw that! lol. There has been a human mars landing and of course Musk had a lot to do with it. Being in what looks to me to be a successful parallel, I wanted to tell you about it. So here goes.
Back in your time it was decided that there was a need for safer Space walking capability at ISS. Also NASA was spending money hauling stuff to and from Space on Spacex Dragons. They were burning up the Dragon trunks after each flight. They finally decided that maybe they could do something smart with those trunks so they came up with a way to caulk them together with some of Tinkers magic caulk LOL. Anyway they had a plan. They added two hatches to each trunk to start building a docking beam. Each flight added two more hatches plus solar arrays, plus added Dracos to keep it in orbit. Some of the hatches were unisex mini hatches for Tick Suits.
LOL Yup since NASA wouldn’t stop building the Orion capsule and do something smart like build Spaceships, Spacex decided to start building spaceships using the incremental approach LOL. Elon decided to start small with the space suit, thus the Safe Hatched Inflatable Space Suits (SHISS), that didn’t need an Air lock was born. We just call them Tick Suits.
I am at L1 right now. At L1 is a Bigelow outpost which we are using to prepare for our Mars recycler assembly work. But that’s another story. I got to L1 in the least glamorous way possible, we rode here docked to an old Dragon trunk beam using our Ticks for our private rooms. We still use old COTS Dragon capsules for life boats and emergency return vehicles which is docked to the beam as well. We were boosted here with two dragon tugs, one in front of our beam and the other in back. Yup dragons are kind of like the old ford trucks, they don’t look like much but they just keep going and going.
A question for you?
The Company has a rich customer that wants to be the first tourist to fly a tick suit solo from L1 and land on the moon near the Bigelow lunar outpost. As you know, ticks have Bigelow inflatable chambers that are 8 feet long and 6 feet in diameter. Each tick has 4 fuel tanks that ride in the chassis under the chamber, behind the pilot leggings, with a mini hatch in the rear. A company in Canada provides the robot arms for Ticks.
To land on the moon in a Tick Suit, we plan to use the two robot arms as landing legs so the pilot touches down with his space suit boots the same time the robot arms touch to make a safe 3 point landing. The Tick kind of turns into a grasshopper I guess LOL. The arms/now legs can walk with the pilot to support the empty tanks chassis and hatch too.
Ticks are not designed like moon and mars suits which have the hatches over the pilots head with hand and toes grab/steps to help the pilot climb down/in and up/out of his suit to an elevated dressing rooms. Helmet hatches help reduce moon and mars dust issues. And standard airlocks must always be nearby.
A Ticks empty weight (no fuel)
Robot arms 100 a piece 200 pounds
Bigelow bladder 400 pounds
Chassis 200 pounds
4 beer keg fuel tanks 200 pounds
Hard suit leggings and body shell 300 pounds
Pilot 200 pounds
Total 1500 to 2000 pounds
How much weight in fuel would a 1500 pound Tick suit need to make the trip from L1 to the surface of the moon?
Since we do have fuel on the moon how much fuel would be needed to get a 1500 pound tick from the moon to L1 allowing for the weight of added inflatable fuel bladders?
Would hydrazine be the best fuel for ticks? Or should we use methane with some kind of Oxidizer?
Mr. C said you start with a lander lol.
Well this is not what he meant but CAN IT BE DONE??? I’m going to be this rich dudes Guide and camera man, kinda like the Sherpias that drag our exploration heroes up mount Everest. So I kinda need an answer on this one lol. I have to film him and fly at the same time if I touch down first he said he would get me fired! What a jerk! lol
Future Tick suit development
With biological developments there are plans to make many changes to Ticks in the future. Has you know Bigelow put water in the walls of some of the early Habs to help protect astronauts from radiation. Well this could lead to all kinds of possibilities.
What if you had green algae growing in you hab skin. How could you use this to help make air for your astronauts.
Can you keep your water moving to keep the dark side from freezing?
Tadpole or minnow soup anyone?
What if the fluids in the walls of your inflatable was developed be become a kind of blood.
Couldn’t you make a blood mixture of plant cells and red blood cells where the plant cells convert the carbon dioxide back into oxygen keeping the blood oxygenated at all times enough to keep your pilot alive without having to breath throw his lungs? Could plant cells also create food for the pilots tissues.
Imagine if a Tick space pilot plugged himself into the circulatory system of his tick/suit and he could get most of his food and oxygen directly from his space suit. Your pilots food is like a tank of sugar water and miracle grow mineral mixture that’s pumped into his suits “blood”and his suit has it own kidney system.
LOL Brings a whole new meaning to the idea of little green men from outer space lol.
Of course I have no idea what may soon be possible but sure looks like there could be lots of possibilities.
Tick pilot Job available
Only blood type B need apply LOL
PS
Tick suit hatches are unisexed because they have to dock with space station beams as well as each other.
Two tick suits are docked together many times for safety just like with LEM and Apollo during Apollo 13.
We have sent two tick pilots pretty far to do satellite repairs like the Hubble repair done in your day.
On a Chinese repair job they boasted two of us on a reused hydrazine upper stage with no safety capsule or safety hab. THE COMPANY charged a pretty penny for that one. What a ride lol.
A Tick can grab on to a rotating satellite and bring it to a stop. Also with its two robotic arms it is easy for a tick to hold the pilot close to the satellite so the pilot can work on it and replace hardware with no need for a platform or robotic arm to stand on like in the old days. Yup two cheapo Ticks can replace a lot of the shuttles capability.
Well Steve haven’t brushed up my Railroad sale-ability yet but thought you might want to hear and SEE the latest kooky ideas LOL
Parallel Lines
Tick pilot
OUT!!!!
I couldn’t let Mr. C get by with the negitive answer, to Tinker about our future capability. There are parallels out there that are good. We just have to make the right choices LOL
See you all in Space!
The Tick Pilot
Testing your picture tool lol
Well I dont have the robot arms in moon landing mode But sure would be fun to know if such a light vehicle could fly from L1 and land on the moon