Morpheus Will Try To Fly Higher Today (Update: It Did)
Keith’s note: NASA JSC’s Project Morpheus is planning a second free flight today at around 1 pm 1:30 pm EST. Status reports can be found in real time at @MorpheusLander.
You can watch the test here.
Keith’s update: As far as I can tell, the flight was apparently flawless.
So, what is this supposed to land on?
The steps of capitol hill. It will scope out the place to determine if it’s safe for intelligent life to visit.
I’m confident that it will determine that there are no evidence of meaningful life… and so we can confidently terra-form the place into something better fit for human habitation.
The final version of the Morpheus lander is supposed to land on the Moon.
This particular version is a testbed for the new engine, new guidance system and new hazard avoidance system.
The vehicle is sized to land a payload of about 500 kg on the Moon from Trans-Lunar Injection. Going the other way, the engine has sufficient thrust to power the ascent stage of an Altair lunar spacecraft.
By adding a NASA Docking System (NDS) a space-rated version can act as a reusable space tug.
edit:spelling
All the programs around this lander have been cancelled. So I ask again, what is this going to land on, other than the Earth?
I’m not saying this program should be cancelled, but, rather, the other programs should be resurrected. These are my two cents, as a voter.
Even if NASA never finds a use for it, the potential for use by other parties remains. TransHab may never have been deployed by NASA, but it found a new home..
There will be a new US President in about 2 years time. All sorts of things could be funded. Time to propose a new space policy which may include landing things on the Moon.
Gingrinch proposed a base on the Moon and he was laughed at by both parties.
The current Administration is the most space-positive one since Lyndon Johnson’s. Congress has been responsible for squandering NASA funding and opportunities, most obviously with SLS. But if it comforts you to think that the Rodham Clinton Administration will be better for socialist space, feel free.
If they nail down the technology it can be shoveled into the private sector for commercial use and NASA can raise the TRL on the next project to be pushed into the commercial space sector.
Wouldn’t the way to scale this up be to use multiple engines to have engine out capability?? I recall Griffin being scared of methane engines because he said its hard to light??
I recall another post where some one said that methane was less efficient than other fuels??
Spacex is going methane for earth boosters and for Mars landers and launchers from fuel made from mars atmosphere.
Should methane be the fuel of choice for all fuel depots???
Tinker as talked about making small fuel depots using draco fuel which is not methane. Should the first depots be methane? Seems to me if we want to build an inner solar system railroad/highway we need to decide on the fuel that will be used and design around that NOW!!
I’m the same age as Keith, born in 1955. I want to see a sustainable highway being built to the Moon AND Mars before I die.
The Space Settler
One of the problems we have keeping propellants in space is stopping them from boiling off. A sheet make of reflective material is much simpler and lighter than a cryogenic refrigeration system. Boil off stages have an Isp of about 1.and a delta-V proportional to the time.
Standardizing on a single fuel will probably make missions simpler.
Exactly and this is why the hypergolic fuels and oxidizers have been so popular (not to mention no ignition source needed)
The Morpheus Team have developed a reliable starter. One of their tests was to start the lander ‘s engine 20 times in a single day. They used a variety of pressures and temperatures to find what did and did not work.
It would depend on the source of the resource. I would imagine that hydrogen and oxygen will be a cheaper fuel on Luna, while methane on Mars?
I have a feeling, long term, the fuel of choice will be coming from Ceres, the saudi arabia of the inner solar system?
On the Moon hydrogen may be easier to make but liquid hydrogen is a nightmare to store.
I’ve never bought into the idea that there is enough water on the moon to make hydrogen fuel. I still think that most fuel for the moon must come from earth which is why I ask about methane which this lander uses???
Both hydrogen and methane are easy to make on Earth. Transportation of the fuel then becomes a storage problem. Hydrogen has a very low boiling point of 20 degrees Kelvin, so to prevent boil off emptying the tanks active cryogenic cooling is needed – especially when in sunlight. The journey from LEO to lunar orbit is in constant sunlight.
The journey from Earth’s surface to LEO (to anywhere in space) is still the biggest bottleneck. In the long run, is it better to try making this process cheaper and more reliable, or to create one or more alternatives that don’t involve Earth? I’d argue for the latter myself, especially considering that Earth’s natural resources are already being depleted at a rapid rate (despite what some people claim). Everything considered, I think we’re over due for applying more long-term thinking.
We are getting off topic for a lunar lander.
Good point, assuming that your lunar lander carries its ascent fuel with it to its lunar landing site. My long-term point still applies, I think, because at some point a lunar landing will be coming from and/or going to some point other than Earth.
If you’re willing to think longer-term, there are other alternatives, because there are other fuel component sources in the solar system, acquirable in various ways, that can be dumped onto the lunar surface for use there. It is perhaps even possible that processing can be done at the source, or en route to the Moon (or wherever) so that ready-to-use fuel and oxidizer arrive on a continuous “space conveyor belt.” There are many things that can be done more effectively and less expensively if we start thinking in terms of developing integrated systems, rather than continuing to do one-item programs.
OK back to the lander.
What is this lander for???
What is its mission??
Stop!!!
Why do we think in missions??
Don’t missions have a begining and end!!!
What if we thought of these things as nodes in a construction project??
How will this methane lander be used and for what and where?? And how can it make space fight more affordable??
Steve I confess I was unable to completely read your thoughts about planning and why exactly we go here and there.
But what if you built an affordable highway and just let people use it as they see fit? Do the musk to Leo thing with a cheap way to the moon and to mars
Robots explore not humans Isn’t that what nasa does so well now!!
Then humans slowly follow to Leo to do real work and tour and explore.
There does need to be a plan but it must be like a plant or building that just grows economic opportunity.
Where does this methane lander fit into building a highway to our neighbering planets so our goal is to move into space??
The small methane lander, payload 1100 lb, would be the sloping access road from the interstate to the town.
Even if the radiation hardened production version costs 10 times the prototype version it would still be a cheap stage.
On the Shuttle meals weighed 1.83 lb and there were 3 a day.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/…
So a single lander could feed 4 astronauts for
1100 / (1.83 * 3 * 4) = 50.09 days.
If an air tight fridge is needed to carry the food then meals for about 1 month could be delivered by a Morpheus on an Atlas 5.
George, sometimes our comments don’t seem to link up because we’re flipping back and forth between short-term issues (like missions) and long-term issues (like the highway). Fuel depots, in my opinion, fit into the long-term, not so much as a logical decision, but because the decision-makers and most of the space advocates seem to think that way — they see fuel depots as something for the further future rather than the near term. When we talked about what fuel to use for the Morpheus lander, we mixed the two time frames together, which I think confused the issue.
Additionally, some programs, like Morpheus, are, or at least have the potential to be, dual purpose. Morpheus may be used for a future mission, but the R&D put into it is by itself a worthwhile investment. It likely won’t be a Morpheus lander, but rather what was learned in developing and testing Morpheus that becomes an essential element of one or more future programs. So it’s probable that JSC doesn’t have an actual mission in mind for Morpheus. The following statement from the Morpheus home page tends to support this idea:
“NASA’s Morpheus Project has developed and tested a prototype planetary lander capable of vertical takeoff and landing. Designed to serve as a vertical testbed (VTB) for advanced spacecraft technologies, the vehicle provides a platform for bringing technologies from the laboratory into an integrated flight system at relatively low cost. This allows individual technologies to mature into capabilities that can be incorporated into human exploration missions.“
The Morpheus home page is at:
Morpheus home page.
As for what fuel to use for Morpheus, or any other lander, at this stage of things I think it still comes down to either the details of a specific mission and/or the specific goals of a given research program. If I can be allowed to think optimistically, I’d like to see future engine designs have a requirement for standardized physical characteristics and interfacing, so that the engine for a given lander (or other spacecraft) can be easily swapped out for an engine that uses a different fuel and/or oxidizer. If we get to the point where spacecraft designs have been optimized for effective general purpose use, then I see “Plug n’ Play” engines as the next logical step. If I can be real ambitious, if engine swapping can be made simple enough, instead of being a major undertaking, then we could even consider taking a replacement engine on a mission as cargo and then swapping it at the destination. In this way we could go to Mars using liquid hydrogen/oxygen and come back to Earth (a smaller payload than going out) using methane.
The above is clearly long-term by today’s standards, but the sooner we start thinking this way the less we’ll have to revise and rework later. Also in the long-term-thinking mode, taking along an extra engine as cargo could become standard procedure in the “more reusable and sustainable” future where spacecraft carry “spares” of their major components for making repairs where and when needed. This idea is currently just a science fiction staple, but (hopefully) it’s just a matter of time before we get past the beginner’s insistence that every “mission” must begin and end at Earth. When that happens, all spacecraft and launching systems will have to be maintainable from wherever they happen to be; we can’t be “towing” them back to the sole repair shop in Earth orbit. Nor can we afford to simply scrap a craft that can instead be repaired. Once again, the sooner we start thinking these terms the better, but I suspect most people will insist that these ideas are only for the far future.
In summary, I think Morpheus is an R&D program and a test bed for future lander R&D programs, rather than a lander design intended for a specific mission or mission type. Personally, I consider this a very good idea. It contributes more to “highway” thinking than the typical “mission” programs we usually see.
Steve
I in the mountians with roads about to ice. Thanks for that post I sure wish people would start thinking about what is possible and just do it. We have such potential. Lol Spacex/Elon hurls another stone at the giant on the 3rd lol
I’m still hanging on to that lunch box with my last pinky
Lol I was trying to mix the short term with long term.
I live on the northwest shore of Lake Ontario, so we’ve already got our ice and snow (sent north from the US). Never lose that lunch box; it’s a symbol of what we want for our world. Merry Christmas my friend.
As well as a lander Morpheus could be used as a small space tug. They would have to space rate the vehicle, add a docking interface, extra direction control authority and most important an unmanned undocking system.
I had similar thoughts, and then something else occurred to me. Looking a little further up the road, once again, if you were running tug-type flights on a regular basis between two points — say an oxygen depot and a space station, or fuel/oxidizer source and a fuel depot — why man a Morpheus-type vehicle at all? You could have beacons at source and destination in conjunction with software “tow a load” from point A to point B using an unmanned Morpheus. You could optionally retain the passenger space and systems, or use that volume and mass capability for something else, or even reduce the overall size of the Morpheus.
It would be slow (conservation of momentum) but it would be economical and flexible. You could also have RF override capability to remotely deal with problems or changes in plans. Leaving aside the docking vs. berthing question for now, we already have a jump start on this type of system with ATV and HTV.
The open-framework structure of a Morpheus lends itself nicely to simple conversion to alternative “models.” For example, if a particular Morpheus is repeatedly tugging a fuel load, then the engine fitted to that Morpheus could use the same type of fuel — if the engine and its plumbing are designed as an easily swappable module — so the Morpheus will never run out of fuel.
You could even link up payloads into a Morpheus-tugged “space train.” For larger loads, or faster delivery time, with a little thought it may be possible to have more than one Morpheus tug “engine” per “train,” just like terrestrial trains have multiple diesels.
I think that’s more than enough to get the idea across. The main point is that the Morpheus lander may have a place in a particular mission, but I think that the Morpheus open-framework concept, and building on its possibilities, is more important than any particular one-off use as a lander.
One thing I would suggest, to facilitate ideas like the above and many others, is that an international program be put in place to assign every spacecraft, LV, depot, etc. a unique identifier that is readable (read-only) on a fixed frequency, so that any “item” can be identified and commanded remotely using a common system (it would be accessible only through an encrypted password, which only the owner would know). The details of this proposal would fill a book, so I won’t get into it here. The basic idea is the same as the MAC numbers assigned to network interface devices for computers and peripherals
The current single engined Morpheus is unmanned. It is flown by remote control or by using the ALHAT as an autopilot.
Yes, but if you read the Morpheus web site, specifically the About page, they are clearly working towards a manned lander. Their current unmanned configuration is developmental, a test article and test bed. I’m suggesting that they should plan for both manned and unmanned versions as final configurations. Thinking long term, using a Morpheus-derived spacecraft as a tug is something I envision as an unmanned vehicle.
As for different engines – since the fuel tanks and control software also need to change it is easier to use a different vehicle for each fuel type. There is room for common items.
My statement was that, ‘The open-framework structure of a Morpheus lends itself nicely to simple conversion to alternative “models.”,’ by which I meant that it’s a good set-up for using a modular approach.
I also said, “if the engine and its plumbing are designed as an easily swappable module,” because I’m thinking that a “module” includes whatever the designers decide it includes. I see no reason why engine/fuel lines/tanks/pumps/etc. can’t be a single module. The basic physical requirements are that it mounts to the Morpheus open framework using a common mounting mechanism (much like engine mounts in a car can be), and that once mounted the fuel lines, pump power, hydraulics, cooling systems components, etc. all line up with what they connect to on the rest of the spacecraft.
Without looking at it in detail, I don’t see why common tank types can’t be employed as well. Obviously for some applications the capabilities of the common tank module will exceed the specific requirements, so we just don’t use the unnecessary features. Cryo capability comes to mind as an obvious example. I think it would be simpler and cheaper overall to use a single tank type. Even features like hypergolic ignition could be switched in or out as needed.
Morpheus is currently in a preliminary configuration; there will be more to it than the basic engine, tanks, framework and control system that we see being tested now. There are good arguments for making all of the major components modular, even past the point of use on Morpheus-derived spacecraft (i.e., for use also on other spacecraft designs, a concept common to many other industries).
As for the control software, it will change, to some extent, from one Morpheus-derived spacecraft to the next, and also from one mission to the next, even if both missions employ identical configuration Morpheus spacecraft, so that argues for modular design and use of a common spacecraft (with configuration modifications), not against it. Your statement that it is “easier” to use a different vehicle for each fuel type is true in the sense that it wouldn’t be necessary to do the work involved in employing modular design, but I don’t think that “easy” should be the driving criteria here. We need to stop thinking solely in terms of short-term achievements and commit to designs that are sustainable, scalable, more cost effective, turn around more quickly, etc., all of the common sense design concepts that have been profitably applied in so many other industries.
I agree that it might be easier to keep doing programs such that everybody is independent of everybody else, and no one has to do extra up-front work, so they can finish their own program faster and cheaper. But when we look at the overall goals of exploring and exploiting space, integrating programs, hardware and software through the use of modular and integrated developments and processes saves time and money through escalating synergy and in not continuously reinventing the wheel, which is what keeps happening as things are now.
Forget about faster, better, cheaper, and all the rest — it’s time we started concentrating on working smarter, and that means having people look past their own program and their own FY budget, and having everybody contribute to the requirements of the big picture. The synergy that comes from modularity and program integration is being largely ignored, which is money and progress going down the drain.
@Steve Whitfield. Have a look at a picture of the lander then you may understand why it is easier to change all the vehicle than ~90% of it.
Woohoooo! Keep flying and improving the software!
I haven’t heard from this in so long I thought it was cancelled. Have they been working all this time?
well the first one crashed and burned, so they had to build up a second test article
While flying ALHAT equipment on helicopters while rockets were not available.
http://alhat.jpl.nasa.gov/
Subject to correction, I believe this is a prototype for a class of lunar and planetary landers with autonomous control and hazard avoidance technology.
I like the fact that they are using methane; it makes a lot of sense for long-duration missions.
As to the long silent period, this is the second lander; the first was destroyed in a crash.
“landers with autonomous control and hazard avoidance” – sort of what China just did on the Moon?
Yes – they have an equivalent of ALHAT on Chang’e-3. Recent Chinese research papers that talk about its algorithm development cite western ( JPL ) works to a sizable degree.
Nice! Here’s a link to test video:
http://blog.chron.com/scigu…
And it doesn’t set its own legs on fire, unlike that Grasshopper thingy :_>
when did the Grasshopper catch on fire?
Most of the videos show a lot of smoke, if not open flames, coming from the legs. Here’s one example:
http://www.spacex.com/media…
No offense intended, I know this is purely a cosmetic problem.
When you consider the difference in size and lift capability between Morpheus and Grasshopper is it really a meaningful comparison?
Will this system be needed? There were several Moon Surveyors and landers on Mars. Just use plenty of close images to find a spot and land with a INS GPS system. GPS sats cost money though. There are several orbiters around Mars and more coming. How many would be needed to get an exact fix? Maybe there would be a mission to land through a sky light of a lava tube. This flight probably could have only used INS, GPS. No correction so no avoidance maneuvers. I would like to see it move way beyond the target and come back and land. Maybe later. Once a base is made a beacon could be used. Do they think that there will be so much traffic and the controller will not clear the landing pad? Or is this just a test of real machine and will be loaded on a launcher?
Clearing the landing pad needs a rover able to lift several tons. You also need a machine to make the landing pad. Consequently there will probably be several landings near together before the landing pad can be cleared. The first few landings need hazard avoidance.
JPL is testing part of parachute that is 2x as big as they use now. So they are working on landing a larger rover.
Parachutes half work on Mars but do not work on the airless Moon.