Request Planetary lander? What to land on Mars in?

Artlav

Aperiodic traveller
Addon Developer
Beta Tester
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Messages
5,814
Reaction score
869
Points
203
Location
Earth
Website
orbides.org
Preferred Pronouns
she/her
Being somewhat out of sync with add-ons released in the last few years, i wonder if there is a Mars lander like craft available?

Looking through OH the only thing remotely like it is [ame="http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=2717"]Pegasus Ares 01[/ame] , but it does not seem to work in O2010P1 (or have a manual).

So, are there any near-tech lander vessels for Mars-like destination, that does not use SC3 DLL and can conceivably fit into a realistic launch vehicle?

If there aren't, why not?
What are you flying to Mars in?
 
I have an idea for a multirole, adaptable planetary lander, but it is unfortunately only at the concept stage right now.
 
A Martian lander would require a heat shield, I guess its mass would be of 30 tons or more. Also, it should be able to provide 1 month of life support for the crew on the surface, and include some mechanized transportation vehicle (rover ?).
 
I kind of have one in mind, but almost no work has been done on it, even conceptual, exept that maybe it might look cylindrical. In other words, don't count on it. :shrug:
 
So, how could a space flight sim like Orbiter end up without a decent Mars Lander after 10 years of supposedly successful existence? :)
 
So, how could a space flight sim like Orbiter end up without a decent Mars Lander after 10 years of supposedly successful existence? :)

I would like to do one design... but I can't do the meshes. It is shown in NASA TM-4075, a summary of different Mars mission architectures.

It is a pretty design, pretty modular, realistic technology (otherwise the Deltagliders are better for Mars landings). Also comes with nice drawings about how it was meant to be assembled at Space Station Freedom, or which launchers should have launched it.

(But NASAs servers are down currently)

The PDF also contains evaluations of different nuclear propulsion technologies...very interesting, like for example the nuclear light bulb...
 
(...)
Looking through OH the only thing remotely like it is Pegasus Ares 01 , but it does not seem to work in O2010P1 (or have a manual).
(...)


odd :huh: - it seems to work for me in 2010... i was flying it just two days ago :shifty:
tried to put it into LEO... failed miserably :facepalm: needs a bigger rocket, i think :lol:

but it works - well the total-immersion version works, at least :hmm:


just make sure you install the "vanilla" ares, then the total-immersion pack... it worked for me... which is quite a feat, considering half my scenarios crash at startup :thumbup:

but it would be nice to have something like a general-purpose lander craft... :cheers:
 
Anyone seen this video:


Those spacecrafts are pretty realistic for real-life. I think they would be great in orbiter
 
Those spacecrafts are pretty realistic for real-life. I think they would be great in orbiter

Thats Mars Direct, with some selected modernizations. We already had a project to make Mars Direct, but it stalled.
 
Here is a drawing of the MDV as described in the NASA report.

MDV_1988.png
MDV_1988_data.png

Since it is just a feasibility study, there is a lot of room for adapting it to Orbiter left.

I would suggest leaving OrbiterSound, UMMU and UCGO out of the design first, to produce just something approximately like the default vehicles, that could also be included as sample in Orbiter one day.

If this is done, we could add all the other stuff as extension.
 
Last edited:
total-immersion version
That works. More, that's awesome.
The vanilla version didn't have any controls working.

Now, what to launch CTV with.

I would suggest leaving OrbiterSound, UMMU and UCGO out of the design first, to produce just something approximately like the default vehicles, that could also be included as sample in Orbiter one day.
Hm? Adding UMMU support is just a matter of starting with the right template.

The mesh is the problem - i can handle all the code for the craft, but the mesh i'll make would be mathematical at best.

So, if someone is to make the model (and no worse than TI Ares!), then we have only the design to think of.

Here is a drawing of the MDV as described in the NASA report.
How does the heat shield gets attached?
The thing is supposed to fit into a launch vehicle at some stage, so let's start from that.

Assuming 50 tonnes to LEO lander, what rocket would lift it?

After selecting a set of rockets (should fit several of Velcro launchers for flexibility), we'll get the size to work with.

Then, the design is sketchy - is that one vehicle or two?
What is MAV, MLM?
Should it be descent only, and if yes, what to return in?

I propose some brainstorming if no ideas are obvious.
 
MAV = Mars Ascent Vehicle - the one to get back to Martian orbit in
EDIT: MLM = Mars Landing^H^H^H^H^H^H^HLogistics :facepalm: Module (thanks go to Urwumpe)

(a lot of ideas nicked from Apollo, 'cept the aerobrake)

EDIT: the vehicle's size is enormous, but there's no easy run outta Dodge ehhrm Martian gravity well. Can understand ISRU proponents... (what's the Russian abbreviation for that, I wonder?)
 
Last edited:
Hm? Adding UMMU support is just a matter of starting with the right template.

Sure, but it also isn't that hard to add later. I just wanted to reduce the options for keeping the basic add-on simpler. If the basic version does already use all the joy of enhanced APIs, it wouldn't be exactly a good basic planetary lander.

I thought of the project as something like a near-realistic mars lander to supplement the Orbiter Default vehicles, your reaction makes it sound like a general Mars/Moon/Whatever lander with near-realistic technology.

The mesh is the problem - i can handle all the code for the craft, but the mesh i'll make would be mathematical at best.

Same here.

How does the heat shield gets attached?

Not specified, except that the heat shield is planned to be installed or deployed to its full radius in-orbit.

The thing is supposed to fit into a launch vehicle at some stage, so let's start from that.

OK.

Assuming 50 tonnes to LEO lander, what rocket would lift it?

The NASA PDF assumes a Shuttle-C, 24 ft / 7.3m diameter payload envelope. It also assumes a lot of in-orbit assembly. The core structure of the MDV could be launched in one piece with other Mars expedition hardware, but would still need some finishing touches in orbit.

After selecting a set of rockets (should fit several of Velcro launchers for flexibility), we'll get the size to work with.

okay, but I wouldn't be too flexible there - a 7.3 meter payload envelope makes sense as basic requirement, which would mean Shuttle itself is out, but Energia and Saturn V or similar is in.

Then, the design is sketchy - is that one vehicle or two?

Essentially two to three, see below.

What is MAV, MLM?

MAV = Mars Ascent Vehicle. A small single stage to orbit vehicle to transport 4 astronauts back to Mars orbit.

MLM = Mars Logistics Module. Is based in specifications on the central hub disk of the transfer spacecraft in the expedition outline and acts as Mars habitat after landing, so it is pressurized, contains an airlock and crew sleep stations for four astronauts.

Could theoretically keep on doing its purpose as habitat even after the MAV left. On top of the MLM is a volume that contains unpressurized rovers and a ramp for getting them down, this volume could also be used for other stuff.

If you would count the MLM as separate vehicle, you have three vehicles in one:


  • Descent Vehicle
  • Ascent Vehicle
  • Logistics Module


I propose some brainstorming if no ideas are obvious.

Its ok. Maybe you specify what you really want to see. With near-realistic tech, we can't build one machine that fits all celestial bodies, there would need to be some specialization. I would suggest creating classes of landers based on groups of targets with similar requirements for DV and aerodynamics.

Eg, A mars lander could also be used on Titan with minimal adaptions, but not on the moon.

The basic package would then be something like a kit to select parts to create a lander vessel out of the selected target class, permit some optimizations for the target by the player, eg by adding/removing fuel tanks.

I would thus use the MDV design as coarse outline. We have a part that is for going down and staying on the surface, and a part for going up and returning to a orbital vehicle.
 
Last edited:
Its ok. Maybe you specify what you really want to see. With near-realistic tech, we can't build one machine that fits all celestial bodies, there would need to be some specialization. I would suggest creating classes of landers based on groups of targets with similar requirements for DV and aerodynamics.

Eg, A mars lander could also be used on Titan with minimal adaptions, but not on the moon.

The basic package would then be something like a kit to select parts to create a lander vessel out of the selected target class, permit some optimizations for the target by the player, eg by adding/removing fuel tanks.

This is essentially what my idea entailed.
 
What are the worthy targets for manned exploration anyway? In the next 40 years it is Mars only IMHO. There's no need to generalize unless Artlav is planning the lander for other planetary systems. It is also quite likely that there exists an optimal configuration or an envelope of configurations for landing craft, given our launcher and in-orbit assembly systems and their reliability, with deviations being unprofitable in terms of fulfilling exploration objectives.
 
I thought of the project as something like a near-realistic mars lander to supplement the Orbiter Default vehicles, your reaction makes it sound like a general Mars/Moon/Whatever lander with near-realistic technology.
Well, Orbiter default tend to be nice but not perfect. Look at the DG and derivatives.

Its ok. Maybe you specify what you really want to see. With near-realistic tech, we can't build one machine that fits all celestial bodies, there would need to be some specialization. I would suggest creating classes of landers based on groups of targets with similar requirements for DV and aerodynamics.

Eg, A mars lander could also be used on Titan with minimal adaptions, but not on the moon.

The basic package would then be something like a kit to select parts to create a lander vessel out of the selected target class, permit some optimizations for the target by the player, eg by adding/removing fuel tanks.

I would thus use the MDV design as coarse outline. We have a part that is for going down and staying on the surface, and a part for going up and returning to a orbital vehicle.
Let's start from Mars.

Here are the sketches for the vehicle as i seen it in that NASA schematic:

Full vehicle:
http://orbides.1gb.ru/orbf/mdv_110411-1.zip
mdv_110411-1.jpg


Ascent block:
http://orbides.1gb.ru/orbf/mav_110411-1.zip
mdv_110411-2.jpg


Ascent block seems to be more or less configuration-less, just a boat to get you into orbit.
Maybe variable tank sizes.
Realism-wise - aerodynamics seem off.

The lander design itself is more interesting.
Here we can put lots of various equipment:
-Parachute packs, no need for them on Titan, needed on Mars?
-Rovers
-Fuel tanks
-Oxygen tanks
-Science stuff (UCGO boxes?)

Changing the angle give us more or less space - larger hab or lighter hab.

Heavier:
mdv_110411-3.jpg


Lighter:
mdv_110411-4.jpg


Around that, we can mount a heat shield, or we can not.
Slim one without a heat shield can land on the Moon efficiently and get off it.
Bulky one with a heat shield can land on any airfull planet and take off from any Mars-sized one.

So, even this basic design already is sufficient for a dial-a-lander addon.

planning the lander for other planetary systems

I consider other planetary systems as much a target as the solar system.
There are as little planetary landers as there are Mars landers.
 
With the shield, you get mass savings on reentry from Earth + cross-range capability. Since ideally you would like to land within 100 meters (more or less, I haven't reread the plume constraints from DRA 5.0) of the aimpoint/existing modules/planned exploration routes, this is almost an obligatory thing to have (on Mars).

EDIT: re-reading the Mars DRA 5.0, found that crew vehicle will not use aerocapture, but cargo vehicles will. D'oh.
 
Last edited:
Well, the landing engines are still missing, but that could be fixed. The landing engines could be made modular, so we could use bigger/smaller engine packs for different planets.

What could maybe be helpful would be the capability to reenter and land towards a beacon signal, if the lander should be anything sophisticated.
 
One question :rolleyes:

What quantity of fuel in Tons could be needed fot the Mars Ascent Vehicle to reach low martian orbit with 4 astronauts ,life suport and a small engine for orbit operation ?
 
One question :rolleyes:

What quantity of fuel in Tons could be needed fot the Mars Ascent Vehicle to reach low martian orbit with 4 astronauts ,life suport and a small engine for orbit operation ?

19,422 kg.

MAV_1988.png

There are some inconsistencies in the design, the MAV in the MDV drawing has just one engine, this here uses 4 Delta II second stage engines.
 
Back
Top