AIAA SPACE 2009 Conference &Amp; Exposition 2009
DOI: 10.2514/6.2009-6404
View full text |Buy / Rent full text
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: This essay presents a comparison between the Apollo Lunar Module (LM) and the current concepts and requirements for the Altair Lunar Lander. The basis of comparison reflects the difference between the Apollo Program, pursuing a Cold War era "Flag and Footsteps" mission, and the Constellation Program creating a more expansive program of exploration leading to a permanent human presence on the moon. The specific areas of comparison derive largely from the changes in mission philosophy and exploration strategy-no… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
(3 reference statements)
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Current spacecraft ensure the working fluid will not freeze by using fluids with low freezing points, such as Ammonia or Freon-21. 2 However, these fluids are highly toxic and thus must be isolated from the crew, necessitating a two-fluid-loop TCS. These designs add system complexity in the form of additional tubing and heat exchangers between the fluid loops, increase TCS weight by 23%, and increase the possibility of more difficult repairs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Current spacecraft ensure the working fluid will not freeze by using fluids with low freezing points, such as Ammonia or Freon-21. 2 However, these fluids are highly toxic and thus must be isolated from the crew, necessitating a two-fluid-loop TCS. These designs add system complexity in the form of additional tubing and heat exchangers between the fluid loops, increase TCS weight by 23%, and increase the possibility of more difficult repairs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Optimal visibility conditions were provided by operational procedures and constraints, including launch times, dates, and landing locations. Automated landing of Apollo was possible, but all landings were manually flown with the crew taking over control between 550 and 240 ft above the touchdown zone elevation [26]. After Apollo 11, each crew performed at least 1, and as many as 18, landing zone re-designations during the pitch-up phase [27].…”
Section: Lunar Lander Handling Qualities Design Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As NASA looked to return to the lunar surface, the design issues and lessons-learned of Apollo were closely studied as they are still relevant today for practical planetary and lunar lander vehicle designs and missions [22][23][24][25][26][27]. From this baseline, additional challenges for the vehicle design were levied to improve the scientific return for manned lunar missions.…”
Section: Lunar Lander Handling Qualities Design Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…13 The simulated spacecraft was not intended to be a replica of the Altair vehicle, but was roughly representative of its current instantiation to develop relevant design data and guidance material.…”
Section: Simulated Spacecraftmentioning
confidence: 99%