NASA's Unpressurized Lunar Lander

Langley Research Center Unpressurized Crew Transport
with Surface Habitat: 0605-LLPS-LaRC-2
This was a two-stage lander that incorporated unique,
dockable rear-entry space suits for a crew of four on an
unpressurized ascent stage. The ascent stage mission
was designed for a nominal surface stay time of 7 days,
and a return payload capacity of 100 kg (220 lbm).
Descent Stage
Power The descent stage carried oxygen-hydrogen fuel cells for primary power; total peak power required by descent stage (when active) = 4.0 kW;
total peak power required by descent stage (when inactive) = 500 W.
Propulsion
The propulsion system had three LOX/LH2 descent engines that operated at an Isp of 459.7 sec. The engine thrust was 31.1 kN (7,000 lb). Oxygen boil-off was estimated to be at 1.2% per month and hydrogen boil-off was estimated to be at 4.3% per month. Descent delta-v: 1,900 m/s (6,233 ft/s)
Structures
The baseline primary structural material was aluminum 2024 or similar. There were two oxidizer tanks/four fuel tanks; The landing structures made up 3.3% of the total mass to be landed.
Environmental Control and Life Support System
Standard ECLSS in pressurized habitat; 13.2 m3 (466 ft3) total habitable volume; 3.3 m3 (116.5 ft3)
habitable volume per crew member; 14.2 m3 (500 ft3) total pressurized volume.
Down Payload 500 kg (1,100 lbm)
Surface Stay Time 7 days
Nominal Descent and Low Lunar Orbit Loiter Duration 7 days
Low Earth Orbit Loiter Duration 95 days
Guidance Navigation & Control RCS Cluster (x4)
Ascent Stage
Ascent stage carried Li-ion batteries for primary power during ascent; total peak power required by ascent stage = 1.0 kW
Propulsion
There were four NTO/MMH ascent engines rated for operation at an Isp of 332.5 sec. The propulsion system provided a thrust of 11.1 kN (2,500 lb). Thrusters were initially gimballed out to avoid damaging the habitat (which could be reused on a future mission or as part of an outpost).
Ascent delta-v: 1,889 m/s (6,197 ft/s)
Structures
Aluminum 2024 or similar. There were two oxidizer tanks/two fuel tanks.
Environmental Control and Life Support System
Nominal life support was to be provided by the Extravehicular Activity (EVA) suits.
Up Payload 100 kg (220 lb)
Surface Stay Time 7 days
Nominal Ascent Duration 3 hours
Source:
After LM
NASA LUNAR LANDER CONCEPTS
BEYOND APOLLO
John F. Connolly, Editor

[@416dl]

Can't wait for Redbull to sponsor a flugstag on the moon.

[@richardjonsson1745]

Imagine that inside one of the domes on tha surface. Pedal driven airplanes in atmosphere. Just like in Rendezvous with Rama. :-)

[@416dl]

Yeah...I've always loved that idea since first reading that book...and we see it also in Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Green Blue Mars trilogy...the recreationaal aspect of our future endeavors in space, whether in the context of human made stations or on other planets is under estimated. When robots do all the monotonous physical labor we'll still want the thrills and sense of accomplishment. Cheers. @@richardjonsson1745

[@marcopohl4875]

That actually makes the mission a lot easier for the astronauts. No pressure.

[@WilliamRWarrenJr]

😂👍 But I bet those spacesuits would be pretty ripe by about Day 3 ...

[@allenlea8310]

I applaud your choice of music for this video, evoking the perfect blend of apprehension, tension, and awe.

[@fridaycaliforniaa236]

Mate, we need a whole 2 hours film of this ! Like the series "From Earth to the Moon" =)

[@tsr207]

Incredible video ! - these just keep getting more spectacular on each release. The scene where the lander is descending and a lone astronaut is watching is incredible. I cant imagine the situation where this type of lander would be used without an air of desperation !

[@BartJBols]

making lunar landers cheaper and light weight so they could land more people and supplies, making a lunar base more economical. Nothing about this is inherently more 'risky' then the other lunar lander, other then that the astronauts were in spacesuits..

[@richspillman4191]

You realize that was an animation right? Same as the Indian spongebob squarepants single serve slurpee machine moon cartoon.

[@jackturner3867]

NO WAY THIS ANIMATION IS AN ANIMATION???!??!??!?!?!? HOW DARE I EXPRESS MY EMOTION!1!1!1!@@richspillman4191

[@isiahdial8064]

This CGI looks amazing

[@RHM2116]

This is part of the Constellation Program, I say this because of Orion (CEV) which is very similar

[@alrightydave]

Yeah it was the earliest design with a large Methalox service module too

[@fridaycaliforniaa236]

There was an Altair lander, if I remember right

[@sealpiercing8476]

I'd love to see you try MOOSE one of these days

[@oliwierkwiatkowski8817]

What a kerbalesque machine! I love it!

[@braderickson9996]

An unexpected surprise, did not expect another video so soon after Flash Gordon's ship. I guess you could do the "convertible" option for lunar landings/ascents. Would be spending a lot more time in the spacesuit.

[@craigw.scribner6490]

Great job! Loved your Apollo 12 landing narration. Thanks for another fantastic video!

[@ajds]

Gorgeous, and syncing with the historical radio (I am guessing) was amazing. The scene after landing may be your best ever - totally believable, with excellent music. Thank you.

[@Yukihuru]

割り切った構造が興味深く面白いです。 そして眺めは抜群に良いでしょうから、クルーは最高の着陸体験を得られたはずですね。

[@tusnua6603]

😂cgi baby

[@SlesinowyMikol]

Good vid as always

[@sundland100]

This is the recording of the landing of Apollo 12 - november 19th, 1969 and mainly the voice of astronaut Pete Conrad in the pressurized Lunar Module?

[@alrightydave]

I’m assuming this was alternate constellation, not just an Apollo study bc of the early Orion design with a large Methalox service module? Might still be relevant if we don’t have a working HLS tbh for Artemis 3. Wouldn’t be too hard to slap this thing together compared to building a pressurised module with it as well and doesn’t matter much for a short minutes long trip to the surface Would’ve worked better to descend from LLO with Orion’s more capable service module but with ESM you’d want an even more capable lander with more delta v unpressurised still and start the burn at periapsis so they’d hang out in LLO for an hour maybe before descent to the South Pole, then rendevouz would be an issue and would force them to stay in a habitat on the surface for a bit

[@HalNordmann]

According to After LM, this concept was studied in May 2006, utilizing suit-ports and a pressurized habitat in the descent stage. Total mass around 20t

[@yumazster]

That was better than most on an already excellent channel!

[@dziban303]

Wheres the guy shouting JOHN MADDEN

[@jameswilson5165]

Great animation but they would be absolutely covered in dust.

[@Muckytuja]

Moonwalkers were covered in dust anyway. Their suits become electrostatic, so they really attracted the particles, no matter what they did.

[@motokid6008]

Beautiful.

[@mmontagart]

Wonderful animation. Terrified at the very thought of such a journey!

[@marcmanklow]

Amazing how good CGI is !

[@robertevans6481]

Great video....music is on point!!!

[@orion14operative]

beautiful!

[@milxl]

That's one of your best 👌

[@randycampbell6307]

Wonderful video as usual and great work! Couldn't help but think someone should have said at the end "Don't forget where we parked" just to be a pain :)

[@u1zha]

What a ride.

[@fredamber8238]

Amazing!

[@dogwater4u]

nice well done

[@user-of2su2wv9f]

Pete Conrad, Al Bean, Dick Gordon. Back to the moon. They sound fresh as ever. 😊🎉🙏

[@terencewong-lane4309]

*Mindblowing*

[@ShimaJiro2205]

To me, NASA's English sounds like a baseball broadcast. New York Yankees vs Seattle Mariners?

[@SuperPietro09best]

Man this looks like your average ksp minimalist mun lander Also grat animation as always

[@Strelnikov403]

I question why a minimalist, skeletal, unpressurised spacecraft would need complicated, heavy, pressure-bearing docking hardware... Surely Soyuz LOK-style tunnelless system or simple clamps would suffice?

[@FatovMikhail]

who didn't send kerbals to eeloo like this

[@-K-Depbluhole]

whoa bro

[@allenlea8310]

From what source was the excellent dialogue derived?

[@randycampbell6307]

Looks like the Apollo 12 lunar landing

[@RollWithTheChanges]

Anyone notice the Astronaut/Cosmonaut (dunno) at 3:19 ?

[@thomaseubank1503]

3:16 Who is that? How did he get there first? Is that Kilroy?

[@thecocomonk2657]

Can someone explain the logic/advantage of an unpressurised lander in lunar exploration architecture? The best I can figure is it might just be overall lighter.

[@bc1969214]

It's just a ride to/from a nearby base, the only life support is the suit.

[@HalNordmann]

And it is not entirely unpressurized, it has a small habitat module in the descent stage

[@robdixson196]

Yeah, weight is a HUGE factor in space flight. The obvious downside here is crew comfort. Provided you had a pressurized habitat waiting for them on the moon this would be workable as a quick to/from orbit shuttle. I can't honestly say if workable translates to a good idea or not. For example someone tossing their cookies or having explosive diarhea would quickly become potentially fatal in a setup like this

[@vinceschauf9437]

The audio is from Apollo 12

[@geoffreylee2770]

I hope for God's sake that everyone understands that this is just a simulation like the film 2001. May be one day they might try to make this real. I can't believe some of the comments.

[@miles2378]

Is this a alternative lunar lander from apolo Era?

[@rodrigolefever2426]

No

[@liammeech3702]

How would you surive in an EVA-suit for 7 days?

[@archierush868]

I assume they would only be on the surface for maybe a day at max and would just hook up to the lander for oxygen and to rest. They may have enough food inside the suits for a day’s stay. All assumptions tho

[@nickiwelch3805]

Holy shit what do I gotta do to get myself there.. I wanna go sooo bad 🤣 and I'm 47 now. ✌️👍👌🥰💖

[@vitalegvitalegov]

Why they run like it should explode? 🙄

[@SamIIs]

That would be way to scary exposed to the void of space like that with nothing shielding you. The absents of an outer skin assembly could cause Linus Van Pelt syndrome.

[@FixedWing82]

Imagine going all the way from Earth orbit to the lunar surface like this

[@alrightydave]

No they would’ve gone to the moon from LEO in Orion, just the short surface descent in the unpressurised lander

[@fatitankeris6327]

Not a good idea, as radiation and micrometeorite shielding, as well as thermal, would be better with a different design rather than open.

[@guillermoValdez369]

Is this supposed to be real?

[@papawilson-ci1yi]

Who's taking the pictures

[@geoffchapman2850]

So the guy filming this is he in a spacesuit? 😂

[@robertmystyk1875]

Can't wait till people start posting videos online of the astronauts walking around the Moon😂🎉 from earth

[@AtomcFish]

все не как у людей

[@rjung_ch]

Funny to hear them using feet in the dialogue, don't they use metric in space travel? Like over 190 nations use it... was under the impression that NASA uses metric.

[@legitusername-zl7to]

blunderbirds ahh creation

[@theOrionsarms]

Why not a pressurized rover with humans on board? That sounds much better than putting humans in space suit directly on the moon, with no option of exit from them, until reach orbit again.

[@randycampbell6307]

This assumes there are other "options" already on the Moon such as a pre-landed hab (or in this case existing outpost) that the astronauts can go to and get out of the suits

[@theOrionsarms]

@@randycampbell6307 yeah, but the landing site needs to be in the walking range of a human in space suit, a rover would have much better change to reach that base if the landing area is further away than was intended.

[@randycampbell6307]

@@theOrionsarms Hence the last bit showing the hab is a short distance away and them walking to it. :) I think the number of already landed habs and landers they passed over before landing is another indication this was meant to be part of a major push effort but I'll admit I don't see a need for an "open" lander in such an effort. More to the "point" if I recall the study being used it was essentially the lander they could afford given the lack of funding at the time.

[@theOrionsarms]

@@randycampbell6307 what I want to said is that,on landing you need anyway to bring more than few humans in the spacesuit,why don't land a carrier for that, like a heavy rover for example, thing would be different at launch,a small launcher that can only launch four people in their spacesuit make sense I guess.

[@hubbsllc]

I'm not digging having four engines. If one of them cut out, you're looking at an abort or the opposing one would have to shut down immediately to maintain attitude. But if it can still fly and land on two engines, why is it carrying the weight of four?

[@44R0Ndin]

If it can land on 2, but has 4, it has room for any single engine to fail. If it only has 2, any engine failure dooms the crew. It's called redundancy, and even airliners have it. Why do you think fly-by-wire jets like the F-16 have 5 flight control computers? That allows for TWO failures, AS WELL as providing "majority vote exclusion" of a bad computer most of the time (until you get down to 2 computers), because DETECTING which computer isn't working right is JUST as important as having enough computers in the first place to have spares. But the engine thing with this lander is the same kind of thing with why airliners still have 2 engines. Fun fact, even if a modern airliner (which usually only has 2 engines) has an engine failure at THE WORST TIME during Takeoff (right at the point where it's no longer possible to reject the takeoff), it's designed with enough extra engine power in EACH ENGINE to be able to CLIMB at 1000 feet per minute. Up at high altitude, you won't be able to maintain as high of a cruise speed as normal if an engine fails, because there BOTH engines need to contribute, but in most cases you'll still have enough spare capacity to allow diversion to an airport along the flight route that can handle landing whatever aircraft has the failed engine. This is all codified in aviation law (in the US) by the ETOPS specification, which stands for Extended Twin-engine Operations. Virtually all aircraft are rated for ETOPS 120, which means that they're RATED to be safe to continue flying on ONLY ONE ENGINE for up to 2 hours (the number in the rating is the number of minutes it's rated for single-engine operation). Most very-long-range aircraft are rated for ETOPS 180 or longer, because this allows them to theoretically fly point-to-point to any airport within their operational range, while still having enough fuel to divert to an alternate airport if something like weather or an accident prevents landing at the intended destination airport. The FAA's rules and laws were, unfortunately, written in the blood of those lost in aviation accidents. And so are at least some of NASA's laws about component-level redundancy in spacecraft design.

[@hubbsllc]

@@44R0Ndin No doom - abort. The Apollo LM had one descent engine for a reason. If it failed, the crew could abort without upsetting the attitude.

[@randycampbell6307]

It's meant so they don't have to abort with an engine out. The design aims to land first and abort only if they have no other option. The Apollo LEM was built around the idea that aborting was your ONLY other option every flight since you only had the one engine at any phase of flight.

[@hubbsllc]

@@randycampbell6307 Ahh, but if you lose one engine on descent and don't abort, you'd have to shut the opposing engine immediately So when you say "It's meant so they don't have to abort with an engine out" what the scenario would really be is "they don't have to abort with *two* engines out." If you can land on two, why carry four? The posture becomes, carry two engines as hot spares for the other two. Think about it - if an engine has X% probability of failing on descent, then the probability of having one of four fail becomes 1-((1-X)^4). A 1% probability for one engine becomes 3.9% for four. It's like you're carrying spares to cover for a problem you yourself are creating.

[@44R0Ndin]

@@randycampbell6307 It seems strange and unlike NASA to attempt to continue to a landing with something so serious as an engine failure, which are violent enough to throw high velocity fragments in nearly any direction, but of interest would be directions where they would have a chance of piercing the propellant tanks. If the fragments from an engine failure pierce the propellant tanks, no amount of extra engines will "save the mission" and allow you to continue to a safe landing. In that case, your only option is to abort, and in so doing abandon the descent stage. This is still a 2-stage design after all, just like the Apollo LM. Because these sort of decisions need to be made quickly, and it is not prudent to rely on a computer to tell you what happened, any failure of any engine is in fact reason to abort (or if it's an ascent engine failure, and there's only one ascent engine, that would indeed be certain doom). The computer can be relied on to detect the engine failure (perhaps before it becomes highly damaging), however even then the decision is always "abort back to orbit using the ascent stage" and never "use the crippled descent stage in an unknown state of functionality to attempt to make a safe landing, with an unknown performance reserve (or shortfall)". NASA does risky things, but given that the risky thing must be attempted, they choose the method of attempting it that has the lowest possible risk. And continuing the landing when your descent stage loses an engine (damaging nothing, or who knows what other systems, or HOW MUCH it damages them), is not "the least possible risk". NASA will never do that. The thing probably needed 4 engines because it needed 4 engines, not because it needed 2 and had 4 for redundancy. These are probably not RL-10 based engines either, they're probably pressure-fed hydrolox engines, likely with hydrogen based combustion chamber cooling. I highly doubt that they have any sort of turbopump whatsoever, because that invites far too much risk. Same with the ascent stage, it too will almost certainly be using simple, easily controlled, pressure fed hypergolic engines. Remember, NASA always chooses the least risky option. And if losing an engine results in asymmetric thrust (and the attitude control issue that brings with it), that means that the design is likely disqualified on that demerit alone.

[@mathiaslist6705]

Wild fantasies! Avoid walking and flying around in spacesuits it's definitely not healthy

[@anthonyhunt701]

This is crazy…could do it for just 2 to get us on the Moon before 🇨🇳

[@dziban303]

Who cares

[@stevevernon1978]

a reminder, there is NO race to be the first on the moon. We Already Did It.

[@RocketPal]

China is not even close to going to the moon

[@tonywindtonywind]

Some great cgi going on for those of you clowns who think this is actually real ffs!

[@RocketPal]

Bro this is an animation, are you alright

[@user-vy3op1yv7y]

Зачем летать на луну если На поверхности луны голый камень и там делать нечего, пустая трата денег .

[@stevevernon1978]

Благодарим вас за ваши текущие и будущие вклады в бюджет Соединенных Штатов Америки. (Если это к вам не относится, то это не ваши деньги.)

[@fatitankeris6327]

Developing that stupid "steam machine" was probably viewed the same...

[@rickyrodriguez5744]

Why is every single TV commercial about a black person now?

[@stevevernon1978]

why is every KZbin comment completely unrelated to the content posted?

[@Kenocala]

👍