BELLCOMM, INC. 1100Seventeenth Street, .W. Washington, 20036 N D.C.SUBJECT: Manned Lunar Program Options - DATE: Sept. 29, 1967 Mission Equipment - Case 230 FROM C. : Bendersky D. R. Valley ABSTRACT This memorandum contains descriptive material onthe mission equipment assembled during the Manned LunarProgram Options Study. Mission equipment refers to lunarshelters, mobility systems, and landing vehicles for logis-tics delivery. The equipment spectrum ranges through twogenerations of Apollo equipment as well as new equipmentconcepts under study. Equipment weights, capabilities,and required modifications are included along with someanticipated problem areas and improvement items that mightbe considered. The information was assembled primarily throughreview of NASA sponsored studies; however, results of contactswith the centers and various Apollo contractors are alsoincorporated. I I (NASA-CR-90708) _ANNED LUNAR PROGRAM N79-71546 OPTKONS - MISSION EQUIPMENT (Bellcomm, Inc.) 28 p Unclas 00/12 110_3 CRORTMX ORADNUMBER) li(NAS A r - ,, (CATEGORY) I
BELLCOMM. INC. 1100 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 SUBJECT: Manned Lunar Program Options - D_E: Sept. 29, 1967 Mission Equipment - Case 230 FROM: C. Bendersky D. R. Valley MEMORANDUM FOR FILEI. 0 INTRODUCTI ON This memorandum contains descriptive information onthe spectrum of mission equipment included in the Manned LunarProgram Options Study. Mission equipment, as used herein,includes shelters, mobility systems, and landing vehicles forlogistics payloads. The equipment spectrum is presented intwo basic categories--Apollo derivative equipment and newequipment. The time and manpower limitations of the studyprecluded detailed analysis of these equipment items and thuseffort was concentrated on major capabilities and equipmentweights. The information presented herein was used as sourcedata for the Manned Lunar Program Options--Misslon Modes report(Reference I). The data was current up to June 30, 1966.2.0 APOLLO DERIVATIVE EQUIPMENT The candidate Apollo derivative equipment cannot bediscussed in terms of minor modifications because in no eventare the modifications minor in scope or cost. Table i containsa listing of the equipment items included in this category alongwith a brief summary of the pertinent features outlined in thefollowing discussions.2.1 LM Shelter The LM shelter concept (Figure I) is the simplestproposed Apollo derivative shelter and has been considered foruse in several AAP flights. The concept combines logisticsand crew quarters in one vehicle by stripping out the presentLM ascent stage main propulsion system and adding suitableexpendables and experimental payloads. The flight plan assumesa manned Command Service Module (CSM), Lunar Orbit Rendezvous(LOR)mode. The LM shelter is landed by remote control fromthe manned CSM which is then returned to earth. The LM shelter
BELLCOMM, INC. - 3 - 2to develop a new pump-fed engine or use a converted Agena engineand take advantage of the superior performance available.2.4 CM Lunar Shelter The CM could be converted into a lunar shelter (Fig-ure 15) by removal of the heat shield, interior modification,addition o a fuel cell power supply, storage facilities forfuel cell reactants and life support expendables, and (possibly)some type of airlock. When compared to a LM derivative shelter,the greatest advantage of the CM is the 36_ greater availablevolume--306 ft 3 compared to 225 ft 3. Quiescent storage capa-bility modifications will be similar to those required forlunar orbit CM modes, possibly with the exception of largerRTG requirements for thermal control.2.5 LASS Concept The Douglas Company (DAC) .... nas proposea ;me "L un a rApplication of a Spent S-IVB Stage (LASS)" (Reference 4).The LASS concept requires a landing gear on a S-IVB Stage.The mission is an unmanned, dlrect-fllght, using an existinglunar beacon to obtain a precise landing location. The LASSrequires either a highly throttleable J-2 type engine (J-2X)or a moderately throttleable J-2S with RL-10 engines added toprovide proper landing control. DAC studied several configu-rations and recommended that of Figure 4 consisting of a verticallander with a payload package on top. Landed payloads in theorder of 24,000 Ibs were claimed by DAC with the 1965 Saturn Vcapability. This payload was based on a more optimistic AVbudget than used in this study; however, the landed payloadwould still be substantial (16,000 - 19,000 ibs) using themore conservative values. An evaluation of the LASS concept(Reference 5) was performed as part of this study effort.2.6 MOLEM - Mobile LM Shelter Third generation versions of LM derivative equipmenthave been studied (Reference 2) where the LM shelter is fur-ther modified to become a mobile shelter (MOLEM); therebyeliminating the need for a separate lunar roving vehicle (LRV).Two versions were studied; a "mlnimum" change (four wheelvehicle) and "moderate" change (four wheel vehicle plus twowheel trailer). Figure 5 presents a line schematic of theminimum change version. 2The Air Force is presently funding conversion of theAgena Engine to Apollo propellants for use in 1970.
BELLCOMM, INC. - 2 -is intended to support two men for 14 days, including e:<trn-vehicular activity (EVA). The shelter will have 90 daysquiescent storage capability prior to usage. A 50 watt radio-isotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) is provided for thermalcontrol. Two Allis Chalmers (2 kw) fuel cells are providedfor an electrical power system (EPS). Fuel cell reacta_-_ts aresupplied from ambient temperature high pressure bottles. Inthis configuration, the LM shelter weight is app_ozimately6700 Ib s. Based on a later Grumman study (Reference 2), sub-stitution of cryogenic H_!/02 storage for the p___c_c_-ktambienttemperature high pressure storage could reduce the shel_ rweight approximately i000 Ibs I at some cost in developmenttime and (possibly) reliability.2.2 LM Truck The LM Truck concept (Figure 2) uses a modified LMdescent stage as a Lunar Logistic Vehicle (LLV). The LM ascentstage is removed and replaced by a cargo platform. Subsystemsnow on the LM ascent stage which are necessary for landing(e.g., reaction control system (RCS) and guidance) are added.The Truck is usually associated with the flight plan previouslydescribed for LM Shelter (manned CSM); however, a totallyunmanned flight mode is possible with proper guidance andnavigation modification. As presently conceived, the LM T_uckweighs 22,200 Ibs and has the same propellant capacity andpayload capability as the present LM descent stage. The LMTruck capability would benefit from an "augmented" LM devel-opment discussed in Reference I.2.3 SM Logistic Lander North American Aviation (NAA) has proposed use ofthe SM as a lunar logistics vehicle (LLV) (Reference 3). Theconfiguration (Figure 3), simply stated, puts a landing gear onthe SM. It was proposed for use in an unmanned, direct landingmode. The concept was not critically evaluated during thisstudy; however, NAA claims the capability of ii,000 Ibs landedpayload. The system requires the addition of remote guidanceand control and s suitable throttling engine. So-called "con-versions" of the present SM engine really infer a new enginedevelopment, probably of the same magnitude as that requiredfor the present LM descent engine. It probably would be wiser IAs also stated in Reference 2, much of this advantagecould be reduced by development of filament-wound tankage forambient high pressure storage.
BELLCOMM, INC. - 4 - Table 2 summarizes the two configurations. TheMOLEM was designed to support two men for 14 days and traverse250 nm in a 50 nm radius. EVA is the same as for the LM Shel-ter mission. The flight mode is an LOR using a manned CSM tocontrol lunar landing. The MOLEM could be used on either amodified LM descent stage or a LM Truck. Pertinent additions are Allis Chalmers fuel cells(total 8 kw), a deployable (collapsible) airlock, and a threemonth quiescent storage capability. Two 50 watt RTGs arerequired for quiescent storage. The study assumed high pres-sure ambient temperature oxygen/hydrogen storage, but alsoevaluated a cryogenic system which resulted in weight savingsin the order of 750 to 1,000 ibs and provided additionalvolume for experimentation at some cost in development timeand (possibly) reliability.2.7 Mobile Command Module - MOCOM In similar fashion to the MOLEM, third generationversions of the CM have been studied (Reference 6) to furthermodify a CM shelter to provide mobility. A typical configura-tion is presented in Figure 6. Essentially the CM is mountedon a four wheel chassis. For the same mobility mission asMOLEM, the MOCOM weighs about 9,500 ibs. Power is suppliedprimarily by fuel cells using cryo stored reactants. An RTGprovides power needs for quiescent storage.3.0 NEW EQUIPMENT The new logistic supply and shelter equipment arestrictly conceptual and as such are not limited in scope aswith Apollo derivations. Evaluations of new equipment in termsof new lunar shelters, advanced logistic carriers and lunarmobility systems have been continuously under study by NASA.Therefore, the systems will be discussed in terms of generalstudy philosophy and parametric results.3.1 Early Lunar Shelter (ELS) New equipment shelter capabilities were based onthe results of the recently completed Early Lunar ShelterStudy (ELS) by AiResearch, (Reference 7). The study was anevaluation of configurations suitable for use with LM Truckcapability (10,300 ibs). The primary objective was the evaluationand conceptual design of two-man lunar shelters for comparisonwith competing concepts such as the LM Shelter. This waslater expanded to include evaluation of three-man shelters.
BELLCOMM, INC. - 5 -Staytime capabilities were evaluated in terms of crew size,and duty cycles with and without EVA activity. Both two andthree man crews were considered and the EVA duty cycle con-sisted of 9 hours/day; 6 hours lone man) on a "Local ScientificSurvey Module" (LSSM) and a non-concurrent 3 hour EVA on footin the ELS vicinity. Based on the above, expendable consump-tion rates were established for crew metabolism, environmentalcontrol and life support (EC/LSS), electrical power supply (EPS)and fluid storage. It was concluded that a minimum designvolume of 500 ft 3 was desirable for a two man, 14 day mission.Final designs were based on a 750 ft 3 volume. Basic shelterequipments included rechargeable portable life support systems(PLSS) (3 per man), fuel cells for EPS, cryogenic supercriticalstorage for fuel cell reactants and life support gases andLi0H for C02 removal. Figure 7 summarizes the study results.Note the staytime capability of 50 days for two men. Figure 8presents a typical schematic, and Figure 9 a weight breakdownof the ELS optimized for a three man crew.3.2 Local Scientific Survey Module (LSSM) The LSSM is a small size vehicle used to support alocal manned survey. It is proposed for delivery with a LMShelter. The typical, one-man configuration shown in Figure I0weighs in the order of 1,000 ibs, is battery powered and hasa total range capability of 200 km per mission, an operatingrange of 8 km, and a minimum speed capability of 4 km per hour.The crew sits in an open cockpit.3.3 Mobile Laboratories - MOLAB The moderate capacity mobile laboratory (MOLAB) con-cept was studied in two NASA/MT contracts (References 8 and 9)to determine configurations and capabilities of vehicles inthe 6,500 to 8,500 ib class. Designed for delivery by the LMTruck, MOLAB was to be capable of surviving six months quies-cent storage on the lunar surface, and then be activated tosupport a two man 14 day mission with a 7 day staytime contin-gency in a stationary mode. Figure ii presents a typicalconfiguration consisting of a four wheel vehicle having aninternal pressurized volume of 452 ft 3 plus an additional122 ft 3 airlock. The MOLAB would take advantage of any sub-system improvements evaluated in the ELS studies such ascryogenic gas storage systems. In essence, a MOLAB relatesto an ELS as the MOLEM to the LM shelter. Staytime or experi-mental payload is traded for mobility.
BELLCOMM, INC. - 6 - Although the MOLAB was sized for a two man, 14 daymission, the concept can be scaled from the parametric dataof Reference 6 to establish tradeoffs of crew size and stay-time in terms of weight and subsystem requirements• Figure 12is a typical data sheet for a three ma_ 21 da_ 488 nm traversewhich requires a MOLAB weighing 8,400 Ibs.3.4 Lunar Logistic Vehicle (LLV) In the past, many versions of new LLVs using severalpossible candidate propellants have been studied. For the timespan of this study, it was decided to limit the candidates tothose being used in active NASA programs; that is, earth stor-ables of the N204/Aerozene 50 and cryogens of the L02/LH23types. The choice between the two revolves about a tradeoffbetween 33_ better I performance, poorer length to diameter spconfigurations, and more extensive ground support requirementsof L02/LH 2 compared to N204/Aerozene 50. However, the perform-ance increase does provide significantly larger payload capa-bilities, and accordingly, the cryogenic combination waschosen for the new LLVs 3 In addition to the conventionalone stage configurations, two stage versions are also of inter-est. A typical two stage LLV consists of a braking stage (LI)and a landing stage (LII). The advantages of staging are(i) payload improvement, (2) the landed vehicle has a lowercenter-of-gravity (reducing possible cargo unloading problemsand landing gear requirements), and (3) the braking stage (LI)can be a general use propulsion stage for integration intoearth orbital or planetary programs (Multi-Mission Module Con-cept). Typical configurations of single and two stage LLVsare shown in Figures 13 and 14 as obtained from Reference I0).4.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS The capabilities of the mission equipment and con-cepts distributed in this memo were used as source materialfor Task Order 30 study effort during the first half of 1966. 31f an acceleration of fluorine technology state-of-the-art results in a more general level of acceptanqe of LF 2 foruse in NASA programs, and if other concomitant programs makeLF2/LH 2 engines available (RLI0 AF series) the substitution ofa LF 2 stage for a L02 stage should be considered• The stagewould have a small I improvement but a considerably better splength to diameter ratio and structural mass fraction•
BELLCOMM, INC. - 7 -For future use, the data should be reviewed and revised aswarranted. It is suggested that the authors be contactedfor additional information or for more recent study results.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors are grateful to Lt. Col. P. Grosz (NASA/MTL),Col. J. R. Burke (NASA/MTV) and G. R. Woodcock (MSF¢/ROFP)for their cooperation and assistance.0IOI2-DRV . yAttachments References Figures I - 15 Tables I and 2
BELLCOMM, INC. REFERENCES I • "Manned Lunar Program Options - Mission Modes," Bellcomm TM 67-1012-5 by C. Bendersky and D. R. Valley, May 5, 1967. • "Metamorphous of AAP LEM Shelter for Lunar Mobile System (MOLEM)," by Grumman Aircraft and Engineering Company, May i0, 1966. • "Advanced Lunar Transports and Logistics Vehicle Concepts - AS66-3," Space Division of NAA, April, 1966 (Revised Briefing). "Lunar Applications of a Spent S-IVB Stage (LASS)," Douglas Aircraft Company, September, 1966. • "Critique of LASS Concept," Bellcomm Memorandum for File, C. Bendersky, June 28, 1966. • "Lunar Surface Mobility Systems Comparison and Evolution Study (MOBEV) Volume I, " Technical Data--BS41295, Bendix, May 16, 1966. • "Early Lunar Shelter Design and Comparison Study," by AiResearch Division of Garrett, February 6, 1967 (Final Report). • "Apollo Logistics Support System (ALSS) Payloads," Boeing Aircraft Company, Final Presentation, April, 1965. • "Apollo Logistics Support Systems (ALSS) Payloads," Bendix, Final Report, June, 1965.I0. "A Comparative Design Study of Modular Stage Concepts for Lunar Supply Operations," Volumes I-IV, TRW, December 12, 1963, CONFIDENTIAL.Ii. "MIMOSA - Interim Lunar Exploration Data Book," Lockheed Missiles and Space Division, June I, 1966.12. "Post-Apollo Programs--SID66-153-_ (U)," NAA - Space and Informa- tion Systems Division, March, 1966. (CONFIDENTIAL)
__"__ / Lm Sta 200 i /Lm Sta 240 Kadiator Payload Envelope Lm/T _ X345.0 _ X316.0 Launch ConfigurationForward I i _V_ "° Hatch 3 36M - _-_t_LT"r_-f -- 4.06M i _ "_- r , eCSRAp ! 5 Band Dish Antenna I r_ L°°_adA_itat:r na • _. RTG "__¢/Ir i___.,) _ 2_.03M DIA I _ .305 M I,t------5.15M- System External Layout FIGURE 6- MOCOM CONCEPT
O 0 r.:.l r/3. r_ 2;Z N _"_ _ z 2_ ,q N = r_ r_ O O M _ Z_ M 2; r,.? Z _0 I O _ r...) N r,.) Z 0 v
Z E o t_ N 8 II Z N 0 > 0 S o,1 II < 0 ! _ u_cP r_
Or..q o m o _ _ II M .< S .< M .< NZ Z N r_ Z ! I m O_ q M mN_Mr_ 0 N
Launch Configuration - -- ....... 1 I l / 4.47M ECS Radiator ___ _ ECS Radiator-_ _ V .. _P Antenna__ 4 Ft 5 Band ! _. _ I_ Parab°lic _ --_ _ / F]O-- __@-- , ._M _LULl Normal Gro Cle o eHO r n System External Layout FIGURE 11 - TYPICAL MOLAB CONFIGURATION (BENDIX) 4 WHEEL DRIVE TYPE.
MANNED ROVING VEHICLE CABIN - THREE MAN Date I Rev May 66 l I GENERAL PERFORMANCE General Performance Item 7 Crew Size 3 Staytime (Nominal), Days 21 Range (Nominal), kin 900 Speed (Average), kph 10 Experiment Power (Nominal), kw-hr 112 Scientffie Payload (Max.), kg 320 System Mass, kg (not incl. payload) 3,810 Note: Staytime shown is in addition to 7 days emergency layover with no travel.LAUNCH CONFIGURATION (Dimensions in Meters) f LOR DOCKING STRUCTURE f 3.0 - _ / "" VY >_---_"(V RE_ ?1 / [ °-"-""_ _" .."-PAYLOAD _" ENVELOPE / J l /, i_ 6.tMASS SUMMARY Mass Summary (Kilograms) Item M&s8 Nonexpendables Structure 636 Power Supply 220 Mobility 1,485 Life Support 324 Astrix)nics 320 Total Noncxpendablcs 2,985 Expendable.q (Usable & Unusable) H 2 Capacity (Max.) 88 02 Capacity (Max.) Power 347 Metabolic (Incl. cabin loss) 216 Others (food, LiOll, etc.) 174 Total Expendables (Max.) 825 System Man 3,810 FIGURE 12 - TYPICAL "PARAMETRIC DATA SHEET FOR A 3-MAN - 21 DAY MOLAB
W 0 ._J 11_ °° .° J f 0 ,/iif I-- d d i ..I ¢J // CO ..I ,/ I-- I q_,_ r_" 2_ Id. -_ I _ o 0 _ 0 _ o - ._ _o ee_
I _CARGO FLOOR LH 2 LUNAR SURFACE AT TOUCH H2RL-10 ENGINE FIGURE 14 - TYPICAL TWO STAGE CRYOGENIC LUNAR LOGISTICS VEHICLE
BELLCOMM, INC.Subject: Manned Lunar Program Options - .From: C. Bendersky Mission Equipment - Case 230 D. R. Valley Distribution ListNASA Headquarters Bellcomm, Inc.Messrs. D. A. Beattie/MTL Messrs. F. G. Allen J. R. Burke/MTV G. M. Anderson P. E. Culbertson/MLA A. P. Boysen, Jr. J. H. Disher/MLD C. J. Byrne F. P. Dixon/MTY C. L. Davis P. Grosz/MTL J. P. Downs E. W. HalI/MTS D. R. Hagner R. W. Johnson/MTL P. L. Havenstein T. A. Keegan/MA-2 W. C. Hittinger D. R. Lord/MTD B. T. Howard M. J. Raffensperger/MTE D. B. James L. Relffel/MA-6 K. E. Martersteck W. H. Rock/MLR R. K. McFarland A. D. Schnyer/MTV J. Z. Menard G. S. Trimble, Jr./MT I. D. Nehama J. H. Turnock/MA-4 J G. T. 0rrok M. G. Waugh/MTP I. M. Ross R. L. SeldenAmes Research Center R. V. Sperry J. M. TschirgiMr. L. Roberts/202-5 (2) R. L. Wagner J. E. WaldoMarshall Space Flight Center All Members Division lO1 Department 1023Mr. G. R. Woodcock/R-AS-VL Central File LibraryManned Spacecraft CenterMr. W. E. Stoney, Jr./ET