Designs and 3D Modeling

Rescue Space Craft
3D Work-in-progress model by Jon Varner

Nov 28, 2009
After a long hiatus, we resume Maelstrom II production, with an inspiring reworking of the rescue space craft design and 3D model, with assistance from Jon Varner.

ClarkeM2RescueShipLessMass.8Aug2K7.jpg

Thumbnail by Stanley VonMedvey, stripping away parts of the outer hull in an attempt to address the mass problem. 8 Aug 2007.
RescueSpaceCraft/Pod_1.jpg
RescueSpaceCraft/Pod_2.jpg
RescueSpaceCraft/Pod_3.jpg
Maya 3D Model work in progress by Jon Varner. 5 Aug 2K7
Concept Artwork
RescueCraft.SanVonMedvey.7Feb2K7.jpg
Design by Stan VonMedvey 7 Feb 2K7
Take 3
RescueSpaceCraft/RescueCraft.Thumbs.SanVonMedvey.7Feb2K7.jpg
A collection of thumb nail sketches of the more "organic" experiments.
RescueCraft.SVonMedvey6Jan2K7.jpg
Rescue Craft Design Take 2.
http://www.distant-galaxy.com/maelstrom2/ClarkeM2RescueShipWIP_StanVonMedveyJan18.jpg
Rescue Craft Design Take 1. 18 Jan 2K7
Click on above image to go to hires version.

Feedback from Maelstrom II Consultants
Aug 7, 2007
From: RogerArno@comcast.net

First, let me say I like it, it should make a good looking movie.
I think that the tradeoffs between a utilitiarian and aesthetic rescue craft have been debated and are understood so I won't push the issue.
A few other comments:
1.  It appears that there is an overabundance of thrusters relative to the amount of fuel for liftoff and landing that would need to be accommodated.  You might want to verify with Ken Galal, but as I recall for most fuels, landing on the lunar surface from lunar orbit yields a useful payload of about half the original mass.   That is, fuel, structure, tanks, pumps, engines, etc., make up half the mass.   The situation gets worse if you also need fuel for lifting off the lunar surface.  Bottom line, I would have fewer thrusters and more room for fuel.  The hatch just makes it look like most of the volume is for crew.
2.  The larger arms look for like grapplers rather than landing legs.   I'm not sure how this vehicle will land, but if it is intended to land almost anywhere on the lunar surface, the legs would probably be beefier and the landing pads larger.
3.  If there are to be grapplers, then I suspect they might be closer to the door (hatch), espeically if there if air-tight  docking with the ailing spacecraft is possible.  Some other coupling device at the hatch would be an alternative.
4.  If any crew transfer in space is to be through undocked hatches, you will need some handles or other crew attachment devices.
5.  The craft looks short on windows, although you could argue that the vehicle is covered with radar and video cameras.

Can't wait for the movie.
Roger
Aug 7, 2007 1:26 PM
If new manufacturing techniques are available, then their antecedents will have advanced your timetable.  It's much easier to build a lunar base than to invent technology capable of growing spacecraft parts; my reservation stands.
Randall Clague
Government Liaison
XCOR Aerospace
rclague@xcor.com

Aug 4, 2007 10:31 AM

Randall,

thank you very much for your feedback.
Based on your feedback, we are going to do one more iteration of design. (Waiting on scan of Stanley's latest sketch).
We have decided to use Take 3 of the designs, keep the profile, but cut away most of the outer hull. Which will reveal most of the internal machinery.
i.e. a fine balancing act between utility (minimum mass) and aesthetics (flowing lines).
We are also predicting that new manufacturing techniques will be available in this future time period (~2075).
e.g. nanotech that will allow you to "grow" space craft parts such as support structures and hull components.
I recall your reservation of reference to nanotech is it can be too close to magic, and a "fix all".
However, recent advances in nanotech-based manufacturing techniques leads me to believe that this kind of manufacture will be available by the above time period.

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/725/2

Much thanks
-jeroen
Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Spacecraft Design - Starting Model  

Jul 31, 2007 4:29 PM

If they designed it for a commercial lunar operation, it would still be ugly - the surface of the moon is the most expensive place this side of Mercury to soft land on (Mars and Venus have atmospheres available for aerobraking, and asteroids have no gravity wells to
speak of).  Every pound spent on aesthetics will cost something like
$50,000.  When two pounds of wasted mass buys one of their cars, even
Ferrari will be mass-conscious.

Some thoughts on the blog entries: LOX and methane are both storable
indefinitely on the moon with good insulation and very modest
refrigeration.  LOX/methane offers the best performance after
LOX/hydrogen, and it's non-toxic.  XCOR just wrapped up a LOX/methane
engine development program, and we had no accidents or
incidents.  Given their storability, I think they'll be preferred
over solids because of their performance.

Tanks don't need to be spherical, because the engines can be pump
fed.  They may want to be spherical anyway, because spheres are easy
to make (a part made on the moon of lunar materials doesn't pay that
horrendous per pound cost).

Of course, it *could* still be sleek...if NASA Ames wanted to pay for
the extra mass...  ;-)

-R


Randall Clague
Government Liaison
XCOR Aerospace
rclague@xcor.com
661-824-4714
Design History Thread

Maelstrom II Rescue Spacecraft Design - Starting Model
Jul 31, 2007 11:20 AM
Dear Maelstrom II consultants and friends,

Jon Varner has volunteered to start building the take 3 version at the top of the page.

I am trying to find that balance between a utilitarian and aesthetically pleasing design.

Our goal is to inspire the next generation of real world spacecraft designers to push the boundaries.

As discussed with NASA Ames Jay Trimble, imagine if it were designed by a private design company.
e.g. what would a spacecraft look like if the design team at Apple designed it, or Ferrari?

Please let us know what you think, as we can make modifications (within reason) as we go.

Cheers
-jeroen





Design History Thread

Forwarded Conversation
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design]
------------------------

From: Jeroen Lapre' <jeroen@ilm.com>
Date: Fri, Nov 4, 2005 at 6:07 PM
Attachments: ExcaliburMainLogo.jpg, LunarVehiclejpg.jpg, AscentSys.jpg

Hi Michael,

here is my research with my friends at NASA on the rescue craft design
for our inde project.
Let me know what you think!

thanks!
-Jeroen




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: RogerARno@comcast.net
To: "Jeroen Lapre'" <jeroen@ilm.com>, Lisa Chu-Thielbar <Lisa.Chu-Thielbar@nasa.gov>, Roger Arno <RogerArno@comcast.net>, Ken Galal <kgalal@mail.arc.nasa.gov>, Susmita Mohanty <susmita.mohanty@moonfront.com>, Jay Trimble <jtrimble@arc.nasa.gov>, Michael H Sims <Michael.H.Sims@nasa.gov>, Joel Hagen <jhagen@ainet.com>, Paul Van Susante <paulvans@mines.edu>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:55:38 +0000
Subject: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
Jeroen,

I like the Excalibur logo.  It should look great in the movie.

About the rescue vehicle:
Under some conditions the electromagnetic rail might provide a rescue capability.  However, since the rail itself appears to be faulty, it would not be a good backup.  Furthermore, the alignment of the rail and the orbit of the astronaut would shift with time as the moon rotatates.  So additional propulsion capability would be required.

Any reasonable base design would, I think, use an independent (rocket) launch capability for a variety of purposes, both emergency and non-emergency.  Such devices could be small, like  the Apollo lander ascent module, for placing small payloads to lunar orbit.  Larger vehicles could place systems on another part of the moon, or send larger payloads directly to Earth or other destinations (e.g., an asteroid or Mars, etc.).

I envision a first stage propulsion section to get into lunar orbit  (or beyond), topped by a payload module that would also have propulsion for orbit adjustments and/or retro firing rockets for rendezvous, Earth entry, etc.   This kind of vehicle would probably be used to link up with a lunar or Earth stations, especially at times when the rail is not ready or not optimally oriented.

As with the Apollo system, because of the lack of lunar atmosphere, the first stage rocket and payload need not be aerodynamic -- except the landing component, when Earth entry is  involved.  So, a cluster of tanks, nozzle(s), batteries, computer, communications systems, etc., held together by sufficient  structure, would do.  Antenna, docking adapters, etc., could protrude, as long as they were strong enough to take the g-loads of of the rocket firings.  Ideally, the first stage would return to base for reuse.  The upper payload elements would hopefully be reusable also.

Just a reminder (unnecessary I'm sure):  The rescue vehicle needs to match the altitude, speed, and direction of the astronaut's orbit in order to carry out the rescue.  Hence it needs the propusion to do that.  The vehicle must then be able to leave that orbit and either dock with a lunar station or land back on the surface (also requiring propulsion, landing legs, or docking capability.  It is not impossible, but a rare senario, in which the rescue craft would go on the Earth.

A real consideration, though maybe not that important to the movie, is that a quick reaction rescue vehicle (or any emergency vehicle) would most certainly use storable fuels.  Solid rockets might be used on the first stage, although they don't allow much decision making on total thrust and velocity.  There are liquid fuels and oxidizers that are not solid or cryogenic.  Cryogenics pose another problem.  Non-cryogenics are not as efficient, but fortunately we are dealing with far less gravity here.  (Liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen are cryogenic and would be impractical to store on the vehicle.)  The second stage, or payload section, would  definitely not uses solids, scince control of the burn is necessary to make velocity (speed and direction) adjustments.

I guess the bottom line here is don't use anything that looks like a solid rocket on the rescue vehicle upper or lower sections.   Use tanks (e.g., spheres).  You don't need to explain the fuel isn't cryogenic.

If this doesn't make sense, let me know.

Ken Galal can probably give you an idea of the timing of the launch and the total time involved in performing the rescue maneuver.

Roger


> Dear Maelstrom II Consultants,
>
> I am very pleased to inform you that aerospace company ManSat/Excalibur
> has given me permission to use their Excalibur logo on the rescue craft
> in Maelstrom II!
>
> http://www.mansat.com/
>
> Now I need to design and build the Maelstrom II rescue craft!
>
> Roger, I seem to recall from our previous discussions that the rescue
> craft would be one of the VTOL craft that you proposed:
> http://home.comcast.net/~jeroen-lapre/ArthurCClarke/MaelstromII/PolarBase.html
> http://home.comcast.net/~jeroen-lapre/ArthurCClarke/MaelstromII/BaseLayout675.jp
> g
>
> i.e. the craft you labelled cargo carrier.
>
> Would the rescue craft most likely be a cargo carrier, a VTOL
> Lunar-L1passenger craft, or something else?
>
> Cheers
> -Jeroen
>
>




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Jeroen Lapre'" < jeroen@ilm.com>
To: Lisa Chu-Thielbar <Lisa.Chu-Thielbar@nasa.gov>, Roger Arno <RogerArno@comcast.net>, Ken Galal <kgalal@mail.arc.nasa.gov>, Susmita Mohanty <susmita.mohanty@moonfront.com>, Jay Trimble <jtrimble@arc.nasa.gov>, Michael H Sims <Michael.H.Sims@nasa.gov>, Joel Hagen <jhagen@ainet.com>, Paul Van Susante <paulvans@mines.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 21:26:58 +0000
Subject: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: RogerArno@comcast.net
To: "Jeroen Lapre'" <jeroen@ilm.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:03:26 +0000
Subject: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
Jeroen,

Yes, in prinicple, the figures you found on the web (two attached) is what I was trying to describe.  There are a number of differences possible with the Leyland rescue vehicle.

First, note the wide stance legs, indicating that the entire vehicle has been landed on the lunar surface, and not assembled there.  Such a configuration would be appropriate if the rescue vehicle  were to return to the suface.  Note, too, that you would  still have to get from the lander to the base somehow (perhaps a pressurized rover).  Depending upon the size of the fuel and oxidizer tanks that there could be enough propellant to land the whole system and take off again, although the pictures indicate that this an Apollo-style system, and the bottom portion stays on the ground.

The part that takes off (last of the four web pictures0 shows that, Like  Apollo, only the top portion of the craft leaves the surface.  The larger tanks (of the lifted portion) provide the energy to get to orbit or perform lunar escape.   A second  set of tanks  and thrusters are in the cyliner under the Apollo capsue.  They provide the lunar orbit rendezvous energy and/or the Earth entry retro capability.  Again, if the craft is to return to the lunar surface, larger tanks, more  tanks, and legs would  be required.

The Apollo-like capsue on the top indicates that the payload capsule is intended for a direct Earth entry, not a lunar orbit rendezvous.  We, of course don't need this.  So, the topmost portion would  be more of a sphere, box, or cylinder with a port, airlock, or hatch of some sort -- not only to perform the rescue, but dock at a station, etc.

The time required to accomplish the rescue depends on several things.  Under normal conditions, the rocket engines  and tanks are  sized to reach orbit with smooth arcs and minimum energy -- in about the time of one lunar orbit.  With larger rocket systems, you could power yourself to orbit, and then apply  retro  rockets to match speed and direction of Leyland's  orbit is a shorter time.  If we assumed that the rescue vehicle was designed for heavier payloads, the propulsion capability would probably be there.  My orbit mechanics  are pretty rusty, so Ken is the one to verify the time requirements.  I think five hours is well within the  realm of possibility, but remember there will be some prep time before liftoff.

Roger






---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ken Galal <Ken.Galal@nasa.gov>
To: "Jeroen Lapre'" < jeroen@ilm.com>, RogerArno@comcast.net
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:03:10 -0700
Subject: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
Hi Jeroen,

Sorry, I've been out of town the last couple of weeks and have been digging
though my email.

It's been a while since I've looked at the screen play, so I need to go
back and refresh my mind as to what the exact sequence was that you were
looking at.  Based on the work I did a while back on Earth-Moon L1 orbits,
I found that the cheapest transfers (in terms of energy for launching at
the moon and capturing into an L1 orbit) took about 10 days to get from the
moon to the L1 location ... which might make sense for a tug, but not so
much for human cargo.  In any case, even if you send something from L1 in a
less efficient trajectory, I'm pretty sure launching from the moon to
intercept the freight capsule would be faster.  Let me think about it over
the weekend.

Ken G.



At 10:52 AM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
>Roger,
>
>Wonderful! Thanks for pointing out the differences between a
>return-to-Earth and a return-to-L1 craft shape-design.
>
>Dear Ken,
>
>I know you are most probably busy, but any feedback regarding the orbital
>mechanicals of the rescue would be much appreciated!
>
>Cheers :-)
>-Jeroen
>
>RogerArno@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>Jeroen,
>>
>>Yes, in prinicple, the figures you found on the web (two attached) is
>>what I was trying to describe.  There are a number of differences
>>possible with the Leyland rescue vehicle.
>>
>>First, note the wide stance legs, indicating that the entire vehicle has
>>been landed on the lunar surface, and not assembled there.  Such a
>>configuration would be appropriate if the rescue vehicle  were to return
>>to the suface.  Note, too, that you would  still have to get from the
>>lander to the base somehow (perhaps a pressurized rover).  Depending upon
>>the size of the fuel and oxidizer tanks that there could be enough
>>propellant to land the whole system and take off again, although the
>>pictures indicate that this an Apollo-style system, and the bottom
>>portion stays on the ground.
>>
>>The part that takes off (last of the four web pictures0 shows that,
>>Like  Apollo, only the top portion of the craft leaves the surface.  The
>>larger tanks (of the lifted portion) provide the energy to get to orbit
>>or perform lunar escape.   A second  set of tanks  and thrusters are in
>>the cyliner under the Apollo capsue.  They provide the lunar orbit
>>rendezvous energy and/or the Earth entry retro capability.  Again, if the
>>craft is to return to the lunar surface, larger tanks, more  tanks, and
>>legs would  be required.
>>
>>The Apollo-like capsue on the top indicates that the payload capsule is
>>intended for a direct Earth entry, not a lunar orbit rendezvous.  We, of
>>course don't need this.  So, the topmost portion would  be more of a
>>sphere, box, or cylinder with a port, airlock, or hatch of some sort --
>>not only to perform the rescue, but dock at a station, etc.
>>
>>The time required to accomplish the rescue depends on several
>>things.  Under normal conditions, the rocket engines  and tanks
>>are  sized to reach orbit with smooth arcs and minimum energy -- in about
>>the time of one lunar orbit.  With larger rocket systems, you could power
>>yourself to orbit, and then apply  retro  rockets to match speed and
>>direction of Leyland's  orbit is a shorter time.  If we assumed that the
>>rescue vehicle was designed for heavier payloads, the propulsion
>>capability would probably be there.  My orbit mechanics  are pretty
>>rusty, so Ken is the one to verify the time requirements.  I think five
>>hours is well within the  realm of possibility, but remember there will
>>be some prep time before liftoff.
>>
>>Roger
>>
>>
>
>





---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ken Galal < Ken.Galal@nasa.gov>
To: "Jeroen Lapre'" <jeroen@ilm.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:53:32 -0700
Subject: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
Hi Jeroen,

Yes, it depends on the trajectory you take to get from the moon to L1.  The
distance is about 58,000 km, but you wouldn't necessarily want to go
directly to L1 since when you got there you would need to slow yourself
down and speed up in a different direction to stay about the L1 point.  The
most efficient way would be an indirect route to that would take you out to
the edge of the gravitational sphere of influence of the moon, and let the
Earth/lunar gravity pull you toward the L1 point in the direction you want
to be going for a stable orbit.  It all depends on how much propellant is
available to use.

In any case, since the 5 hr period orbit we are talking about goes out to a
max distance of 5115 km from the moon, it should be faster to initiate a
rescue from the moon, rather than from an L1 station.

If we are assuming a south pole launch of a rescue vehicle, I would think
the best way to intercept is to wait until Cliff has passed by (to make
sure he has safely cleared the mountain first and that a rescue is indeed
necessary!) then launching the rescue vehicle along Cliff's orbit
plane.  Since in the 5 hrs it takes Cliff to come around, the moon has
rotated about 2.75 deg, one possibility is to use the catapult to launch
the rescue craft, in which case you could either rotate the entire catapult
2.75 deg or launch from the original orientation (into Cliff's 5-hr orbit)
and perform a ~100 m/s maneuver to adjust the plane and intercept Cliff at
some point down range.  Alternatively, you could also perform a
conventional launch of a rocket directly into the correct plane.

The screen play calls for a rendezvous 55 minutes after Cliff passes the
base, which seems a little ambitious, but not impossible.

Ken G.

p.s.  looking at the screen play over the weekend, I found some minor
wording changes that you may want to consider making.  I'll try to get
those to you in the next couple of days.


At 02:21 PM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
>Hi Ken,
>
>so are you saying that even though a successful electromagnetic rail
>launch at 2 to 3 km per second, it would still take 10 days to get to L1?
>I assume you mean it depends on the shape of the orbit.
>
>So as you say, it sounds like a launch from the moon would be a faster
>rescue strategy.
>
>I look forward to hearing more from you next week!
>
>Much thanks :-)
>
>-Jeroen
>
>Ken Galal wrote:
>
>>Hi Jeroen,
>>
>>Sorry, I've been out of town the last couple of weeks and have been
>>digging though my email.
>>
>>It's been a while since I've looked at the screen play, so I need to go
>>back and refresh my mind as to what the exact sequence was that you were
>>looking at.  Based on the work I did a while back on Earth-Moon L1
>>orbits, I found that the cheapest transfers (in terms of energy for
>>launching at the moon and capturing into an L1 orbit) took about 10 days
>>to get from the moon to the L1 location ... which might make sense for a
>>tug, but not so much for human cargo.  In any case, even if you send
>>something from L1 in a less efficient trajectory, I'm pretty sure
>>launching from the moon to intercept the freight capsule would be
>>faster.  Let me think about it over the weekend.
>>
>>Ken G.
>>
>>
>>
>>At 10:52 AM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
>>
>>>Roger,
>>>
>>>Wonderful! Thanks for pointing out the differences between a
>>>return-to-Earth and a return-to-L1 craft shape-design.
>>>
>>>Dear Ken,
>>>
>>>I know you are most probably busy, but any feedback regarding the
>>>orbital mechanicals of the rescue would be much appreciated!
>>>
>>>Cheers :-)
>>>-Jeroen
>>>
>>>RogerArno@comcast.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jeroen,
>>>>
>>>>Yes, in prinicple, the figures you found on the web (two attached) is
>>>>what I was trying to describe.  There are a number of differences
>>>>possible with the Leyland rescue vehicle.
>>>>
>>>>First, note the wide stance legs, indicating that the entire vehicle
>>>>has been landed on the lunar surface, and not assembled there.  Such a
>>>>configuration would be appropriate if the rescue vehicle  were to
>>>>return to the suface.  Note, too, that you would  still have to get
>>>>from the lander to the base somehow (perhaps a pressurized rover).
>>>>Depending upon the size of the fuel and oxidizer tanks that there could
>>>>be enough propellant to land the whole system and take off again,
>>>>although the pictures indicate that this an Apollo-style system, and
>>>>the bottom portion stays on the ground.
>>>>
>>>>The part that takes off (last of the four web pictures0 shows that,
>>>>Like  Apollo, only the top portion of the craft leaves the surface.
>>>>The larger tanks (of the lifted portion) provide the energy to get to
>>>>orbit or perform lunar escape.   A second  set of tanks  and thrusters
>>>>are in the cyliner under the Apollo capsue.  They provide the lunar
>>>>orbit rendezvous energy and/or the Earth entry retro
>>>>capability.  Again, if the craft is to return to the lunar surface,
>>>>larger tanks, more  tanks, and legs would  be required.
>>>>
>>>>The Apollo-like capsue on the top indicates that the payload capsule is
>>>>intended for a direct Earth entry, not a lunar orbit rendezvous.
>>>>We, of course don't need this.  So, the topmost portion would  be more
>>>>of a sphere, box, or cylinder with a port, airlock, or hatch of some
>>>>sort -- not only to perform the rescue, but dock at a station, etc.
>>>>
>>>>The time required to accomplish the rescue depends on several
>>>>things.  Under normal conditions, the rocket engines  and tanks are
>>>>sized to reach orbit with smooth arcs and minimum energy -- in about
>>>>the time of one lunar orbit.  With larger rocket systems, you could
>>>>power yourself to orbit, and then apply  retro  rockets to match speed
>>>>and direction of Leyland's  orbit is a shorter time.  If we assumed
>>>>that the rescue vehicle was designed for heavier payloads, the
>>>>propulsion capability would probably be there.  My orbit mechanics  are
>>>>pretty rusty, so Ken is the one to verify the time requirements.  I
>>>>think five hours is well within the  realm of possibility, but remember
>>>>there will be some prep time before liftoff.
>>>>
>>>>Roger
>>>>
>>>
>>
>





---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: RogerArno@comcast.net
To: Ken Galal <Ken.Galal@nasa.gov>, "Jeroen Lapre'" < jeroen@ilm.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:39:05 +0000
Subject: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
Ken,

Would you hazard a guess at the size of the tanks (storable propellants) for a 55 minute rendezvous with Cliff Leyland, assuming a conventional rocket launch from the lunar surface?

Roger


> Hi Jeroen,
>
> Yes, it depends on the trajectory you take to get from the moon to L1.  The
> distance is about 58,000 km, but you wouldn't necessarily want to go
> directly to L1 since when you got there you would need to slow yourself
> down and speed up in a different direction to stay about the L1 point.  The
> most efficient way would be an indirect route to that would take you out to
> the edge of the gravitational sphere of influence of the moon, and let the
> Earth/lunar gravity pull you toward the L1 point in the direction you want
> to be going for a stable orbit.  It all depends on how much propellant is
> available to use.
>
> In any case, since the 5 hr period orbit we are talking about goes out to a
> max distance of 5115 km from the moon, it should be faster to initiate a
> rescue from the moon, rather than from an L1 station.
>
> If we are assuming a south pole launch of a rescue vehicle, I would think
> the best way to intercept is to wait until Cliff has passed by (to make
> sure he has safely cleared the mountain first and that a rescue is indeed
> necessary!) then launching the rescue vehicle along Cliff's orbit
> plane.  Since in the 5 hrs it takes Cliff to come around, the moon has
> rotated about 2.75 deg, one possibility is to use the catapult to launch
> the rescue craft, in which case you could either rotate the entire catapult
> 2.75 deg or launch from the original orientation (into Cliff's 5-hr orbit)
> and perform a ~100 m/s maneuver to adjust the plane and intercept Cliff at
> some point down range.  Alternatively, you could also perform a
> conventional launch of a rocket directly into the correct plane.
>
> The screen play calls for a rendezvous 55 minutes after Cliff passes the
> base, which seems a little ambitious, but not impossible.
>
> Ken G.
>
> p.s.  looking at the screen play over the weekend, I found some minor
> wording changes that you may want to consider making.  I'll try to get
> those to you in the next couple of days.
>
>
> At 02:21 PM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
> >Hi Ken,
> >
> >so are you saying that even though a successful electromagnetic rail
> >launch at 2 to 3 km per second, it would still take 10 days to get to L1?
> >I assume you mean it depends on the shape of the orbit.
> >
> >So as you say, it sounds like a launch from the moon would be a faster
> >rescue strategy.
> >
> >I look forward to hearing more from you next week!
> >
> >Much thanks :-)
> >
> >-Jeroen
> >
> >Ken Galal wrote:
> >
> >>Hi Jeroen,
> >>
> >>Sorry, I've been out of town the last couple of weeks and have been
> >>digging though my email.
> >>
> >>It's been a while since I've looked at the screen play, so I need to go
> >>back and refresh my mind as to what the exact sequence was that you were
> >>looking at.  Based on the work I did a while back on Earth-Moon L1
> >>orbits, I found that the cheapest transfers (in terms of energy for
> >>launching at the moon and capturing into an L1 orbit) took about 10 days
> >>to get from the moon to the L1 location ... which might make sense for a
> >>tug, but not so much for human cargo.  In any case, even if you send
> >>something from L1 in a less efficient trajectory, I'm pretty sure
> >>launching from the moon to intercept the freight capsule would be
> >>faster.  Let me think about it over the weekend.
> >>
> >>Ken G.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>At 10:52 AM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
> >>
> >>>Roger,
> >>>
> >>>Wonderful! Thanks for pointing out the differences between a
> >>>return-to-Earth and a return-to-L1 craft shape-design.
> >>>
> >>>Dear Ken,
> >>>
> >>>I know you are most probably busy, but any feedback regarding the
> >>>orbital mechanicals of the rescue would be much appreciated!
> >>>
> >>>Cheers :-)
> >>>-Jeroen
> >>>
> >>>RogerArno@comcast.net wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Jeroen,
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes, in prinicple, the figures you found on the web (two attached) is
> >>>>what I was trying to describe.  There are a number of differences
> >>>>possible with the Leyland rescue vehicle.
> >>>>
> >>>>First, note the wide stance legs, indicating that the entire vehicle
> >>>>has been landed on the lunar surface, and not assembled there.  Such a
> >>>>configuration would be appropriate if the rescue vehicle  were to
> >>>>return to the suface.  Note, too, that you would  still have to get
> >>>>from the lander to the base somehow (perhaps a pressurized rover).
> >>>>Depending upon the size of the fuel and oxidizer tanks that there could
> >>>>be enough propellant to land the whole system and take off again,
> >>>>although the pictures indicate that this an Apollo-style system, and
> >>>>the bottom portion stays on the ground.
> >>>>
> >>>>The part that takes off (last of the four web pictures0 shows that,
> >>>>Like  Apollo, only the top portion of the craft leaves the surface.
> >>>>The larger tanks (of the lifted portion) provide the energy to get to
> >>>>orbit or perform lunar escape.   A second  set of tanks  and thrusters
> >>>>are in the cyliner under the Apollo capsue.  They provide the lunar
> >>>>orbit rendezvous energy and/or the Earth entry retro
> >>>>capability.  Again, if the craft is to return to the lunar surface,
> >>>>larger tanks, more  tanks, and legs would  be required.
> >>>>
> >>>>The Apollo-like capsue on the top indicates that the payload capsule is
> >>>>intended for a direct Earth entry, not a lunar orbit rendezvous.
> >>>>We, of course don't need this.  So, the topmost portion would  be more
> >>>>of a sphere, box, or cylinder with a port, airlock, or hatch of some
> >>>>sort -- not only to perform the rescue, but dock at a station, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>>The time required to accomplish the rescue depends on several
> >>>>things.  Under normal conditions, the rocket engines  and tanks are
> >>>>sized to reach orbit with smooth arcs and minimum energy -- in about
> >>>>the time of one lunar orbit.  With larger rocket systems, you could
> >>>>power yourself to orbit, and then apply  retro  rockets to match speed
> >>>>and direction of Leyland's  orbit is a shorter time.  If we assumed
> >>>>that the rescue vehicle was designed for heavier payloads, the
> >>>>propulsion capability would probably be there.  My orbit mechanics  are
> >>>>pretty rusty, so Ken is the one to verify the time requirements.  I
> >>>>think five hours is well within the  realm of possibility, but remember
> >>>>there will be some prep time before liftoff.
> >>>>
> >>>>Roger
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ken Galal < Ken.Galal@nasa.gov>
To: RogerArno@comcast.net, "Jeroen Lapre'" <jeroen@ilm.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 08:52:47 -0700
Subject: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
Roger,

I would guess they would need to be somewhat larger than the Apollo Lunar
Lander tanks.  The Lunar Lander had to land on the moon and part of it had
to take off and reach low lunar orbit (total DV of about 3.4 km/s, not
including reserves and gravity losses).  Cliff's rescue vehicle also has to
take off, land, reach/insert/return from the L1 station orbit (total DV of
perhaps about 5.4 km/s not including reserves and gravity losses).  Also,
since Cliff's rescue vehicle is probably a little more substantial than the
Apollo Lander, I would start with at least double the size of the Apollo
Lander tanks.

Ken G.


At 10:39 PM 8/8/05 +0000, RogerArno@comcast.net wrote:
>Ken,
>
>Would you hazard a guess at the size of the tanks (storable propellants)
>for a 55 minute rendezvous with Cliff Leyland, assuming a conventional
>rocket launch from the lunar surface?
>
>Roger
>
>
> > Hi Jeroen,
> >
> > Yes, it depends on the trajectory you take to get from the moon to
> L1.  The
> > distance is about 58,000 km, but you wouldn't necessarily want to go
> > directly to L1 since when you got there you would need to slow yourself
> > down and speed up in a different direction to stay about the L1
> point.  The
> > most efficient way would be an indirect route to that would take you
> out to
> > the edge of the gravitational sphere of influence of the moon, and let the
> > Earth/lunar gravity pull you toward the L1 point in the direction you want
> > to be going for a stable orbit.  It all depends on how much propellant is
> > available to use.
> >
> > In any case, since the 5 hr period orbit we are talking about goes out
> to a
> > max distance of 5115 km from the moon, it should be faster to initiate a
> > rescue from the moon, rather than from an L1 station.
> >
> > If we are assuming a south pole launch of a rescue vehicle, I would think
> > the best way to intercept is to wait until Cliff has passed by (to make
> > sure he has safely cleared the mountain first and that a rescue is indeed
> > necessary!) then launching the rescue vehicle along Cliff's orbit
> > plane.  Since in the 5 hrs it takes Cliff to come around, the moon has
> > rotated about 2.75 deg, one possibility is to use the catapult to launch
> > the rescue craft, in which case you could either rotate the entire
> catapult
> > 2.75 deg or launch from the original orientation (into Cliff's 5-hr orbit)
> > and perform a ~100 m/s maneuver to adjust the plane and intercept Cliff at
> > some point down range.  Alternatively, you could also perform a
> > conventional launch of a rocket directly into the correct plane.
> >
> > The screen play calls for a rendezvous 55 minutes after Cliff passes the
> > base, which seems a little ambitious, but not impossible.
> >
> > Ken G.
> >
> > p.s.  looking at the screen play over the weekend, I found some minor
> > wording changes that you may want to consider making.  I'll try to get
> > those to you in the next couple of days.
> >
> >
> > At 02:21 PM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
> > >Hi Ken,
> > >
> > >so are you saying that even though a successful electromagnetic rail
> > >launch at 2 to 3 km per second, it would still take 10 days to get to L1?
> > >I assume you mean it depends on the shape of the orbit.
> > >
> > >So as you say, it sounds like a launch from the moon would be a faster
> > >rescue strategy.
> > >
> > >I look forward to hearing more from you next week!
> > >
> > >Much thanks :-)
> > >
> > >-Jeroen
> > >
> > >Ken Galal wrote:
> > >
> > >>Hi Jeroen,
> > >>
> > >>Sorry, I've been out of town the last couple of weeks and have been
> > >>digging though my email.
> > >>
> > >>It's been a while since I've looked at the screen play, so I need to go
> > >>back and refresh my mind as to what the exact sequence was that you were
> > >>looking at.  Based on the work I did a while back on Earth-Moon L1
> > >>orbits, I found that the cheapest transfers (in terms of energy for
> > >>launching at the moon and capturing into an L1 orbit) took about 10 days
> > >>to get from the moon to the L1 location ... which might make sense for a
> > >>tug, but not so much for human cargo.  In any case, even if you send
> > >>something from L1 in a less efficient trajectory, I'm pretty sure
> > >>launching from the moon to intercept the freight capsule would be
> > >>faster.  Let me think about it over the weekend.
> > >>
> > >>Ken G.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>At 10:52 AM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Roger,
> > >>>
> > >>>Wonderful! Thanks for pointing out the differences between a
> > >>>return-to-Earth and a return-to-L1 craft shape-design.
> > >>>
> > >>>Dear Ken,
> > >>>
> > >>>I know you are most probably busy, but any feedback regarding the
> > >>>orbital mechanicals of the rescue would be much appreciated!
> > >>>
> > >>>Cheers :-)
> > >>>-Jeroen
> > >>>
> > >>> RogerArno@comcast.net wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>Jeroen,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Yes, in prinicple, the figures you found on the web (two attached) is
> > >>>>what I was trying to describe.  There are a number of differences
> > >>>>possible with the Leyland rescue vehicle.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>First, note the wide stance legs, indicating that the entire vehicle
> > >>>>has been landed on the lunar surface, and not assembled there.  Such a
> > >>>>configuration would be appropriate if the rescue vehicle  were to
> > >>>>return to the suface.  Note, too, that you would  still have to get
> > >>>>from the lander to the base somehow (perhaps a pressurized rover).
> > >>>>Depending upon the size of the fuel and oxidizer tanks that there
> could
> > >>>>be enough propellant to land the whole system and take off again,
> > >>>>although the pictures indicate that this an Apollo-style system, and
> > >>>>the bottom portion stays on the ground.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>The part that takes off (last of the four web pictures0 shows that,
> > >>>>Like  Apollo, only the top portion of the craft leaves the surface.
> > >>>>The larger tanks (of the lifted portion) provide the energy to get to
> > >>>>orbit or perform lunar escape.   A second  set of tanks  and thrusters
> > >>>>are in the cyliner under the Apollo capsue.  They provide the lunar
> > >>>>orbit rendezvous energy and/or the Earth entry retro
> > >>>>capability.  Again, if the craft is to return to the lunar surface,
> > >>>>larger tanks, more  tanks, and legs would  be required.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>The Apollo-like capsue on the top indicates that the payload
> capsule is
> > >>>>intended for a direct Earth entry, not a lunar orbit rendezvous.
> > >>>>We, of course don't need this.  So, the topmost portion would  be more
> > >>>>of a sphere, box, or cylinder with a port, airlock, or hatch of some
> > >>>>sort -- not only to perform the rescue, but dock at a station, etc.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>The time required to accomplish the rescue depends on several
> > >>>>things.  Under normal conditions, the rocket engines  and tanks are
> > >>>>sized to reach orbit with smooth arcs and minimum energy -- in about
> > >>>>the time of one lunar orbit.  With larger rocket systems, you could
> > >>>>power yourself to orbit, and then apply  retro  rockets to match speed
> > >>>>and direction of Leyland's  orbit is a shorter time.  If we assumed
> > >>>>that the rescue vehicle was designed for heavier payloads, the
> > >>>>propulsion capability would probably be there.  My orbit
> mechanics  are
> > >>>>pretty rusty, so Ken is the one to verify the time requirements.  I
> > >>>>think five hours is well within the  realm of possibility, but
> remember
> > >>>>there will be some prep time before liftoff.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Roger
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >





--------
From: Jeroen Lapre' <jeroen.lapre@gmail.com >
Date: Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 2:38 PM
Attachments: ExcaliburMainLogo.jpg, LunarVehiclejpg.jpg, AscentSys.jpg

Hi Jay,

here is my research on the rescue space craft for Maelstrom II.
Please refer to attached images from NASA "lander on steroids".
Any feedback and/or input would be gratefully appreciated!
As you said, form can be functional and aesthetically pleasing at the same time!
Looking foward to your ideas.
cheers
-Jeroen
[Quoted text hidden]
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: RogerARno@comcast.net
To: "Jeroen Lapre'" <jeroen@ilm.com>, Lisa Chu-Thielbar <Lisa.Chu-Thielbar@nasa.gov>, Roger Arno <RogerArno@comcast.net>, Ken Galal <kgalal@mail.arc.nasa.gov>, Susmita Mohanty <susmita.mohanty@moonfront.com>, Jay Trimble <jtrimble@arc.nasa.gov>, Michael H Sims <Michael.H.Sims@nasa.gov>, Joel Hagen < jhagen@ainet.com>, Paul Van Susante <paulvans@mines.edu>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:55:38 +0000
Subject: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
Jeroen,

I like the Excalibur logo.  It should look great in the movie.

About the rescue vehicle:
Under some conditions the electromagnetic rail might provide a rescue capability.  However, since the rail itself appears to be faulty, it would not be a good backup.  Furthermore, the alignment of the rail and the orbit of the astronaut would shift with time as the moon rotatates.  So additional propulsion capability would be required.

Any reasonable base design would, I think, use an independent (rocket) launch capability for a variety of purposes, both emergency and non-emergency.  Such devices could be small, like  the Apollo lander ascent module, for placing small payloads to lunar orbit.  Larger vehicles could place systems on another part of the moon, or send larger payloads directly to Earth or other destinations (e.g., an asteroid or Mars, etc.).

I envision a first stage propulsion section to get into lunar orbit  (or beyond), topped by a payload module that would also have propulsion for orbit adjustments and/or retro firing rockets for rendezvous, Earth entry, etc.   This kind of vehicle would probably be used to link up with a lunar or Earth stations, especially at times when the rail is not ready or not optimally oriented.

As with the Apollo system, because of the lack of lunar atmosphere, the first stage rocket and payload need not be aerodynamic -- except the landing component, when Earth entry is  involved.  So, a cluster of tanks, nozzle(s), batteries, computer, communications systems, etc., held together by sufficient  structure, would do.  Antenna, docking adapters, etc., could protrude, as long as they were strong enough to take the g-loads of of the rocket firings.  Ideally, the first stage would return to base for reuse.  The upper payload elements would hopefully be reusable also.

Just a reminder (unnecessary I'm sure):  The rescue vehicle needs to match the altitude, speed, and direction of the astronaut's orbit in order to carry out the rescue.  Hence it needs the propusion to do that.  The vehicle must then be able to leave that orbit and either dock with a lunar station or land back on the surface (also requiring propulsion, landing legs, or docking capability.  It is not impossible, but a rare senario, in which the rescue craft would go on the Earth.

A real consideration, though maybe not that important to the movie, is that a quick reaction rescue vehicle (or any emergency vehicle) would most certainly use storable fuels.  Solid rockets might be used on the first stage, although they don't allow much decision making on total thrust and velocity.  There are liquid fuels and oxidizers that are not solid or cryogenic.  Cryogenics pose another problem.  Non-cryogenics are not as efficient, but fortunately we are dealing with far less gravity here.  (Liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen are cryogenic and would be impractical to store on the vehicle.)  The second stage, or payload section, would  definitely not uses solids, scince control of the burn is necessary to make velocity (speed and direction) adjustments.

I guess the bottom line here is don't use anything that looks like a solid rocket on the rescue vehicle upper or lower sections.   Use tanks (e.g., spheres).  You don't need to explain the fuel isn't cryogenic.

If this doesn't make sense, let me know.

Ken Galal can probably give you an idea of the timing of the launch and the total time involved in performing the rescue maneuver.

Roger


> Dear Maelstrom II Consultants,
>
> I am very pleased to inform you that aerospace company ManSat/Excalibur
> has given me permission to use their Excalibur logo on the rescue craft
> in Maelstrom II!
>
> http://www.mansat.com/
>
> Now I need to design and build the Maelstrom II rescue craft!
>
> Roger, I seem to recall from our previous discussions that the rescue
> craft would be one of the VTOL craft that you proposed:
> http://home.comcast.net/~jeroen-lapre/ArthurCClarke/MaelstromII/PolarBase.html
> http://home.comcast.net/~jeroen-lapre/ArthurCClarke/MaelstromII/BaseLayout675.jp
> g
>
> i.e. the craft you labelled cargo carrier.
>
> Would the rescue craft most likely be a cargo carrier, a VTOL
> Lunar-L1passenger craft, or something else?
>
> Cheers
> -Jeroen
>
>




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Jeroen Lapre'" <jeroen@ilm.com>
To: Lisa Chu-Thielbar <Lisa.Chu-Thielbar@nasa.gov>, Roger Arno <RogerArno@comcast.net>, Ken Galal <kgalal@mail.arc.nasa.gov>, Susmita Mohanty <susmita.mohanty@moonfront.com>, Jay Trimble <jtrimble@arc.nasa.gov>, Michael H Sims <Michael.H.Sims@nasa.gov>, Joel Hagen < jhagen@ainet.com>, Paul Van Susante <paulvans@mines.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 21:26:58 +0000
Subject: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: RogerArno@comcast.net
To: "Jeroen Lapre'" < jeroen@ilm.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:03:26 +0000
Subject: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
Jeroen,

Yes, in prinicple, the figures you found on the web (two attached) is what I was trying to describe.  There are a number of differences possible with the Leyland rescue vehicle.

First, note the wide stance legs, indicating that the entire vehicle has been landed on the lunar surface, and not assembled there.  Such a configuration would be appropriate if the rescue vehicle  were to return to the suface.  Note, too, that you would  still have to get from the lander to the base somehow (perhaps a pressurized rover).  Depending upon the size of the fuel and oxidizer tanks that there could be enough propellant to land the whole system and take off again, although the pictures indicate that this an Apollo-style system, and the bottom portion stays on the ground.

The part that takes off (last of the four web pictures0 shows that, Like  Apollo, only the top portion of the craft leaves the surface.  The larger tanks (of the lifted portion) provide the energy to get to orbit or perform lunar escape.   A second  set of tanks  and thrusters are in the cyliner under the Apollo capsue.  They provide the lunar orbit rendezvous energy and/or the Earth entry retro capability.  Again, if the craft is to return to the lunar surface, larger tanks, more  tanks, and legs would  be required.

The Apollo-like capsue on the top indicates that the payload capsule is intended for a direct Earth entry, not a lunar orbit rendezvous.  We, of course don't need this.  So, the topmost portion would  be more of a sphere, box, or cylinder with a port, airlock, or hatch of some sort -- not only to perform the rescue, but dock at a station, etc.

The time required to accomplish the rescue depends on several things.  Under normal conditions, the rocket engines  and tanks are  sized to reach orbit with smooth arcs and minimum energy -- in about the time of one lunar orbit.  With larger rocket systems, you could power yourself to orbit, and then apply  retro  rockets to match speed and direction of Leyland's  orbit is a shorter time.  If we assumed that the rescue vehicle was designed for heavier payloads, the propulsion capability would probably be there.  My orbit mechanics  are pretty rusty, so Ken is the one to verify the time requirements.  I think five hours is well within the  realm of possibility, but remember there will be some prep time before liftoff.

Roger






---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ken Galal < Ken.Galal@nasa.gov>
To: "Jeroen Lapre'" < jeroen@ilm.com>, RogerArno@comcast.net
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:03:10 -0700
Subject: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
Hi Jeroen,

Sorry, I've been out of town the last couple of weeks and have been digging
though my email.

It's been a while since I've looked at the screen play, so I need to go
back and refresh my mind as to what the exact sequence was that you were
looking at.  Based on the work I did a while back on Earth-Moon L1 orbits,
I found that the cheapest transfers (in terms of energy for launching at
the moon and capturing into an L1 orbit) took about 10 days to get from the
moon to the L1 location ... which might make sense for a tug, but not so
much for human cargo.  In any case, even if you send something from L1 in a
less efficient trajectory, I'm pretty sure launching from the moon to
intercept the freight capsule would be faster.  Let me think about it over
the weekend.

Ken G.



At 10:52 AM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
>Roger,
>
>Wonderful! Thanks for pointing out the differences between a
>return-to-Earth and a return-to-L1 craft shape-design.
>
>Dear Ken,
>
>I know you are most probably busy, but any feedback regarding the orbital
>mechanicals of the rescue would be much appreciated!
>
>Cheers :-)
>-Jeroen
>
>RogerArno@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>Jeroen,
>>
>>Yes, in prinicple, the figures you found on the web (two attached) is
>>what I was trying to describe.  There are a number of differences
>>possible with the Leyland rescue vehicle.
>>
>>First, note the wide stance legs, indicating that the entire vehicle has
>>been landed on the lunar surface, and not assembled there.  Such a
>>configuration would be appropriate if the rescue vehicle  were to return
>>to the suface.  Note, too, that you would  still have to get from the
>>lander to the base somehow (perhaps a pressurized rover).  Depending upon
>>the size of the fuel and oxidizer tanks that there could be enough
>>propellant to land the whole system and take off again, although the
>>pictures indicate that this an Apollo-style system, and the bottom
>>portion stays on the ground.
>>
>>The part that takes off (last of the four web pictures0 shows that,
>>Like  Apollo, only the top portion of the craft leaves the surface.  The
>>larger tanks (of the lifted portion) provide the energy to get to orbit
>>or perform lunar escape.   A second  set of tanks  and thrusters are in
>>the cyliner under the Apollo capsue.  They provide the lunar orbit
>>rendezvous energy and/or the Earth entry retro capability.  Again, if the
>>craft is to return to the lunar surface, larger tanks, more  tanks, and
>>legs would  be required.
>>
>>The Apollo-like capsue on the top indicates that the payload capsule is
>>intended for a direct Earth entry, not a lunar orbit rendezvous.  We, of
>>course don't need this.  So, the topmost portion would  be more of a
>>sphere, box, or cylinder with a port, airlock, or hatch of some sort --
>>not only to perform the rescue, but dock at a station, etc.
>>
>>The time required to accomplish the rescue depends on several
>>things.  Under normal conditions, the rocket engines  and tanks
>>are  sized to reach orbit with smooth arcs and minimum energy -- in about
>>the time of one lunar orbit.  With larger rocket systems, you could power
>>yourself to orbit, and then apply  retro  rockets to match speed and
>>direction of Leyland's  orbit is a shorter time.  If we assumed that the
>>rescue vehicle was designed for heavier payloads, the propulsion
>>capability would probably be there.  My orbit mechanics  are pretty
>>rusty, so Ken is the one to verify the time requirements.  I think five
>>hours is well within the  realm of possibility, but remember there will
>>be some prep time before liftoff.
>>
>>Roger
>>
>>
>
>





---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ken Galal < Ken.Galal@nasa.gov>
To: "Jeroen Lapre'" < jeroen@ilm.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:53:32 -0700
Subject: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
Hi Jeroen,

Yes, it depends on the trajectory you take to get from the moon to L1.  The
distance is about 58,000 km, but you wouldn't necessarily want to go
directly to L1 since when you got there you would need to slow yourself
down and speed up in a different direction to stay about the L1 point.  The
most efficient way would be an indirect route to that would take you out to
the edge of the gravitational sphere of influence of the moon, and let the
Earth/lunar gravity pull you toward the L1 point in the direction you want
to be going for a stable orbit.  It all depends on how much propellant is
available to use.

In any case, since the 5 hr period orbit we are talking about goes out to a
max distance of 5115 km from the moon, it should be faster to initiate a
rescue from the moon, rather than from an L1 station.

If we are assuming a south pole launch of a rescue vehicle, I would think
the best way to intercept is to wait until Cliff has passed by (to make
sure he has safely cleared the mountain first and that a rescue is indeed
necessary!) then launching the rescue vehicle along Cliff's orbit
plane.  Since in the 5 hrs it takes Cliff to come around, the moon has
rotated about 2.75 deg, one possibility is to use the catapult to launch
the rescue craft, in which case you could either rotate the entire catapult
2.75 deg or launch from the original orientation (into Cliff's 5-hr orbit)
and perform a ~100 m/s maneuver to adjust the plane and intercept Cliff at
some point down range.  Alternatively, you could also perform a
conventional launch of a rocket directly into the correct plane.

The screen play calls for a rendezvous 55 minutes after Cliff passes the
base, which seems a little ambitious, but not impossible.

Ken G.

p.s.  looking at the screen play over the weekend, I found some minor
wording changes that you may want to consider making.  I'll try to get
those to you in the next couple of days.


At 02:21 PM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
>Hi Ken,
>
>so are you saying that even though a successful electromagnetic rail
>launch at 2 to 3 km per second, it would still take 10 days to get to L1?
>I assume you mean it depends on the shape of the orbit.
>
>So as you say, it sounds like a launch from the moon would be a faster
>rescue strategy.
>
>I look forward to hearing more from you next week!
>
>Much thanks :-)
>
>-Jeroen
>
>Ken Galal wrote:
>
>>Hi Jeroen,
>>
>>Sorry, I've been out of town the last couple of weeks and have been
>>digging though my email.
>>
>>It's been a while since I've looked at the screen play, so I need to go
>>back and refresh my mind as to what the exact sequence was that you were
>>looking at.  Based on the work I did a while back on Earth-Moon L1
>>orbits, I found that the cheapest transfers (in terms of energy for
>>launching at the moon and capturing into an L1 orbit) took about 10 days
>>to get from the moon to the L1 location ... which might make sense for a
>>tug, but not so much for human cargo.  In any case, even if you send
>>something from L1 in a less efficient trajectory, I'm pretty sure
>>launching from the moon to intercept the freight capsule would be
>>faster.  Let me think about it over the weekend.
>>
>>Ken G.
>>
>>
>>
>>At 10:52 AM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
>>
>>>Roger,
>>>
>>>Wonderful! Thanks for pointing out the differences between a
>>>return-to-Earth and a return-to-L1 craft shape-design.
>>>
>>>Dear Ken,
>>>
>>>I know you are most probably busy, but any feedback regarding the
>>>orbital mechanicals of the rescue would be much appreciated!
>>>
>>>Cheers :-)
>>>-Jeroen
>>>
>>> RogerArno@comcast.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jeroen,
>>>>
>>>>Yes, in prinicple, the figures you found on the web (two attached) is
>>>>what I was trying to describe.  There are a number of differences
>>>>possible with the Leyland rescue vehicle.
>>>>
>>>>First, note the wide stance legs, indicating that the entire vehicle
>>>>has been landed on the lunar surface, and not assembled there.  Such a
>>>>configuration would be appropriate if the rescue vehicle  were to
>>>>return to the suface.  Note, too, that you would  still have to get
>>>>from the lander to the base somehow (perhaps a pressurized rover).
>>>>Depending upon the size of the fuel and oxidizer tanks that there could
>>>>be enough propellant to land the whole system and take off again,
>>>>although the pictures indicate that this an Apollo-style system, and
>>>>the bottom portion stays on the ground.
>>>>
>>>>The part that takes off (last of the four web pictures0 shows that,
>>>>Like  Apollo, only the top portion of the craft leaves the surface.
>>>>The larger tanks (of the lifted portion) provide the energy to get to
>>>>orbit or perform lunar escape.   A second  set of tanks  and thrusters
>>>>are in the cyliner under the Apollo capsue.  They provide the lunar
>>>>orbit rendezvous energy and/or the Earth entry retro
>>>>capability.  Again, if the craft is to return to the lunar surface,
>>>>larger tanks, more  tanks, and legs would  be required.
>>>>
>>>>The Apollo-like capsue on the top indicates that the payload capsule is
>>>>intended for a direct Earth entry, not a lunar orbit rendezvous.
>>>>We, of course don't need this.  So, the topmost portion would  be more
>>>>of a sphere, box, or cylinder with a port, airlock, or hatch of some
>>>>sort -- not only to perform the rescue, but dock at a station, etc.
>>>>
>>>>The time required to accomplish the rescue depends on several
>>>>things.  Under normal conditions, the rocket engines  and tanks are
>>>>sized to reach orbit with smooth arcs and minimum energy -- in about
>>>>the time of one lunar orbit.  With larger rocket systems, you could
>>>>power yourself to orbit, and then apply  retro  rockets to match speed
>>>>and direction of Leyland's  orbit is a shorter time.  If we assumed
>>>>that the rescue vehicle was designed for heavier payloads, the
>>>>propulsion capability would probably be there.  My orbit mechanics  are
>>>>pretty rusty, so Ken is the one to verify the time requirements.  I
>>>>think five hours is well within the  realm of possibility, but remember
>>>>there will be some prep time before liftoff.
>>>>
>>>>Roger
>>>>
>>>
>>
>





---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: RogerArno@comcast.net
To: Ken Galal < Ken.Galal@nasa.gov>, "Jeroen Lapre'" < jeroen@ilm.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:39:05 +0000
Subject: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
Ken,

Would you hazard a guess at the size of the tanks (storable propellants) for a 55 minute rendezvous with Cliff Leyland, assuming a conventional rocket launch from the lunar surface?

Roger


> Hi Jeroen,
>
> Yes, it depends on the trajectory you take to get from the moon to L1.  The
> distance is about 58,000 km, but you wouldn't necessarily want to go
> directly to L1 since when you got there you would need to slow yourself
> down and speed up in a different direction to stay about the L1 point.  The
> most efficient way would be an indirect route to that would take you out to
> the edge of the gravitational sphere of influence of the moon, and let the
> Earth/lunar gravity pull you toward the L1 point in the direction you want
> to be going for a stable orbit.  It all depends on how much propellant is
> available to use.
>
> In any case, since the 5 hr period orbit we are talking about goes out to a
> max distance of 5115 km from the moon, it should be faster to initiate a
> rescue from the moon, rather than from an L1 station.
>
> If we are assuming a south pole launch of a rescue vehicle, I would think
> the best way to intercept is to wait until Cliff has passed by (to make
> sure he has safely cleared the mountain first and that a rescue is indeed
> necessary!) then launching the rescue vehicle along Cliff's orbit
> plane.  Since in the 5 hrs it takes Cliff to come around, the moon has
> rotated about 2.75 deg, one possibility is to use the catapult to launch
> the rescue craft, in which case you could either rotate the entire catapult
> 2.75 deg or launch from the original orientation (into Cliff's 5-hr orbit)
> and perform a ~100 m/s maneuver to adjust the plane and intercept Cliff at
> some point down range.  Alternatively, you could also perform a
> conventional launch of a rocket directly into the correct plane.
>
> The screen play calls for a rendezvous 55 minutes after Cliff passes the
> base, which seems a little ambitious, but not impossible.
>
> Ken G.
>
> p.s.  looking at the screen play over the weekend, I found some minor
> wording changes that you may want to consider making.  I'll try to get
> those to you in the next couple of days.
>
>
> At 02:21 PM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
> >Hi Ken,
> >
> >so are you saying that even though a successful electromagnetic rail
> >launch at 2 to 3 km per second, it would still take 10 days to get to L1?
> >I assume you mean it depends on the shape of the orbit.
> >
> >So as you say, it sounds like a launch from the moon would be a faster
> >rescue strategy.
> >
> >I look forward to hearing more from you next week!
> >
> >Much thanks :-)
> >
> >-Jeroen
> >
> >Ken Galal wrote:
> >
> >>Hi Jeroen,
> >>
> >>Sorry, I've been out of town the last couple of weeks and have been
> >>digging though my email.
> >>
> >>It's been a while since I've looked at the screen play, so I need to go
> >>back and refresh my mind as to what the exact sequence was that you were
> >>looking at.  Based on the work I did a while back on Earth-Moon L1
> >>orbits, I found that the cheapest transfers (in terms of energy for
> >>launching at the moon and capturing into an L1 orbit) took about 10 days
> >>to get from the moon to the L1 location ... which might make sense for a
> >>tug, but not so much for human cargo.  In any case, even if you send
> >>something from L1 in a less efficient trajectory, I'm pretty sure
> >>launching from the moon to intercept the freight capsule would be
> >>faster.  Let me think about it over the weekend.
> >>
> >>Ken G.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>At 10:52 AM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
> >>
> >>>Roger,
> >>>
> >>>Wonderful! Thanks for pointing out the differences between a
> >>>return-to-Earth and a return-to-L1 craft shape-design.
> >>>
> >>>Dear Ken,
> >>>
> >>>I know you are most probably busy, but any feedback regarding the
> >>>orbital mechanicals of the rescue would be much appreciated!
> >>>
> >>>Cheers :-)
> >>>-Jeroen
> >>>
> >>>RogerArno@comcast.net wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Jeroen,
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes, in prinicple, the figures you found on the web (two attached) is
> >>>>what I was trying to describe.  There are a number of differences
> >>>>possible with the Leyland rescue vehicle.
> >>>>
> >>>>First, note the wide stance legs, indicating that the entire vehicle
> >>>>has been landed on the lunar surface, and not assembled there.  Such a
> >>>>configuration would be appropriate if the rescue vehicle  were to
> >>>>return to the suface.  Note, too, that you would  still have to get
> >>>>from the lander to the base somehow (perhaps a pressurized rover).
> >>>>Depending upon the size of the fuel and oxidizer tanks that there could
> >>>>be enough propellant to land the whole system and take off again,
> >>>>although the pictures indicate that this an Apollo-style system, and
> >>>>the bottom portion stays on the ground.
> >>>>
> >>>>The part that takes off (last of the four web pictures0 shows that,
> >>>>Like  Apollo, only the top portion of the craft leaves the surface.
> >>>>The larger tanks (of the lifted portion) provide the energy to get to
> >>>>orbit or perform lunar escape.   A second  set of tanks  and thrusters
> >>>>are in the cyliner under the Apollo capsue.  They provide the lunar
> >>>>orbit rendezvous energy and/or the Earth entry retro
> >>>>capability.  Again, if the craft is to return to the lunar surface,
> >>>>larger tanks, more  tanks, and legs would  be required.
> >>>>
> >>>>The Apollo-like capsue on the top indicates that the payload capsule is
> >>>>intended for a direct Earth entry, not a lunar orbit rendezvous.
> >>>>We, of course don't need this.  So, the topmost portion would  be more
> >>>>of a sphere, box, or cylinder with a port, airlock, or hatch of some
> >>>>sort -- not only to perform the rescue, but dock at a station, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>>The time required to accomplish the rescue depends on several
> >>>>things.  Under normal conditions, the rocket engines  and tanks are
> >>>>sized to reach orbit with smooth arcs and minimum energy -- in about
> >>>>the time of one lunar orbit.  With larger rocket systems, you could
> >>>>power yourself to orbit, and then apply  retro  rockets to match speed
> >>>>and direction of Leyland's  orbit is a shorter time.  If we assumed
> >>>>that the rescue vehicle was designed for heavier payloads, the
> >>>>propulsion capability would probably be there.  My orbit mechanics  are
> >>>>pretty rusty, so Ken is the one to verify the time requirements.  I
> >>>>think five hours is well within the  realm of possibility, but remember
> >>>>there will be some prep time before liftoff.
> >>>>
> >>>>Roger
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ken Galal < Ken.Galal@nasa.gov >
To: RogerArno@comcast.net, "Jeroen Lapre'" < jeroen@ilm.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 08:52:47 -0700
Subject: Re: Maelstrom II Rescue Craft Design
Roger,

I would guess they would need to be somewhat larger than the Apollo Lunar
Lander tanks.  The Lunar Lander had to land on the moon and part of it had
to take off and reach low lunar orbit (total DV of about 3.4 km/s, not
including reserves and gravity losses).  Cliff's rescue vehicle also has to
take off, land, reach/insert/return from the L1 station orbit (total DV of
perhaps about 5.4 km/s not including reserves and gravity losses).  Also,
since Cliff's rescue vehicle is probably a little more substantial than the
Apollo Lander, I would start with at least double the size of the Apollo
Lander tanks.

Ken G.


At 10:39 PM 8/8/05 +0000, RogerArno@comcast.net wrote:
>Ken,
>
>Would you hazard a guess at the size of the tanks (storable propellants)
>for a 55 minute rendezvous with Cliff Leyland, assuming a conventional
>rocket launch from the lunar surface?
>
>Roger
>
>
> > Hi Jeroen,
> >
> > Yes, it depends on the trajectory you take to get from the moon to
> L1.  The
> > distance is about 58,000 km, but you wouldn't necessarily want to go
> > directly to L1 since when you got there you would need to slow yourself
> > down and speed up in a different direction to stay about the L1
> point.  The
> > most efficient way would be an indirect route to that would take you
> out to
> > the edge of the gravitational sphere of influence of the moon, and let the
> > Earth/lunar gravity pull you toward the L1 point in the direction you want
> > to be going for a stable orbit.  It all depends on how much propellant is
> > available to use.
> >
> > In any case, since the 5 hr period orbit we are talking about goes out
> to a
> > max distance of 5115 km from the moon, it should be faster to initiate a
> > rescue from the moon, rather than from an L1 station.
> >
> > If we are assuming a south pole launch of a rescue vehicle, I would think
> > the best way to intercept is to wait until Cliff has passed by (to make
> > sure he has safely cleared the mountain first and that a rescue is indeed
> > necessary!) then launching the rescue vehicle along Cliff's orbit
> > plane.  Since in the 5 hrs it takes Cliff to come around, the moon has
> > rotated about 2.75 deg, one possibility is to use the catapult to launch
> > the rescue craft, in which case you could either rotate the entire
> catapult
> > 2.75 deg or launch from the original orientation (into Cliff's 5-hr orbit)
> > and perform a ~100 m/s maneuver to adjust the plane and intercept Cliff at
> > some point down range.  Alternatively, you could also perform a
> > conventional launch of a rocket directly into the correct plane.
> >
> > The screen play calls for a rendezvous 55 minutes after Cliff passes the
> > base, which seems a little ambitious, but not impossible.
> >
> > Ken G.
> >
> > p.s.  looking at the screen play over the weekend, I found some minor
> > wording changes that you may want to consider making.  I'll try to get
> > those to you in the next couple of days.
> >
> >
> > At 02:21 PM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
> > >Hi Ken,
> > >
> > >so are you saying that even though a successful electromagnetic rail
> > >launch at 2 to 3 km per second, it would still take 10 days to get to L1?
> > >I assume you mean it depends on the shape of the orbit.
> > >
> > >So as you say, it sounds like a launch from the moon would be a faster
> > >rescue strategy.
> > >
> > >I look forward to hearing more from you next week!
> > >
> > >Much thanks :-)
> > >
> > >-Jeroen
> > >
> > >Ken Galal wrote:
> > >
> > >>Hi Jeroen,
> > >>
> > >>Sorry, I've been out of town the last couple of weeks and have been
> > >>digging though my email.
> > >>
> > >>It's been a while since I've looked at the screen play, so I need to go
> > >>back and refresh my mind as to what the exact sequence was that you were
> > >>looking at.  Based on the work I did a while back on Earth-Moon L1
> > >>orbits, I found that the cheapest transfers (in terms of energy for
> > >>launching at the moon and capturing into an L1 orbit) took about 10 days
> > >>to get from the moon to the L1 location ... which might make sense for a
> > >>tug, but not so much for human cargo.  In any case, even if you send
> > >>something from L1 in a less efficient trajectory, I'm pretty sure
> > >>launching from the moon to intercept the freight capsule would be
> > >>faster.  Let me think about it over the weekend.
> > >>
> > >>Ken G.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>At 10:52 AM 8/5/05 -0700, Jeroen Lapre' wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Roger,
> > >>>
> > >>>Wonderful! Thanks for pointing out the differences between a
> > >>>return-to-Earth and a return-to-L1 craft shape-design.
> > >>>
> > >>>Dear Ken,
> > >>>
> > >>>I know you are most probably busy, but any feedback regarding the
> > >>>orbital mechanicals of the rescue would be much appreciated!
> > >>>
> > >>>Cheers :-)
> > >>>-Jeroen
> > >>>
> > >>> RogerArno@comcast.net wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>Jeroen,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Yes, in prinicple, the figures you found on the web (two attached) is
> > >>>>what I was trying to describe.  There are a number of differences
> > >>>>possible with the Leyland rescue vehicle.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>First, note the wide stance legs, indicating that the entire vehicle
> > >>>>has been landed on the lunar surface, and not assembled there.  Such a
> > >>>>configuration would be appropriate if the rescue vehicle  were to
> > >>>>return to the suface.  Note, too, that you would  still have to get
> > >>>>from the lander to the base somehow (perhaps a pressurized rover).
> > >>>>Depending upon the size of the fuel and oxidizer tanks that there
> could
> > >>>>be enough propellant to land the whole system and take off again,
> > >>>>although the pictures indicate that this an Apollo-style system, and
> > >>>>the bottom portion stays on the ground.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>The part that takes off (last of the four web pictures0 shows that,
> > >>>>Like  Apollo, only the top portion of the craft leaves the surface.
> > >>>>The larger tanks (of the lifted portion) provide the energy to get to
> > >>>>orbit or perform lunar escape.   A second  set of tanks  and thrusters
> > >>>>are in the cyliner under the Apollo capsue.  They provide the lunar
> > >>>>orbit rendezvous energy and/or the Earth entry retro
> > >>>>capability.  Again, if the craft is to return to the lunar surface,
> > >>>>larger tanks, more  tanks, and legs would  be required.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>The Apollo-like capsue on the top indicates that the payload
> capsule is
> > >>>>intended for a direct Earth entry, not a lunar orbit rendezvous.
> > >>>>We, of course don't need this.  So, the topmost portion would  be more
> > >>>>of a sphere, box, or cylinder with a port, airlock, or hatch of some
> > >>>>sort -- not only to perform the rescue, but dock at a station, etc.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>The time required to accomplish the rescue depends on several
> > >>>>things.  Under normal conditions, the rocket engines  and tanks are
> > >>>>sized to reach orbit with smooth arcs and minimum energy -- in about
> > >>>>the time of one lunar orbit.  With larger rocket systems, you could
> > >>>>power yourself to orbit, and then apply  retro  rockets to match speed
> > >>>>and direction of Leyland's  orbit is a shorter time.  If we assumed
> > >>>>that the rescue vehicle was designed for heavier payloads, the
> > >>>>propulsion capability would probably be there.  My orbit
> mechanics  are
> > >>>>pretty rusty, so Ken is the one to verify the time requirements.  I
> > >>>>think five hours is well within the  realm of possibility, but
> remember
> > >>>>there will be some prep time before liftoff.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Roger
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >






--------
From: Jeroen Lapre' <jeroen.lapre@gmail.com>
To: Stanley VonMedvey <stanley.vonmedvey@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Attachments: ExcaliburMainLogo.jpg, LunarVehiclejpg.jpg, AscentSys.jpg

Hi Stanley,
here is my Maelstrom II Recue Craft design email thread from NASA consultants.
Please let me know what you think.

My thinking is can we strike a balance between function and aesthetic form.
Jay Trimble from NASA Ames would like it to look more sleek.

As you many know, this has been a 95% voluntary effort.
So unfortunately I can only offer screen credits, an invitation to the premier screening at ILM,
and a copy of the DVD, in return for any 3D work.

Please let me know what you think.

Cheers
-jeroen
[Quoted text hidden]
--
-jeroen lapre
www.distant-galaxy.com
making science compelling

--------