Appendices Appendix C

Appendix C: Lander Mass Calculation and Launch Vehicle Overview

Lander Mass Calculation

The initial burnout mass (Mbo) is assumed as follows:

The factor k is usually a ratio of payload mass to spacecraft dry mass, but in this paragraph, k is assumed to be a ratio of payload mass to initial burnout mass for simplification. The current calculations assume k=25%. The propellant mass is calculated as follows (Larson, W. and Pranke, L., 1999):

Mass of engines, tanks, and lines that depends on propellant mass is usually scaled as follows:

With this information, the propellant mass can be iterated again:

The total mass of the lander (including payload) is given by:

For propellant the lander uses the storable NTO and MMH liquid combination. The tables below summarize the characteristic of mass of the lander. The ratio of payload mass to spacecraft dry mass is finally 20%, which is consistent with (Wertz, J. and Larson, W., 1992). This value provides a conservative evaluation of the lander mass.


Table C-1: Payload mass

Payload

Symbol

Unit

Value
Rover mass

MR

kg

10.0
The number of rovers

NR

-

10
Media Vehicle

MV

kg

15.0
Total mass

Mtotal

kg

115.0

Table C-2: Spacecraft Mass and sizing, intermediate results


Lander

Symbol

Unit

Lunar Descent
Initial payload ratio

k

-

25%
Initial burnout mass

Mbo

kg

460.0
Delta v

DV

m/sec

3050
Oxidizer/Fuel    

NTO/MMH
Isp  

sec

310
Propellant mass-1 (First iteration)

Mprop-1

kg

795.4
Engines, tanks, and lines

0.15Mprop-

kg

119.3
Propellant mass-2 (Second iteration)

Mprop-2

kg

1001.6
Total stage mass

Mtotal

kg

1580.9

Table C-3: Mass and size calculation results

Results

Unit

Value
Payload

kg

120
Other subsystems except propulsion subsystem

kg

350
Engines, tanks and feeding lines

kg

120
Spacecraft dry mass

kg

580
The ratio of payload mass to spacecraft dry mass

-

20%
Propellant

ton

1.0
Total lander mass (dry mass + propellants mass)

ton

1.6

Table C-4: Launcher Capability

Launcher P/L GTO (kg) Launch Site Orbit Incl (° ) Est. Launch Cost (Mln. US$) Reliability Avg. Cost / Reliability (Mln. US$) Remarks
Long March 3A 2500 Xichan 28 35-40 3/3
33/36
39.13 no Earth escape yet
Delta II 7925 1842 Cape Canaveral 28 45-50 54/56 49.26 could provide injection
Atlas I 2255 Cape Canaveral 28 65-75 8/11 96.25 could provide injection
Atlas II 2810 Cape Canaveral 28 75-85 5/5
19/21
76.19 could provide injection
A40 2050 Kourou 7 45-60 6/6
72/75
53.57 out of Service in 2002?
A42P 2840 Kourou 7 60-75 10/11
72/75
72.23 out of Service in 2002?
GSLV 2500 Sriharikota 18 ? 0/0 ? not yet operational
Zenit 3 5180 Tyuratam X 50-70 26/32 73.85  
Sealaunch 5100 Ocean ? 60-90 1/1 75.00 no Earth escape yet
Proton D1e 4100 Lunar Transfer Tyuratam Lunar Transfer 50-70 154/167 65.06 would provide injection
H II 4000 Tanegashima 28.5 150-190 1/1 170.00 no Earth escape yet
Molniya 1600 Lunar Transfer Baikonur (B) / Plesetsk (P) Lunar Transfer 12-39 46/71 (B)
183/190 (P)
229/261
39.36 26.48 29.06 would provide injection

(Isakowitz, Steven J., 1991)
(Mark Wade, 1999)

NEXT >


[Home] [ISU]