Barzon

except ESM was significantly redesigned and shares more heritage with Lockheed's SM design than it does ATV

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-expands-options-for-spacewalking-moonwalking-suits-services

woah! congrats on the release! it looks great!

- First vertical firing of a BE-4 - First dual BE-4 firing - First firing of a BE-4 on something other than a test stand

It's the adhesive. Also, I'm pretty sure this is the tape used: https://www.nitto.com/us/en/others/products/file/datasheet/PDS_NA_Glass_Cloth_Tape_P-213LW_012020_EN.pdf http:// https://www.boeingdistribution.com/product/PRESSURE+SENSITIVE+ADHESIVE+TAPE/P-213LW-WHITE-2IN-36YD/P-213LW-WHITE-2IN-36YD

by first submission are you meaning ILV? Because we know what the ILV PV looked like, and it did not look like that. And the mockup in the tweet was located at KSC, not JSC

Thats... not the latest study. There were studies on reference architectures released as recently as last year. Here's an overview of the NTP architecture study that the MTAS Team released last year, and a final report from '21 on the 4th iteration of the GRC's Compass team's CHEMNEP architecture that they've been studying for a fair while now. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220006985/downloads/Edwards.Gerrish.Houts.PresbyMTASpanelSlides.pptx.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210017131/downloads/TM-20210017131_errata.pdf

It's probably a safe assumption. If not, well, all we can do is wait for more information.

If it helps, you can probably get a rough estimate for the dimensions of the habitat from this tweet, if it hasn't been posted already.

would you argue A1 would have achieved the same goals if Orion was sent to LEO instead of DRO? The most recently released studies allow construction of a vehicle with a 1 or 2 per year flight rate. Anyways ML-2 hardware is arriving at KSC soon:

Most of the architectures NASA are studying rn involve a checkout in NRHO of the MTV habitat, with MTV assembly in orbits ranging from MEOs to LDHEOs, which is advantageous as it means you can test it in a deep space environment with or without crew before sending it to Mars, using Gateway as a safe-haven, and taking over station keeping for that module when needed. If you want I can post the some of the recent studies they've published.

You also get constant communications, and it's a pretty decent departure point for Mars & beyond, iirc there are trajectories that can send a spacecraft from NRHO to Mars with double or even single digits of Δv.

The SRB contract also includes BOLE development, & 6 additional flight sets of SRBs. that $2.1B value for the Adaptation contract includes 1.5b for the J-2X for some inane reason. The actual money spent on RS-25s in that $2.1B was .6B.

How are you calculating that 4.8m? My rough workings give a max of ~4.4m.

They've shown off BE-7 hardware & RCS thrusters. There's more than that behind the curtain. The last NET publicly given was Q4 2023. Yep. You can kinda see it in the pictures in this tweet: It's definitely confusing but NASA seem happy with whatever solution they've come up for HDL, considering they said in the SSS that it exceeded both the mass and volume requirements. My guess is something like this, either with the same total height kept and just a flat deck above the engine, or stretching the entire vehicle.

as stated in the conference the Upper tank is LH2 yes.

for Blue Moon Mk2 the test flight is NET 2027, with it being available for a crewed landing in 2028, but the 2024 & 2025 pathfinder flights are Blue Moon Mk1, which is expendable. We've already seen flight hardware for the '24 flight in public, and there's even more behind the scenes. And everything I know from my own contacts puts New Glenn well on track for 2024, after all, ESCAPADE is scheduled for August, and it won't be the maiden flight.

2024 is... very much possible.

Source Selection Statement is out - https://www.nasa.gov/nextstep/humanlander4 Notably, Blue have pathfinder landing flights planned for 2024 and 2025, and their HDL proposal significantly exceeded both mass and volume requirements. Dynetics, however, didn't account for cargo or an EVA suit, so it was uncertain whether they would meet the 4 crew requirement.

NASA Selects the Blue Origin Team for Astronaut Mission to the Moon | Blue Origin Height: 16m Diameter: <6.2m Dry Mass: 16t Wet Mass: 45t> 4 crew capable, anywhere on the Moon, day or night. Cargo config can do 20t reused, 30t expendable. Basic CONOPS are that it launches to LEO, flies itself to NRHO, then the cislunar transporter is launched to LEO on New Glenn and refuelled, and flies to NRHO to refuel Blue Moon. It can stay in NRHO as needed, or return to Earth orbit.

No pass through. More detail on the lander: Height: 16m Diameter: <6.2m Dry Mass: 16t Wet Mass: 45t> 4 crew capable, anywhere on the Moon, day or night. Cargo config can do 20t reused, 30t expendable. Basic CONOPS are that it launches to LEO, flies itself to NRHO, then the cislunar transporter is launched to LEO on New Glenn and refuelled, and flies to NRHO to refuel Blue Moon. It can stay in NRHO as needed, or return to Earth orbit.

I was assuming darthgently was talking about Orbital Reef.

You don't start building something before you finish designing it. not in this development style.