jinnantonix

So no transit vehicle. The mission will rely on the LV's second stage for lunar orbit insertion.

This is what I thought. And it is great news, because it is a relatively low risk path, the ability to launch a fully integrated craft that can be deployed as an (initially) expendable lander at relatively low cost. It is also interesting that the ULA Vulcan is (just) capable of launching the 27 ton Dynetics lander to LEO. I am thinking that was was deliberate, to ensure ULA has a potential involvement in the launch. NASA will love the competition for that initial launch. Against all expectation it actually looks like the hardware for the lunar landing can be delivered. The only issue I see that will prevent the 2024 human landing, is that the lander will not have been tested properly, and so will not be able to carry a human payload to the surface. I would expect the first missions (Artemis 3 and 4) to be robotic, with humans remaining in orbit.

Eeloo Science report: First landing on Eeloo Midlands. Low ore and no water. Not suitable for a habitat site, so relanding in the nearby Ice Canyon - 10% ore, but no water. Launch and head east along the equator. After a few minutes, Highlands - again has 10% ore and no water, and terrain is hilly. Partial refuel and continue to Lowlands. Surveying at orbital speed from 3km altitude, Eeloo is very flat so no mountains to worry about. The barren midlands continue forever, heavily cratered. Babbage Patch landing on flat terrain, 3% ore and no water. Fragipan, flat terrain but only 3% ore and 0% water. Craters at 14% ore and 0% water, and surprisingly flat terrain. Lowlands does not appear to occur at the equator, so settling on Craters for the landing zone. According to the scanner, there is some water somewhere on Eeloo, although apparently not at an equatorial biome. Can Eeloo support a sustainable base? Maybe. But apparently not at the equator.

Eeloo Wiki advises, Eeloo has a number of equatorial biomes that will need to be investigated for ore availability, and for a level surface for the colony to be established. The transit vehicle will include a fully fueled Skycrane with science module and surface rover, along and plenty of spare fuel in the nuclear tugs to allow several landings without the need for ISRU before deciding on the best site. Eeloo Transit vehicle

Especially if they included the ladder to nowhere.

I think the initial launch can be 1 or 2 months ahead of the second.

Hoorah for SpaceX. ULA's Vulcan team must be wondering why they bother.

Yes, and the additional fuel needed to allow the Dynetics lander to execute TLI to NRHO is 5 tons, increasing the launch mass to 32 tons.

Hale Sending the first kolonists to Hale. According to the Hale wiki, the gravity is very low, and the surface very uneven. This would suggest that the main criteria for a landing area is not availability of resources, but a flat level surface. Hale is so close to Ovok, the Skycrane has plenty of delta-V for transporting the craft with 5 kerbals from Ovok to Hale.

Thanks, but it is worse than marginal, it doesn't include the delta-V to get from TLI to NRHO. It looks like assembly in orbit is the only option.

I am pretty sure NASA would pay a lot to avoid assembly of the Dynetics lander in orbit. It's simple enough to do this in KSP, but IRL not so sure it is a mature process. Any mistake that compromises the drop tank operation potentially threatens the lives of the astronauts during lunar descent. NASA will prefer a solution that launches fully integrated. Is a naked FH fully expendable to LEO insufficient to take a 27ton payload from LEO to NRHO? I think it is based on my BOTE calcs, but I am no expert. What about a FH side core reusable launching a lightweight transit vehicle to LEO? then partial TLI, with the transit vehicle completing the passage to NRHO. That would be more fuel efficient.

Gateway (PPE + HALO) == ~15 tons. LV = FH side core re-use. Dynetics Lander = ~ 27 tons. 2 launches needed (a) FH (side-core re-usable?) to LEO (b) either naked FH re-usable or naked Vulcan with ERO to go to NRHO. The question is the degree of re-usability of the Falcon Heavy in the above scenarios.

Ah yes, of course, its LOX + RP-1. So that is an option.

Not out of the question entirely, but hydrogen boil off is going to be a big problem. But note that the SpaceX option does not involve an EOR,. With that option the lander simply carries an additional 5 tons of fuel and completes burn from TLI to NRHO. There is no orbital rendezvous required until docking with the Orion in NRHO. With the ULA Vulcan / ACES option there are two launches and an EOR. It is more complex and risky. But is it cheaper?

Assuming ULA completes ACES by 2024, the Dynetics Lander can be launched fully integrated to NRHO by two options: 1. SpaceX Falcon Heavy re-usable to TLI, thence lander burns to NRHO (requires additional 5 tons of fuel in the lander outer tanks) 2. ULA: Two Vulcan Heavy (6 SRB) launches: (a) Launch to LEO (b) Launch a naked ACES second stage, dock with craft in LEO, thence TLI and NRHO insertion. Question for the bean counters. Which option is cheaper? SpaceX or ULA? ULA ACES docked with Dynetics lander, on TLI burn.

The LOPG wiki states that the PPE has an intended mass of 8 - 9 tons, and the Cygnus wiki suggests a launch mass of 6.6t (including payload and fueled Cygnus SM). The SM will require addition fuel and a suitable main engine (something like a SuperDraco-L). This is well within the capability of the Falcon Heavy expendable. NASA would need to do some trimming to go FH re-usable. The craft should fit just inside the F9 fairing. The below 16 ton mock-up has a delta-V of 450 m/s which should be sufficient for NRHO insertion from TLI.

Probably, but it isn't available for a 2023 launch. I don't believe it is practical for the Falcon second stage nor PPE ion drive to complete NRHO insertion. I think there will need to be a small transit vehicle included (eg Cygnus SM?). This would certainly push the payload beyond the limits of FH recoverable. I simulated this in the first part of this video:

""We assured ourselves that it could be done with the Falcon Heavy," Loverro said. "We haven't selected the launch vehicle yet, but we had to assure ourselves that there would be at least one vehicle for it. " There is another launch vehicle that can do this? I don't think so. NASA is pretending that SpaceX doesn't have a monopoly on the bid?

Here is a breakdown of the craft components by mass: Component Unit Qty Total Lander Can + 1.21 1 1.21 Payload (human and science) 1.00 1 1.00 Frame * 0.81 2 1.62 Monopropellant 0.21 1 0.21 Solar panels 0.30 2 0.60 Engines 0.14 8 1.10 Inner fuel tank 0.50 2 1.00 Subtotal 6.74 Inner tank fuel only 4.00 2 8.00 Outer tank + fuel 8.58 2 17.16 Total 31.90 + includes payload bay, lander legs, ladder, comms equipment * Includes can mount, tank frame, decouplers and thrusters I am happy to be guided on which assumptions I have wrong, but I actually think I may be underestimating the base craft mass. Stage 1 has 2495 m/s, and this completes TLI to NRHO to LLO to near lunar surface Stage 2 has 3025 m/s, and this completes landing with hover, surface to LLO to NRHO. Seems complicated to me, at least compared to option 2. Option 2 also has the advantage that the Centaur TLI booster can dock with the existing docking port on the top of the lander can, which saves weight and complexity in the lander design. Thanks

I am not so concerned with re-usability, I am assuming for the 2024 mission, the lander will be expendable. I am more concerned about how to deliver the craft to NRHO with currently available launch vehicles (or expected to be available in 2024). I am assuming here that there is no fuel transfer, that NASA really does not have the ability in the short-term to develop that capability for the HLS. I am assuming simplicity - the lander inner tanks are fixed, and only the outer tanks are dropped. Below is my simulation under development in RSS. Mass of total craft at launch is just under 32 tons , with the mass of the craft divided near equally between the lunar descent/ascent craft (15t) , and the two drop tanks with fuel for the transit from TLI to NRHO to LLO ( 17t). Launching the fully fueled two stage Dynetics lander craft to LEO is beyond the single launch capability of the Vulcan Centaur Heavy (max payload to LEO = 27.2 tons). Only SLS Cargo and Falcon Heavy can lift the assembled craft to LEO. Options: Multiple Vulcan launches ( two or three) with assembly adding drop tanks in LEO and docking with a Centaur second stage for TLI - high risk, cost and complexity. Single launch of the fully integrated craft on a SpaceX Falcon Heavy to LEO, dock with separate launch of Falcon 9 or Vulcan Centaur second stage for TLI. Simpler LEO docking? SLS Block 1B Cargo, single launch to NRHO. EUS? Too expensive? Available in 2024?

Dynetics have the option of assembling the drop tanks in orbit. Anybody have any idea exactly how this would be done?

Scott Manley's view https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t6pLNEXh18 . Scott favours Blue Origin, not sure why. Marcus House's view with a SpaceX slant: https://youtu.be/MAQeI_h5P8U Here are a few of my humble opinions on this: What is NASA's modus operandi for decision-making? NASA is going to be watching the dollars, and risk. So they will favour designs which utilise re-usability (to save money long-term), but will look for simplicity short-term. All of the landers have some level of re-usability conceptually, although SpaceX seems to have this covered best. NASA will also be looking for simplicity, lower risk, and here I think Dynetics have the best concept, and Blue Origin looks like a loser - 3 parts to be assembled in lunar orbit is complex. NASA also likes the idea of testing, and BO and SpaceX have both committed to sending descents stages to the surface. Finally NASA will want to ensure that the R&D investments of contractors are rewarded to some degree to ensure viable long-term competition between commercial operators, in a nutshell they will want to be fair. Here is my guess on how this will play out: The 2024 landing will be awarded to Dynetics, as they will represent the lowest cost, lowest risk, for a fully expendable craft. The question is - will they do a fully autonomous test landing prior to the manned landing, and I think they will have to - will this delay the crewed landing? I don't believe Dynetics will ever be implemented with re-usability, as this will add complexity and cost - Dynetics are best positioned for low cost, and fully expendable. By 2024, both Blue Origin and SpaceX will have completed tests with fully autonomous landings on the lunar surface. Based on these tests, I believe NASA will award the lunar payload contract. Here is where I think Blue Origin and Draper may be selected, which sets them on a path for Earth and Moon orbit cargo delivery contracts, ultimately using the New Glenn launch vehicle. In the short-term SpaceX won;t be ready, they have a lot of work to do on (for example) decent RCS thrusters and crew rating. Longer term, SpaceX will likely demonstrate full re-usability (and associated cost effectiveness) through implementing their full "Starship ecosystem" of craft (Super Heavy, Starship and the lander) and also proven crew capability, and so when fully developed later in the decade, may take over from Dynetics for the latter part of the Artemis program, as well as compete with BO for payload contracts. Ultimately they will have the ability to deliver both crew and payload to the lunar surface. In the short-term they will still win contract for commercial launches eg for Gateway components. If the above thinking is correct, in addition to to Boeing, the National Team members Lockheed and Northrup Grumman will lose out on HLS. However NASA can still claim to have been fair on their awarding of contracts: Boeing has SLS. Lockheed has Orion. NG has a number of NASA contracts, like the James Webb Space Telescope and Dawn asteroid explorer. So what do we all think?

My approach to this was to complete TLI with the Centaur on collision with the Mun, then adjusted about 50 m/s to passing over the Mun north pole at about Pe=600km. For some reason the game wouldn't allow me to do Pe=1000km, the path disappeared at >600km. Anyway to work around this I just did a small radial adjustment on entering the Mun SOI to increase Pe to 1000km. I then did two burns. Near SOI, dV = 104.1 m/s, adjust to encounter. At encounter (over Mun north pole), dV = 139.7m/s Total dV = 243.8 m/s. The music is courtesy of Kevin McLeod. He does the theme music for KSP.