jinnantonix

Not if it is a single stage craft. The Lockheed Martin Mars-Precursor Lunar Lander single stage craft was a dud with respect to payload delivery. It could land humans, not much else. Even with capsule removed, it is very inefficient compared to a staged craft. The LH 2 stage concept , way way better. Utilising the the Orion pressure vessel and building the ascent vehicle from service module components (8x R-4D + AJ10-190)? Good idea I think. If the Dynetics design is 2 stage. i.e. includes a transit vehicle/ drop tank inline under the main body that is ejected prior to the AV landing, there is much greater payload potential, as well as much better potential for capsule/habitat re-usability. I like the idea of dropping the TV just prior to landing, advantages are the short ladder and re-usable leg mechanisms.

It needs to have something more than what we see in this picture to even get from LLO to Surface and back. Something extra is needed. e.g. A transit vehicle or drop tanks. Obviously the lander needs to be able to rendezvous at the Gateway. The initial flight may be more direct (maybe), but NASA will not select a lander design that cannot do the Artemis mission profile including Orion rendezvous at the Gateway. My guess is that it will be launched by two Falcon Heavy LVs, EOR docking the lander shown (ascent vehicle), with a hypergolic fueled transit vehicle, autonomously guided rendezvous with the Gateway for crew transfer from the Orion. The transit vehicle then carries the lander to a suborbital path to the lunar landing site, and the TV is then dropped immediately prior to the AV landing on the lunar surface. The AV is potentially re-usable - with each mission a new Transit Vehicle docks at the Gateway, refilling the AV tanks. The engines are a mystery. Dynetics have previously partnered with Aerojet Rocketdyne. Eight fixed 490 N model R-4D-11 auxiliary thrusters would not have enough thrust. Perhaps the artist left out the main engine (e.g. AJ10-190). Alternatively Dynetics may break their AJ partnership and use SuperDRACOs, although eight engines is overkill, and compromises re-useability.

Dynetics lander design: Looks like 8 engines, anyone want to guess the engine type? Re-usable? Tanks do not look like they are big enough to go from NRHO to lunar surface and back. Side mounting of engines suggest that the craft initially has drop tanks mounted beneath, which are ejected during descent. Possibly dropping engine(s) too? Craft looks like it launches from Earth on its side, so how are drop tanks added?

And noting that landing and ascending within the area of a landing pad will require pinpoint accuracy, lots of automation, and it may in the end be easier and cheaper to just land in a crater with natural walls.

Great idea. Replace steel with HDPE Plastic (High Density Polyethylene). Half pipe, with concave facing inward.

OK, so thinking outside the box, how about an ultra thin wool mesh with long lightweight carbon reinforced fibreglass pegs. Suspend your disbelief for a second, and think about it. Who at NASA would have (like the Chinese) chosen wood as a re-entry capsule heat shield?

At the moment I understand LOP-G will start with the PPE, and then add a Minimal Habitation Module (MHM). That will be sufficient to execute the initial Artemis missions. The development of ESPRIT (adds xenon and hydazine refuelling facility) and the International Hab module has been commissioned, but it seems the the deployment of these remains subject to funding of beyond Artemis 4. Logistics and Airlock modules may be added later, although development has not yet been commissioned.

Maybe a simple answer is to roll out and peg a large heat resistant tarp, temperature and UV resistant, and this would act as a landing pad and minimise ejecta from the lander engines. If landing on the rim of Shackleton is the plan, maybe a Gemini style open propulsive "bike" would be a handy way of getting astronauts to and from the base of craters. Standard rovers are going to struggle to safely negotiate the steep sides. Although I still think landing at the crater base is possible with today's technology.

The leg comprises of a G-00 Hinge, a robotic actuator part included in "Breaking Ground", with a Grip Pad connected by struts. The struts allow a bit of movement during hinge operation, like a piston. TAC-LS does not monitor the vehicle, so Kerbals have infinite resources even when TAC-LS is loaded. IRL, it would allow a human a few hours on the surface before needing to return to orbit. Alternatively, a better and more realistic mission profile would include a pressurised habitat, which could be landed allowing a longer and more comfortable stay on the lunar surface, and this would need LS resources. I don't think it would be feasible nor cost effective to launch this hab to orbit as a rescue craft. Instead my mission design would have a second empty Gemini capsule in orbit with a spare bike which could be landed autonomously at the hab to be used by a stranded crew. The spare Gemini craft could be used as a safety measure over multiple landing missions. Another safety design would include a small seat and safety belt on the bike for a pillion passenger in case two astronauts need to use one bike.

A simpler solution may be to find natural barriers, such as landing at the base of craters? Come to think of it, isn't that the plan anyway? To search for water in the shadows of craters?

Here is a test of my Gemini Mun Lander "Bike". It uses components from Squad Expansion "Breaking Ground" to create the folding landing gear. https://youtu.be/1T8z0-aLgCE

I question whether those ejecta paths cross NRHO.

Ah, my bad. I misunderstood the rule. I like your Gemini replicas. Is Making History and Breaking Ground considered non-stock?

@Death Engineering thanks for bringing this fascinating challenge back. Here is my entry : Scoring: Pad Abort Test Munar Mission

So what? Apollo (even on Saturn V) could not deliver a manned mission to the moon's polar regions. Multiple flights are required for that, and the Moon's poles are the proposed target. Orion by itself can't get off the launch pad. Orion with SLS/EUS is capable of cislunar operations. But with LEO rendezvous with a suitable booster (e.g. a naked FHe second stage) - it is capable of polar moon landings, heliocentric missions, perhaps more. The aim is not to put a man on the moon, it is to develop fuel manufacturing there. This could be done entirely by robot, but human involvement makes it politically charged. Yes, Orion/SLS is expensive, but what price should we pay for the PR associated with next big step for human space exploration?

Good point, no reason to disallow fuel cells. Changing the rule now. BTW, I don't see why you need so many RTGs. The ISRU facility is autonomous, ie an engineer is not included, so the equipment runs at a much lower efficiency and electricity consumption. It takes a long time to generate fuel, but time is not a factor in this challenge. Once you have established the ability to generate fuel, you may use hyperedit to fill tanks.

Starship is a really long way from sending anyone, anywhere. Once SLS is proven for crewed space flight, with Artemis 1 and 2, SLS is expected to launch once a year for about 8 years. It is unlikely to be required after that as commercial vehicles are expected to be ready for human flight. Not for humans. SLS is built to carry a human rated payload to beyond LEO destinations. The first use is Artemis: cislunar operations, in particular as part of developing the Lunar Gateway, and delivering crew to and from. There is no other craft capable of this that will be ready within a decade.

Nonsense. Congress can and will cancel funding if there is no progress. Artemis in total represents progress, so the funding stays in place. The alternative is to cancel Artemis and Orion/SLS, and revert to missions with zero human involvement, all robotic. From a technical viewpoint, I think that is an OK decision, but is bad PR for the space program. Considering the progress to date, I think it is better to proceed. Nonsense. Orion has been designed for the unique ambition of human rated deep space mission architecture - ad hoc LEO operations, Moon HL , or heliocentric missions. It is the only human rated program for beyond LEO proposed for completion in the next decade. Get it? Who else is building the capability to safely get humans beyond LEO? Get it ???????? There is no plan to land a hab on the moon. Artemis will use humans as a tool to establish ISRU on the moon, the goal is not habitation.

Of course it is. NASA can delay if they want, they just don't want to. Nonsense. Agreed, that's what projects like Peregrine lander and Moon Viper are for. But these are just about finding a suitable site ... for a human landing.

Yes, that is one possible solution. Another is for the Duna transit vehicle to go to the ISRU base on the way to Duna. Or meet midway, say in LMO or in Mun elliptical orbit. Or leaving refilling tanks in Mun orbit and Duna orbit. ...

Artemis: Deep Space Mission Architecture Scenario: KASA has completed the Artemis program, and abundant water ice and volatiles have been found at the Mun’s south pole in the shadows at the bottom of craters. As KASA had hoped, this means they can execute deep space missions at a lower cost, by making fuel on the Mun, rather than launching all fuel for space flights from the surface of Kerbin. Challenge: Create a mission architecture as follows: Deliver a robotic, remote controlled ISRU facility to the Mun’s south pole, that is able to manufacture fuel Launch additional equipment needed to establish the architecture Create a crewed vehicle, launch and transit from Kerbin to Duna utilising the architecture Land at least 1 Kerbal on Duna’s surface, and then return them safely to Kerbin Establish the capability to launch repeated missions to Duna using the same crewed vehicle design and architecture. Rules: Advanced Setting: All SAS modes on all probes = off Require signal for control = on All craft are assumed to start in Low Kerbin Orbit (LKO). Launch to LKO by whatever means, launch vehicles are not scored. Solar power may NOT be used for mining and/or ISRU on the dark floor of Mun craters. RTG and fuel cells are allowed. Mining at the poles only at latitude > 85degrees north or south Parts returned to Kerbin have zero recovery costs. Mechjeb may be used on any craft at zero cost. ISRU on the Mun only, no ISRU on Duna, Minmus, or Ike Kerbal(s) must remain in a pressurised seat, except during EVA on Duna, Mun and Kerbin surface, i.e. no command seats To avoid radiation sickness, all Kerbal(s) must be returned to Kerbin within 3 Kerbin years. The return capsule must be capable of Kerbin re-entry direct from heliocentric orbit without progressive aerobraking Only one Duna mission is required but it must be demonstrated that it is possible to execute repeated missions indefinitely Note: LKO (Low Kerbin Orbit) is assumed to be an orbit with both Ap and Pe between 90 and 300 km altitude above Kerbin. Mods: Stock only plus DLCs - Making History and Breaking Ground expansions only No Part or physics mods nor editing. Clipping not allowed, except into fairings. No cheats, eg kraken drives, etc, etc. Visual enhancements and mods assisting with engineering, flight and landing guidance are allowed. Hyperedit is allowed within reason. Craft must prove completion of all transits. All launches must start from the Kerbin surface. Submissions: Must include as a minimum, screenshots or video: All craft in the VAB or SPH showing cost in the configuration when starting from LKO, including fuel. (exclude Mechjeb) Mun ISRU operation showing latitude >85 degrees using a Surface Scanning Module Craft at key moments in the mission execution, showing resource window Architecture in place for repeated additional Duna missions Your calculation of score Craft files to be submitted on request Score = 5 x (cost of crewed vehicle in LKO) + (cost of all other equipment in LKO) – 1000 x (number of Kerbals on Duna) Submissions will be listed in order of final score. Leaderboard 1: ISRU liquid fuel + oxygen . . . Leaderboard 2: ISRU liquid fuel only (nuclear + propellant) . . .

I am trying to figure out which mod provides the "Suicide Burn" read out.

Could you please list the mods you used during the video.

That argument could be used for any proposed space exploration, to the Moon, Mars, anywhere. But ... finding water on the Moon and establishing a fuel manufacturing facility there is an extremely complex task, and would be the best reason I can think of to send humans anywhere in space. Repairing deep space probes and satellites is also a good reason. Humans going to Mars is a distant dream, that in my opinion may never happen as robotic technology and AI improve. Correct. Everyone agrees the SLS is small and expensive, but it is currently the only properly rated means to get humans to lunar orbit and back to the Earth's surface in a single launch. Eventually it will be replaced, but that would be at least a decade away, and NASA does not want to wait a decade. The key to executing Artemis is to keep the number of launches of the SLS to one per mission, all other LVs WILL be commercial. ie the Boeing lander concept will not be approved. In my opinion, even the launch of the Lunar Asset on Artemis 8 should if possible replace the SLS Cargo with a commercial vehicle if available (think BFR or New Glenn), or EOR of multiple commercial launches. @tater your arguments against SLS are all correct, but alternatives entail delaying the whole program for many years. Some of us are happy the program exists and is showing some ambition.

The advantage of NRHO is that it is a small delta-V from heliocentric orbit. This makes it the ideal staging post for missions to asteroids, comets, as well as Mars, Venus and other planetary destinations. If the Moon were the only destination then that would make sense. But the moon is being considered more as a stepping stone, and in particular a place that may be able to provide fuel. An Apollo style craft would get us to the moon, sure. But what next? Agreed. Way too expensive. This thread has presented many strong arguments that there are workable designs that can achieve the goal at much lower cost. A 19t lander would struggle to push the Orion to LLO, and then complete the landing and ascent. Would like to see your design. This means that the ideal lunar landing site must be found first, and then all subsequent landing is at that site. This is a very inflexible plan. Artemis is designed so that the landers can access multiple sites, and choose nearly any location on the moon's surface.