Blue Origin thread.

[sevenperforce]

On 10/27/2023 at 10:34 AM, tater said:

This is the cargo lander.

https://www.blueorigin.com/blue-moon/mark-1

Any indication of how the cargo offload would actually work? Where does the cargo go, anyway?

For a one-way hydrolox moon vehicle, I think it makes a lot of sense to have the fluffy hydrogen tank on top, the LOX tanks on the sides, and 4-6 smaller engines mounted on or around the LOX tanks to straddle a large central cargo bay at ground level.

Something like this:

But of course NASA is in love with a single central thrust path, which I suppose makes sense for structural reasons as well as heritage. 

[tater]

2 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Any indication of how the cargo offload would actually work? Where does the cargo go, anyway?

The pictured vehicle I think has the cargo on top. There are prop tanks on all 4 sides, and presumable centered engines.

Their old concept did the same with little cranes to lower rovers, etc.

[sevenperforce]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

The pictured vehicle I think has the cargo on top. There are prop tanks on all 4 sides, and presumable centered engines.

Their old concept did the same with little cranes to lower rovers, etc.

I suppose cranes are easier to manage on the moon thanks to the low gravity.

But still, geez.

I'm guessing there are some fairly straightforward maths that relate the amount of nozzle exit area under a lander to its carrying capacity....

[tater]

From a WAPO article/animation.

5 centerline engines.

 

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, tater said:

From a WAPO article/animation.

5 centerline engines.

 

It appears there's a passage through the center of the fuel tank if the animation is presenting it well.  Interesting

Edit:  on further reading of comments the lander dock port is reportedly on the side of the crew cabin, not on top the tank, so that would make a lot more sense.  Especially if the same port can be used for surface access

Edited October 31, 2023 by darthgently

[tater]

37 minutes ago, darthgently said:

on further reading of comments the lander dock port is reportedly on the side of the crew cabin,

This was clear from the start.

Docking port left/front, stairs back right.

[darthgently]

38 minutes ago, tater said:

This was clear from the start.

Docking port left/front, stairs back right.

Yes, but the animation showed lunar orbit docking to top port for crew transfer.  Threw me off 

[tater]

5 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Yes, but the animation showed lunar orbit docking to top port for crew transfer.  Threw me off 

Oh, yeah, it did. And docked to Gateway as well. So 2 docking ports?

[darthgently]

33 minutes ago, tater said:

Oh, yeah, it did. And docked to Gateway as well. So 2 docking ports?

I think there's likely a top port for fuel transfer, then the side port for crew transfer

Edited November 1, 2023 by darthgently

[tater]

10 minutes ago, darthgently said:

I think there's likely a top port for fuel transfer, then the side port for crew transfer

Makes sense.

[Meecrob]

I'd hazard to guess that Blue Origin intends to have a ground-level door, but they don't know what it will look like yet and just showed off the stuff they are close to completion. Doors are not usually complex...you can figure them out later. Just leave some space kinda thing.

Edited November 1, 2023 by Meecrob

[tater]

29 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

I'd hazard to guess that Blue Origin intends to have a ground-level door, but they don't know what it will look like yet and just showed off the stuff they are close to completion. Doors are not usually complex...you can figure them out later. Just leave some space kinda thing.

They want some stand off distance from the surface for the engines, though. The whole vehicle is reusable, and FOD is a real issue.

[darthgently]

1 minute ago, tater said:

They want some stand off distance from the surface for the engines, though. The whole vehicle is reusable, and FOD is a real issue.

Realizing that a central engine cluster makes it easier to accommodate an engine out condition with slighter gimbal, I still like the idea of radial engines a bit higher up for the FOD issue. 

With a high enough engine reliability and an even, rather than odd, number of engines (shutdown in opposing pairs on engine failure) I'd think engine failure would be quite manageable. 

Maybe something like Stoke's  engine ring without the heat shield complexity.  Vectoring inward then vectoring outward nearing the surface on landing could push dust and rocks away from the craft approaching touchdown.  A "dust-off" on landing?

[tater]

44 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Maybe something like Stoke's  engine ring without the heat shield complexity.  Vectoring inward then vectoring outward nearing the surface on landing could push dust and rocks away from the craft approaching touchdown.  A "dust-off" on landing?

At this point I would imagine WYSIWYG.

[Meecrob]

4 hours ago, tater said:

They want some stand off distance from the surface for the engines, though. The whole vehicle is reusable, and FOD is a real issue.

I agree totally, I just think that if I wasn't finished with a design, I'd hide it on the back side of my press graphic. Look, I want to not like Blue Origin, but I gotta be real and give them the benefit of the doubt. I want to eat crow if it means more space stuff!

Edited November 1, 2023 by Meecrob

[sevenperforce]

12 hours ago, darthgently said:

12 hours ago, tater said:

Oh, yeah, it did. And docked to Gateway as well. So 2 docking ports?

I think there's likely a top port for fuel transfer, then the side port for crew transfer

See, the trick is that they don their spacesuits and swim through the liquid hydrogen. They needed the spacesuits anyway! The best part is no part! Brilliant!

10 hours ago, darthgently said:

Realizing that a central engine cluster makes it easier to accommodate an engine out condition with slighter gimbal, I still like the idea of radial engines a bit higher up for the FOD issue. 

With a high enough engine reliability and an even, rather than odd, number of engines (shutdown in opposing pairs on engine failure) I'd think engine failure would be quite manageable. 

Maybe something like Stoke's  engine ring without the heat shield complexity.  Vectoring inward then vectoring outward nearing the surface on landing could push dust and rocks away from the craft approaching touchdown.  A "dust-off" on landing?

If they had a four-engine cluster at the center instead of a five-engine cluster, they could do "sweep" the surface on touchdown by vectoring two engines inward and two engines outward, then reversing.

I suppose they could do the same thing with the five-engine cluster since the central engine is going to be doing the work of dusting off the center anyway.

Still, it does make a true surface-level egress impossible because you need vertical space for the engines (just less vertical space than a single engine of comparable thrust).

[AckSed]

Side question: how many strings to their bow do Blue Origin have now? We've got the engines, New Shepard sub-orbital tourism, New Glenn reusable heavy-lift booster, Jarvis reusable upper stage, Blue Alchemist lunar ISRU, and now the Blue Moon lunar lander. I want to say Kuiper, but I think Amazon is building those in-house. The former Orbital Reef was also another ambition.

I ask because if each one is a separate facility with its own staff and sub-management, I think BO has recreated the same problem as NASA of rival facilities: Ames, JPL, Goddard, Langley etc. have all gotten into each other's ways over the years as they championed things in relatively genteel science-fights (reusable spaceplanes! With Maglev! No, ramps up a mountain! No, composite tanks and SSTO!), all with an under-current of, "I don't want this to die when the funding is cut."

Which is a shame, as this soup-to-nuts approach is bearing fruit. I'm an especial fan of Blue Alchemist, because that's a great way to make acres of solar-power, even on Earth.

[tater]

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

See, the trick is that they don their spacesuits and swim through the liquid hydrogen. They needed the spacesuits anyway! The best part is no part! Brilliant!

They could eva like KSP before transfers were a thing

[SunlitZelkova]

8 hours ago, tater said:

They could eva like KSP before transfers were a thing

N1-L3 flashbacks.

Historically the Soviets preferred an internal transfer tunnel between the LOK and LK but couldn’t because they didn’t have the mass to.

I think that and the Vostok derived lunar flyby are the only other instances of EVA transfer being proposed.

[CatastrophicFailure]

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

N1-L3 flashbacks.

Historically the Soviets preferred an internal transfer tunnel between the LOK and LK but couldn’t because they didn’t have the mass to.

I think that and the Vostok derived lunar flyby are the only other instances of EVA transfer being proposed.

Wait Vostok-derived lunar flyby??

 

Also I didn’t an early Soyuz do an EVA transfer between two craft?

[sevenperforce]

5 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

N1-L3 flashbacks.

Historically the Soviets preferred an internal transfer tunnel between the LOK and LK but couldn’t because they didn’t have the mass to.

I think that and the Vostok derived lunar flyby are the only other instances of EVA transfer being proposed.

Wait Vostok-derived lunar flyby??

Probably talking about the early Soyuz-derived lunar flyby using the Soyuz-A-B-V design, where two crewed Soyuz capsules would go up to meet a Soyuz-based tug that would have already been refueled by several subsequent R-7 missions. The two capsules would have had some EVA transfers while assembling the whole circumlunar stack.

5 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Also I didn’t an early Soyuz do an EVA transfer between two craft?

I'm guessing @SunlitZelkova means EVA transfer for a lunar mission architecture. Weren't there at least some EVA transfers during Skylab and during the construction of the ISS?

There was an EVA transfer proposed (in hindsight) as a rescue mission for Columbia, but obviously that wasn't operational.

[SunlitZelkova]

2 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Wait Vostok-derived lunar flyby??

2 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Probably talking about the early Soyuz-derived lunar flyby using the Soyuz-A-B-V design, where two crewed Soyuz capsules would go up to meet a Soyuz-based tug that would have already been refueled by several subsequent R-7 missions. The two capsules would have had some EVA transfers while assembling the whole circumlunar stack.

No, I'm talking about the 1L/Vostok-7 spacecraft (not to be confused with the cancelled Vostok-7 mission, the Vostok-7 I refer to is of the same category of designations as the Vostok-3KA, the official name of the original Vostok).

1L was the name of the spacecraft the cosmonaut would fly around the Moon and return in. He would be launched in the Vostok-7, a suped up Vostok with docking equipment and more engines for orbital maneuvering. The cosmonaut would EVA to the 1L crew compartment.

@sevenperforce The Soyuz A-B-V design did not involve any EVA transfers. The crew would launch in the single 7K Soyuz-A and then only dock with the TLI stage once it was fully fueled. Additionally, every other Soviet crewed lunar landing proposal besides the L3 complex was a direct ascent architecture, so there were no EVAs involved until getting to the surface.

3 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Also I didn’t an early Soyuz do an EVA transfer between two craft?

Yes, I forgot there wasn't an internal transfer system for Soyuz until the 7K-OKS variant.

I spend so much time thinking about Soviet Moon and Mars landings I forgot about the Earth orbital stuff lol.

2 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

I'm guessing @SunlitZelkova means EVA transfer for a lunar mission architecture. Weren't there at least some EVA transfers during Skylab and during the construction of the ISS?

I've never heard of EVA transfers for Skylab. I'm not as familiar with the construction of the ISS so I don't know whether there were EVA transfers or not. But really what I was referring to was EVA transfers as an integral part of the mission profile, not related to construction or emergencies.

[CatastrophicFailure]

46 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

1L was the name of the spacecraft the cosmonaut would fly around the Moon and return in. He would be launched in the Vostok-7, a souped up Vostok with docking equipment and more engines for orbital maneuvering. The cosmonaut would EVA to the 1L crew compartment.

Why is there a separate “descent module” at the forward end, or does the Vostok not go along for the ride?

3 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Weren't there at least some EVA transfers during Skylab and during the construction of the ISS?

I don’t believe so, certainly not with Skylab and pretty sure on the ISS. Wasn’t much need, since they all had crew tunnels, and seems very high risk. 

[SunlitZelkova]

3 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Why is there a separate “descent module” at the forward end, or does the Vostok not go along for the ride?

The Vostok is only for getting the cosmonaut to the 1L in Earth orbit. It returns to Earth before TLI.

The spherical descent apparatus was only capable of a ballistic reentry, so if they tried to use it for a lunar return, the cosmonaut would either be severely injured or killed.

[CatastrophicFailure]

7 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The Vostok is only for getting the cosmonaut to the 1L in Earth orbit. It returns to Earth before TLI.

The spherical descent apparatus was only capable of a ballistic reentry, so if they tried to use it for a lunar return, the cosmonaut would either be severely injured or killed.

Very Kerbal.  But that begs the question, why not just launch in the 1L? Not the first time the Soviets launched with no abort ability…