NASA Human Landing System

[Beccab]

3 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

 

http://www.developspace.info/plan/images/xeus.jpg

They are slowly getting better and for sure it allows for some nice videos unlike before but man, the switch from those old beautiful spacecraft drawings to 3d models was brutal. The SEI is probably the worst, so damn ugly in 90s level 3d graphics

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

14 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

I absolutely LOVED that show as a kid... And when I saw it was available on Netflix or Prime I tried to watch it again for nostalgia... 

And couldn't.  So BAD

 

A question, though, about the configuration - would anything like that be possible?  Or would it be so tail heavy as to be impractical? 

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

A question, though, about the configuration - would anything like that be possible?  Or would it be so tail heavy as to be impractical? 

[magnemoe]

4 hours ago, Beccab said:

They are slowly getting better and for sure it allows for some nice videos unlike before but man, the switch from those old beautiful spacecraft drawings to 3d models was brutal. The SEI is probably the worst, so damn ugly in 90s level 3d graphics

An valid point and yes you are correct. 
Its also the reason why relaunching the PS1 did not work as well as the older Nintendo systems. 
Early 3d games did not date well compared to late 2d games. 

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Note that the shuttle has extra problems here as most of it is useless in deep space, the main engines unless you add an spare external tank. The heat tiles and the wings unless you are aerobraking in from the moon who I think you need an redesign for even if you took it steps. 

The xeus lander on previous page makes sense, now you could have an truss system connecting the fuel and oxidizer tanks, makes reloading easier and you could shift the cargo to move center of mass. 

[kerbiloid]

20 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Note that the shuttle has extra problems here as most of it is useless in deep space, the main engines unless you add an spare external tank. The heat tiles and the wings unless you are aerobraking in from the moon who I think you need an redesign for even if you took it steps. 

The same can be said about ny system not used at the current moment.

But if compare the mass of the wings and tiles to the amount of fuel required to take away the total mechanical energy of the ship, we can easily comparre them to a high-ISP high-thrust gas-core nuke or even a thermonuke.

***

Also the talk was about the structural integrity of a dumbbell-shaped craft.

[cubinator]

50 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Also the talk was about the structural integrity of a dumbbell-shaped craft.

Well that's an easy problem to solve, simply add more struts!

[kerbiloid]

16 minutes ago, cubinator said:

Well that's an easy problem to solve, simply add more struts!

"It's full of struts!"

[Beccab]

 

[RCgothic]

Nov 1st not extended:

 

 

[tater]

I assume the 7+ GB of data is 4k vid of BO's various spacecraft operating in orbit? LOL.

[Beccab]

1 minute ago, tater said:

I assume the 7+ GB of data is 4k vid of BO's various spacecraft operating in orbit? LOL.

4k? They need to be viewable by NASA, 480p is the maximum possible

[tater]

2 minutes ago, Beccab said:

4k? They need to be viewable by NASA, 480p is the maximum possible

GLORIOUS 720p!

 

(I bug my friend at MCC about the 720p thing literally every NASA livestream, lol)

[DDE]

5 minutes ago, tater said:

GLORIOUS 720p!

 

(I bug my friend at MCC about the 720p thing literally every NASA livestream, lol)

Unimpressed.

Make it 1080.

[kerbiloid]

BMP and TGA images are large.

[SunlitZelkova]

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

BMP and TGA images are large.

???

Spoiler

 

[tater]

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/source-selection-statement-appendix-n.pdf

Source selection doc for NextSTEP-2.

 

Regarding the NT situation:

 

Looks like together, but open to doing their own thing as well.

[Beccab]

3 minutes ago, tater said:

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/source-selection-statement-appendix-n.pdf

Source selection doc for NextSTEP-2.

 

Regarding the NT situation:

 

Looks like together, but open to doing their own thing as well.

The different funding between all the various companies also indicates they all proposed a different architecture for this phase at least

[Lewie]

So....is this all because of Blue?

Spacex is still the winner, right?

Right??

[Beccab]

1 minute ago, Lewie said:

So....is this all because of Blue?

Spacex is still the winner, right?

Right??

Nah, it's just the beginning of LETS. Winner of that will be basically the winner of the commercial crew program but for the moon, sustaining Artemis for many (most?) missions

[Lewie]

1 minute ago, Beccab said:

Nah, it's just the beginning of LETS. Winner of that will be basically the winner of the commercial crew program but for the moon, sustaining Artemis for many (most?) missions

*blink*

isn’t Spacex STILL the better choice? Nothing about the other competitors speaks of sustainability or being cost-effective. Their history speaks for itself.

[Beccab]

2 minutes ago, Lewie said:

*blink*

isn’t Spacex STILL the better choice? Nothing about the other competitors speaks of sustainability or being cost-effective. Their history speaks for itself.

Yep, but they've got a lot of time to at least try to recover. This contact was mostly to develop the architecture and mitigate possible risks for the mission with the proposed landers, which Spacex didn't really need much

[tater]

Assuming LSS works for the first missions, all the other entries look comical unless they are also cheaper per unit capability.

[tater]

Quote

Consistent with the evaluation methodology provided within the HLS solicitation, I concurred with the removal of
Blue Ridge and Cook & Chevalier as recommended by the Contracting Officer from further consideration for award
earlier in the source selection process.

These were scratched right away:

Blue Ridge

http://www.blueridgeairlines.com/introduction_17.html

(that's literally from their webpage)

 

Cook & Chevalier Enterprises, Inc. has no web page I can find. There's some AIAA PDF by the owner, John Cook, but it's randomly capitalized, and looks sort of like the product of mental illness to me (but I'm no shrink).

 

(maybe it's like spamming SBIRs, I know some people who threw a lot of stuff out there to see if any would get funded)

[Rakaydos]

On 9/15/2021 at 2:03 PM, tater said:

Assuming LSS works for the first missions, all the other entries look comical unless they are also cheaper per unit capability.

LM has in the past floated the proposal for a lander that was "comically large"... though less so that Starship. Launch it to orbit, utilize a dreaded D-word to get it to the moon, and reuse it for lighter lunar missions than Starship supports.

Edited September 17, 2021 by Rakaydos