NASA Human Landing System

[Codraroll]

At this point, I hope SpaceX will respond something like "Listen, if you are so bothered by your lander not going to the moon, I'm sure we can bring it with us in the cargo hold. We have room for it."

Edited August 4, 2021 by Codraroll

[Kerwood Floyd]

56 minutes ago, tater said:

a complete, unscrewed test to the lunar surface.

 

Yeah, the tests you don't screw are the best 

(Sorry. I almost never call attention to simple typos, but this just seemed too good to pass up)

 

Edited August 4, 2021 by Kerwood Floyd
(weird double post)

[tater]

Doh!

I corrected that and it said uncrewed and my phone changed it back.

[mikegarrison]

Obviously neither system is "proven".

However, I think what they are trying to get at is that on-orbit refueling of cryogenic fuels has never been done before by anyone (AFAIK). Refueling in space is a necessary part of any scheme that involves a reusable lander. Where SpaceX is different is that they need to refuel just to get there the first time.

Anyway, this is what marketing people are paid to do. They find some way that one product has an advantage over another project and highlight it.

[tater]

2 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Obviously neither system is "proven".

However, I think what they are trying to get at is that on-orbit refueling of cryogenic fuels has never been done before by anyone (AFAIK). Refueling in space is a necessary part of any scheme that involves a reusable lander. Where SpaceX is different is that they need to refuel just to get there the first time.

Anyway, this is what marketing people are paid to do. They find some way that one product has an advantage over another project and highlight it.

True enough on the refilling.

Its important to note that reusable/sustainable was part of the plan—so the NT entry would need to be redone later to then add some ability to refill it with props.

[StrandedonEarth]

8 minutes ago, tater said:

Doh!

I corrected that and it said uncrewed and my phone changed it back.

I believe the official term for that is “autocowrecked “. Or should be. Appropriate though

E: But yeah, BO lost and got spanked for fighting it. Now it just sounds like whining. Who put a six-year-old in charge of PR?

Edited August 4, 2021 by StrandedonEarth

[sevenperforce]

25 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

At this point, I hope SpaceX will respond something like "Listen, if you are so bothered by your lander not going to the moon, I'm sure we can bring it with us in the cargo hold. We have room for it."

Oh man!!

That infographic looks really, really butthurt. Come on, guys.

[linuxgurugamer]

3 hours ago, Beccab said:

Edit: the hell is "without dissimilar redundancy in abort engines" even supposed to mean???

Technobabble:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technobabble

[tater]

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

Oh man!!

That infographic looks really, really butthurt. Come on, guys.

Look at the image of their lander vs SS.

They seem to be exaggerating the size of their lander pretty substantially.

[Beccab]

1 minute ago, tater said:

Look at the image of their lander vs SS.

They seem to be exaggerating the size of their lander pretty substantially.

r/SpaceXMasterrace is amusingly reliable when BO gets facts proposefully wrong
From there:

[SpaceFace545]

3 hours ago, Beccab said:

r/SpaceXMasterrace is amusingly reliable when BO gets facts proposefully wrong
From there:

I think what BO is trying to show is that their lander isn't freakishly huge. Those nutcases on reddit didn't actually help. 

[Beccab]

8 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

I think what BO is trying to show is that their lander isn't freakishly huge. Those nutcases on reddit didn't actually help. 

...they are trying to show it by making their lander bigger than it actually is?

[Lewie]

3 hours ago, Beccab said:

...they are trying to show it by making their lander bigger than it actually is?

Jeff Bezos’s personal insecurities maybe. Methinks this is all about the ‘couldn’t get it up(to orbit) lol’ comment. (I also think this is why BO has been so whiny about the whole dealio)

Compensation much? I mean...look at New Shepherd. As far as flying phallic objects go, it takes the cake.

Edited August 5, 2021 by Lewie

[SpaceFace545]

4 hours ago, Beccab said:

...they are trying to show it by making their lander bigger than it actually is?

Well one of the National Team lander's points is that it's designed and small enough to be launched on and assembled with existing and near future medium-heavy launch vehicles. Sooo making it seem bigger than it is completely out of the picture.

[cubinator]

50 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Well one of the National Team lander's points is that it's designed and small enough to be launched on and assembled with existing and near future medium-heavy launch vehicles. Sooo making it seem bigger than it is completely out of the picture.

Near future, you say? Such as...

...vehicles which are currently in development?

...which have perhaps done static engine tests, fitted components, etc...?

...but have NOT yet performed flight tests such as hops or high altitude maneuvering tests?

...and which have NOT yet been fully assembled in an operational setting?

[tater]

7 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

I think what BO is trying to show is that their lander isn't freakishly huge. Those nutcases on reddit didn't actually help. 

This is a joke, right? If you show 2 vehicles and mention a dimension, they should be to scale, period.

Their lander is tiny, and has less crew volume than half a deck on starship.

2 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Well one of the National Team lander's points is that it's designed and small enough to be launched on and assembled with existing and near future medium-heavy launch vehicles. Sooo making it seem bigger than it is completely out of the picture.

It’s small, so putting it next to actual starship makes it look smaller—if that is the selling point, even better to scale.

Why don’t they just build their lander, fly it to the moon and demonstrate it works?

Bezos can afford it. 

[kerbiloid]

When I was a pupil, we learned about width/height and the CoM position stability...

Probably, it's obsolete now.

[Beccab]

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

When I was a pupil, we learned about width/height and the CoM position stability...

Probably, it's obsolete now.

Oh damn, NASA and GAO must have forgot about that! You should really call them!

[kerbiloid]

Just now, Beccab said:

Oh damn, NASA and GAO must have forgot about that! You should really call them!

Yes, I see. Glad to help them with school physics.

[RCgothic]

The national team's stability probably isn't much better than Starship's. It's a full ascent stage sitting on ton of a tall and empty descent stage. Despite the wide legs the CoM is going to be high.

Whereas Starship may be tall, but its ascent propellant will be sitting at the bottom of its tanks which will help to counterbalance high payload.

[SunlitZelkova]

17 hours ago, Beccab said:

(starship bad, so make the stuff about it red),

Maybe they just wanted to use red because Starship has a number of similarities to the N-1 lol.

———————————-

BO’s rhetoric sounds like a gas lighting company trying to protest electrification.

Protesting the lack of competition is one thing but trying to criticize SpaceX’s design is another. This graphic could be taken to imply Starship should be abandoned and the ILV should be the only lander.

Even from a PR standpoint it is a pretty poor graphic. The part about the ILV’s “proven technologies that are flying today” is so vague it will likely require people to go and find another source to get the details- only to find that little of the ILV’s hardware is actually flying or has been built, and that NASA actually said that the ILV had a higher risk of not being ready for 2024 than SpaceX.

[Beccab]

3 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The part about the ILV’s “proven technologies that are flying today” is so vague it will likely require people to go and find another source to get the details- only to find that little of the ILV’s hardware is actually flying or has been built, and that NASA actually said that the ILV had a higher risk of not being ready for 2024 than SpaceX.

Even worse than that, NASA *specifically* writes that most of the parts in the NT lander will never be flight tested until the crewed lunar landing, no matter the date when it arrives. So much for "proven technologies"

[kerbiloid]

There are just two proven technologies of lunar landers.

LEM and E-8-5 (aka Luna-16, -18, etc).

Both are fifty years old.

[sevenperforce]

5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

There are just two proven technologies of lunar landers.

LEM and E-8-5 (aka Luna-16, -18, etc).

Both are fifty years old.

I think you forgot about Chang'e 3 and Chang'e 4.

 

[kerbiloid]

36 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I think you forgot about Chang'e 3 and Chang'e 4.

I counted only human-sized ones. 

Change's rover is 140 kg heavy, while Lunokhods and other payload of E-8-5 are at least 750+ kg (but probably up to 1.2 t), LEM ascent stage was 4.6 t heavy.
E-8-5 is somewhat like an equivalent of the light Gemini lander. Risky, but possible
So, LEM and E-8-5 were able to deliver a human or two to the surface and back, while Chang'e can only to the surface.

The number of tested landings also matters.
(And in case of E-8-5 flights, as it's multifunctional: with legs - lander, with no legs - heavy orbiter, Luna-22 and others).

Edited August 5, 2021 by kerbiloid