totm dec 2023 Artemis Discussion Thread

[RealKerbal3x]

1 minute ago, Nightside said:

That Starship looks very different than previous iterations, no fins, winglets, or whatever, and very different from the current design.

Was this configuration ever published before or is this different?

It's a dedicated lunar variant, designed to operate between low lunar orbit and the surface.

[Canopus]

so the dynatics lander is two stage? Anyone have a guess as to its flight profile? Is the other stage a crasher?

[Nightside]

2 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

This is wholly new.

Then I will speculate that this is a "Non-returnable" variant, or Moon Taxi. Crew will transfer from a traditional capsule and this thing will not re-enter the atmosphere.

Either that or it is just a really outdated image.

[sevenperforce]

Just now, Canopus said:

so the dynatics lander is two stage? Anyone have a guess as to its flight profile? Is the other stage a crasher?

The presser says they use refueling modules at various locales. 

Just now, Nightside said:

Then I will speculate that this is a "Non-returnable" variant, or Moon Taxi. Crew will transfer from a traditional capsule and this thing will not re-enter the atmosphere.

Either that or it is just a really outdated image.

Correct, SpaceX says this will not operate in atmo after initial ascent. 

[Nightside]

3 minutes ago, Canopus said:

so the dynatics lander is two stage? Anyone have a guess as to its flight profile? Is the other stage a crasher?

I'm not sure I trust L Ron Hubbard's gang to design a spacecraft...

[Canopus]

1 minute ago, Nightside said:

I'm not sure I trust L Ron Hubbard's gang to design a spacecraft...

Imagine a lander looking like a DC-8 gently touching down on the moon

[tater]

 

[sevenperforce]

5 minutes ago, tater said:

 

Single-engine transfer stage, double BE-7 descent stage, single-engine ascent stage.

I wonder if the transfer stage is a crasher.

[tater]

2 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Single-engine transfer stage, double BE-7 descent stage, single-engine ascent stage.

I wonder if the transfer stage is a crasher.

It has that... spacecraft but (control, etc) at the front, and docking... maybe it stays in LLO, and the ascent vehicle doesn't need the dv to get to Gateway, then the transfer stage does that as well, and is safely disposed of (or later refilled?).

[RCgothic]

41 minutes ago, Canopus said:

so the dynatics lander is two stage? Anyone have a guess as to its flight profile? Is the other stage a crasher?

Press release says three stage, but I think it's more accurately single stage plus two replenishable drop tanks delivered separately.

[EchoLima]

45 minutes ago, Nightside said:

Then I will speculate that this is a "Non-returnable" variant, or Moon Taxi. Crew will transfer from a traditional capsule and this thing will not re-enter the atmosphere.

Starship's going to look odd docked to a tiny capsule...

 

Edited April 30, 2020 by EchoLima

[sevenperforce]

36 minutes ago, tater said:

It has that... spacecraft but (control, etc) at the front, and docking... maybe it stays in LLO, and the ascent vehicle doesn't need the dv to get to Gateway, then the transfer stage does that as well, and is safely disposed of (or later refilled?).

Using the transfer stage to get back to Gateway (or to Orion) is certainly the most efficient use of props.

10 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

Press release says three stage, but I think it's more accurately single stage plus two replenishable drop tanks delivered separately.

It uses the same tanks the whole time but refills them from other modules. Presumably both positioned in LLO. 

[tater]

 

[Nightside]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

 

My brain keeps changing "Human Landing System" to "Human Powered Landing System" and I imagine some poor astronaut pedaling a bike powered lander.

[RealKerbal3x]

7 minutes ago, Nightside said:

My brain keeps changing "Human Landing System" to "Human Powered Landing System" and I imagine some poor astronaut pedaling a bike powered lander.

Presumably using the ladder-drive physics exploit?

[cubinator]

4 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

Presumably using the ladder-drive physics exploit?

Warm-gas methane thrusters, actually

[derega16]

1 hour ago, Nightside said:

My brain keeps changing "Human Landing System" to "Human Powered Landing System" and I imagine some poor astronaut pedaling a bike powered lander.

Somebody should develop a man-powerd turbopump

[sevenperforce]

What I wrote (on another forum) on September 30, 2019:

Quote

I am confident we would not see a tank stretch for a lunar mission. What we might see, conceivably, is a version of Starship without wings or a heat shield, with wider landing legs, initially launched unmanned, to act as lunar surface shuttle. It would be substantially lighter and (without doing the math) could probably manage to go from fully-fueled in LEO to a lunar landing and back up to LLO.

Then, standard Starships could be used to ferry crew between LEO and LLO, and tankers could be used to refuel the lunar Starship in LLO.

Trouble with this is that it doesn't allow the Raptors to be serviced or inspected on Earth, which is an essential part of reuse. It also presents challenges for cargo delivery. You would have to transport your cargo out of the standard Starship and into the lunar Starship in LLO, in zero gravity. It's doable, for sure, but it's not easy. There's a big advantage in being able to design and implement a cargo deployment apporach on Earth that you lose if you are doing in-space cargo transfers.

The other trouble is the very problem with Gateway, because LLO is simply not a good place for staging due to mascons, Earth return timing, and the desire for polar access.

Close-up views of the lunar Starship show a blunt nose with a docking port on top. I think this very likely is intended to enable round-trips without using Orion or Gateway. Lunar Starship launches to LEO and is refueled. Dragon 2 launches to LEO and docks; the whole stack heads to the moon. Dragon 2 stays in high lunar orbit while the Starship goes to the surface and then back up. Crew returns on Dragon 2 (which actually has sufficient props for an Earth return) and Starship does a slow series of low-energy aerobrake passes to return to LEO for refueling.

[tater]

The Dynetics lander vid shows it attached to EUS. This implies it is north of 40 tons.

I like the lander, but unless they can send it in pieces, it's dead to me, lol. Any profile that requires 2 SLS launches is idiotic.

 

[Ultimate Steve]

14 minutes ago, tater said:

The Dynetics lander vid shows it attached to EUS. This implies it is north of 40 tons.

I like the lander, but unless they can send it in pieces, it's dead to me, lol. Any profile that requires 2 SLS launches is idiotic.

 

I think, on the NASA site, it says Vulcan is the intended LV so if that's true it can be split up.

[tater]

3 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

I think, on the NASA site, it says Vulcan is the intended LV so if that's true it can be split up.

Will look.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-selects-blue-origin-dynetics-spacex-for-artemis-human-landers

"In their proposal, the National Team outlines a plan in which the ILV can dock with either Orion or the Gateway to await crew arrival. The Blue Origin National Team’s elements for the Human Landing System can be launched individually on commercial rockets or combined to launch on NASA’s Space Launch System."

 

"The Dynetics Human Landing System is rocket-agnostic, capable of launching on a number of commercial rockets."

OK, which ones other than SS? I think it fits in 5m fairing, but that presumably takes 2 launches?

 

 

[Kadermonkey]

I think that if we are going to return to the moon or go anywhere past that, NASA will not get us there. Too much dependence on what politicians who do not really care about science say. There is a high chance that artemis will result in constellation 2.0, with way too much money spent, a single test launch that does not get science done, then it gets scrapped, and all of the taxpayer money is wasted.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Kadermonkey

[tater]

25 minutes ago, Kadermonkey said:

I think that if we are going to return to the moon or go anywhere past that, NASA will not get us there. Too much dependence on what politicians who do not really care about science say. There is a high chance that artemis will result in constellation 2.0, with way too much money spent, a single test launch that does not get science done, then it gets scrapped, and all of the taxpayer money is wasted.

I'm actually fairly confident that this happens, even if not 2024.

1. SLS has bipartisan support since it's in literally every State, the delicious bacon must flow.

2. International partners want a Moon base. It's cooler than ISS, better photo ops, and the only way they'll get astronauts to another world any time soon.

3. SpaceX is making Starship, regardless.

4. Bezos is all about the Moon, if NASA doesn;t do it, he's gonna do it anyway, they get value for money by participating.

 

[jinnantonix]

4 hours ago, tater said:

The Dynetics lander vid shows it attached to EUS. This implies it is north of 40 tons.

I like the lander, but unless they can send it in pieces, it's dead to me, lol. Any profile that requires 2 SLS launches is idiotic.

 

My RSS simulation of the 3 stage lander concept required SLS (for the Orion and crew) and 2 x FHe launches. Each lunar mission also added a Gateway component delivered from a FHe launch, and a resupply module which was co-manifested on the SLS.  I am pretty certain NASA knows that 2 x SLS launches per lunar mission won't work, and AFAIK doesn't need to.
 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by jinnantonix

[tater]

Yeah, they said launch vehicle agnostic. They could potentially send 1 drop tank with a SpaceX cargo delivery (already a thing) as DragonXL unpressurized cargo, perhaps? Send another with some other LV, and the lander with Vulcan?