tater Posted May 15, 2021 Share Posted May 15, 2021 1 hour ago, RCgothic said: Wow, what a frankenrocket. @sevenperforce could it get some bolts sticking out the side out near the top? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted May 15, 2021 Share Posted May 15, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, tater said: @sevenperforce could it get some bolts sticking out the side out near the top? Needs a lightning bolt for ignition? Edited May 15, 2021 by StrandedonEarth Autocowrecked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted May 16, 2021 Share Posted May 16, 2021 6 hours ago, RCgothic said: Wow, what a frankenrocket. Well yes. But no more a frankenrocket than SLS, if you think about it. You'd have to shrink the drop tanks to about 33% of their normal length. But it would send 34 tonnes to TLI with a GLOW of just 2,006 tonnes, significantly smaller than SLS Block 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOXBLOX Posted May 16, 2021 Share Posted May 16, 2021 Were the Pyrios booster and F-1B scrapped, or are they still planning to do that, by, like, 2050? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted May 16, 2021 Share Posted May 16, 2021 1 hour ago, SOXBLOX said: Were the Pyrios booster and F-1B scrapped, or are they still planning to do that, by, like, 2050? Scrapped. They want to go with bigger, more dangerous, more aggressive solid boosters that weigh less and pack more propellant. Maybe they can start test-firing those at around the same time that Amazon starts doing same-day lunar deliveries and SpaceX opens up tourist visits to breathe freshly-terraformed Martian air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted May 16, 2021 Share Posted May 16, 2021 11 hours ago, sevenperforce said: Well yes. But no more a frankenrocket than SLS, if you think about it. You'd have to shrink the drop tanks to about 33% of their normal length. But it would send 34 tonnes to TLI with a GLOW of just 2,006 tonnes, significantly smaller than SLS Block 1. The SLS frankenrocket cost billions to redesign to fit. If you are going to build a frankenrocket, look to Orbital and their success with cobbling together surplus ICBMs and modified Pegasus final stages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted May 20, 2021 Share Posted May 20, 2021 Artemis II requires at least a 20 month minimum turnaround because it's reusing Artemis I's avionics. Assuming a March 2022 launch of Artemis I, that's pushing A-II towards 2024. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 26, 2021 Share Posted May 26, 2021 NASA render https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2explore/51205522995/sizes/l/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted May 26, 2021 Share Posted May 26, 2021 21 minutes ago, tater said: NASA render Is this a recently released render? If so, it's interesting how their placeholder lander is still included. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 26, 2021 Share Posted May 26, 2021 The link is to NASA Johnson flickr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanRising Posted May 26, 2021 Share Posted May 26, 2021 13 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said: Is this a recently released render? If so, it's interesting how their placeholder lander is still included. Yeah. I see why they couldn’t use the selected lander, as Starship has a way of dominating the image and that’s not meant to be the focus there, but they could have just left it out. Looking at the Flickr page, it was uploaded today, but I’m not sure that’s where it first appeared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted May 26, 2021 Share Posted May 26, 2021 Did they remove the "standard" lander they used in the previous renders or is it one of the modules on the left? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted May 26, 2021 Share Posted May 26, 2021 1 minute ago, Beccab said: Did they remove the "standard" lander they used in the previous renders or is it one of the modules on the left? The placeholder lander is still there, it's attached at the bottom of the picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted May 26, 2021 Share Posted May 26, 2021 More Canadian Artemis news... https://www.canada.ca/en/space-agency/news/2021/05/canada-moves-forward-with-plans-to-explore-the-moon.html Highlights: Canada to send develop and send a yet-to-be-designed rover to the Moon within the next five years. Also plans to develop and test other lunar science equipment. Sigh. And there’s the old-space contractor developing C3: $22.8 million to MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd.(MDA) to establish the technical requirements to build Canadarm3. $23 million just to establish technical requirements. Must be related to AJR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunlitZelkova Posted May 26, 2021 Share Posted May 26, 2021 In regards to the render, who is going to build the airlock now that Roscosmos is no longer participating in Gateway? Is it still going to look like that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted May 27, 2021 Share Posted May 27, 2021 On 5/26/2021 at 11:19 AM, tater said: Looks like Dragon XL opposite the placeholder lander. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOXBLOX Posted May 27, 2021 Share Posted May 27, 2021 29 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: Looks like Dragon XL opposite the placeholder lander. I was wondering whether it was. Are they still planning to fly it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceFace545 Posted May 27, 2021 Share Posted May 27, 2021 1 minute ago, SOXBLOX said: I was wondering whether it was. Are they still planning to fly it? I think so but iirc JAXA is planning for HTV-X to also make flights to the moon on H3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 27, 2021 Share Posted May 27, 2021 17 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said: I was wondering whether it was. Are they still planning to fly it? They have a contract to do it, so yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jinnantonix Posted May 27, 2021 Share Posted May 27, 2021 https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/03/dragon-xl-nasa-spacex-lunar-gateway-supply-contract/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted May 28, 2021 Share Posted May 28, 2021 But if SpaceX offers and NASA agrees, Dragon XL could probably be replaced by Starship/LunaShip. Or XL will be delivered inside a Starship Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOXBLOX Posted May 28, 2021 Share Posted May 28, 2021 (edited) Great! Then I'm gonna go build a Dragon XL in KSP whenever I get the chance. Sometime. Soon...? Edited May 28, 2021 by SOXBLOX is != in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derega16 Posted May 28, 2021 Share Posted May 28, 2021 (edited) 9 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said: But if SpaceX offers and NASA agrees, Dragon XL could probably be replaced by Starship/LunaShip. Or XL will be delivered inside a Starship XL in SS is more likely, there is no way gateway can perform station keeping in such docking position. Or maybe a trim down version of XL or even scaled-up XXL that's similar to ISS's MLPM. That will deliver and retrieve with cargo starships like how shuttle did in the past Edited May 28, 2021 by derega16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted May 28, 2021 Share Posted May 28, 2021 I got some interesting additional info from inside Dynetics. They had dropped the drop-tank design due to the number of safety-critical separation events. They were doing for methalox and they wanted to develop the engine in-house. But apparently they hadn't even decided yet whether to use pressure-feeding or a pump-fed design. No wonder they got rejected if they didn't even have a concrete engine design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 28, 2021 Share Posted May 28, 2021 12 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: I got some interesting additional info from inside Dynetics. They had dropped the drop-tank design due to the number of safety-critical separation events. They were doing for methalox and they wanted to develop the engine in-house. But apparently they hadn't even decided yet whether to use pressure-feeding or a pump-fed design. No wonder they got rejected if they didn't even have a concrete engine design. Wow. $253,000,000 to write a proposal, and they thought that was good enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.