Dynetics vehicles and discussion

[tater]

 

[Spaceception]

This is a cool lander system. And it's interesting that Vulcan will be launching it. If ULA's Cislunar-1000 plan is still on the table, do you think they could use this as a part of it? Artemis and Cislunar-1000 working alongside each other could be cool.

[tater]

BTW, I checked for another thread, if someone else made one before, I don't want to take it from them. Post in it, and I'll scrag this one.

[Canopus]

4 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

This is a cool lander system. And it's interesting that Vulcan will be launching it. If ULA's Cislunar-1000 plan is still on the table, do you think they could use this as a part of it? Artemis and Cislunar-1000 working alongside each other could be cool.

I think Cislunar 1000 was never a concrete plan more like a suggestion of what an in space refuelable infrastructure  would be capable of. In that sense i think both Artemis and this lander could be part of it, but so could the BO lander if its still Hydrolox powered.

[RCgothic]

This was announced as a three-stage vehicle, but actually think it's more accurate to call it a single-stage vehicle with two drop tanks delivered separately.

[kerbiloid]

They forgot to cover these frames with legion banners.

Spoiler

Though, still nice.

P.S.
And aquila on the front face.

Edited April 30, 2020 by kerbiloid

[RCgothic]

Dynetics was highest rated at this stage - 

 

[Canopus]

Certainly a very unorthodox design!

[tater]

So they show their lander as an SLS payload.

Wonder what the mass is. That makes it a non-starter, IMO.

[Nightside]

1 hour ago, Canopus said:

Certainly a very unorthodox design!

Soundtrack sounds like an 80's Spielberg movie, or maybe from The Last Unicorn, but it's copyright free! I'd say that's what put them in the top spot.

 

Edited April 30, 2020 by Nightside

[sevenperforce]

41 minutes ago, tater said:

So they show their lander as an SLS payload.

Wonder what the mass is. That makes it a non-starter, IMO.

No, look closely; the intertank is different. I think it is expected to launch on Vulcan-ACES or something similar, not EUS. 

The sideways-launched lander with drop tanks is almost exactly what I proposed a few months ago.

[tater]

Just now, sevenperforce said:

No, look closely; the intertank is different. I think it is expected to launch on Vulcan-ACES or something similar, not EUS. 

The sideways-launched lander with drop tanks is almost exactly what I proposed a few months ago.

It's EUS.

I posted it looked like it would fit sideways under a 5m fairing months ago as well. Of course then we had seen the landed render, not the drop tanks.

EDIT: to be clear, it looks like EUS (4X RL-10, orange tank), and the credits at the end say it is EUS, so there's that

[sevenperforce]

1 hour ago, tater said:

It's EUS.

I posted it looked like it would fit sideways under a 5m fairing months ago as well. Of course then we had seen the landed render, not the drop tanks.

EDIT: to be clear, it looks like EUS (4X RL-10, orange tank), and the credits at the end say it is EUS, so there's that

I'm just saying that these two renders look rather different:

But maybe they borrowed the lower render.

[tater]

The credits thank Marshall for the SLS render. Maybe they just have lousy animators?

[sevenperforce]

7 minutes ago, tater said:

The credits thank Marshall for the SLS render. Maybe they just have lousy animators?

Maybe Orion+EUS was borrowed from Marshall but lander+EUS was done in-house?

Ah, here's stuff from the presser:

Quote

The Dynetics approach enables near-term reusability and sustainability.

The Dynetics HLS can be fully integrated and launched on the Space Launch System (SLS) Block 1B vehicle. For commercial launches, it can be flown aboard United Launch Alliance's Vulcan Centaur rocket.

Reuse? So it only goes up once and then gets refueled?

[tater]

Odd, Vulcan Heavy is listed on wiki has doing 14,400kg to GTO, 7200kg to GEO. There's no way that lander is 10 tons. So 3 Vulcan launches and it's closer to 30t? Also, how would they assemble it, it's not like the drop tanks are spacecraft.

[sevenperforce]

2 hours ago, tater said:

Odd, Vulcan Heavy is listed on wiki has doing 14,400kg to GTO, 7200kg to GEO. There's no way that lander is 10 tons. So 3 Vulcan launches and it's closer to 30t? Also, how would they assemble it, it's not like the drop tanks are spacecraft.

Assembly is easy enough. Keep the drop tanks attached to the LV upper stage and have the spacecraft come mate.

[Exoscientist]

19 hours ago, tater said:

 

 

 Isn’t it presumptuous to say they won when several companies have been granted contracts to develop a lander with the final decision to come later?

 

  Bob Clark

Edited May 1, 2020 by Exoscientist

[tater]

10 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

 Isn’t it presumptions to say they won when several companies have been granted contracts to develop a lander with the final decision to come later?

They "won" 253 million dollars.

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1255913091956707329

 

[Silavite]

About the launch vehicle discussion;

Quote

Both Blue Origin and Dynetics have negotiated with United Launch Alliance, the rocket company's chief executive, Tory Bruno, confirmed on Thursday. One source told Ars that the Dynetics lander is base-lined to fly on Vulcan-Centaur.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/nasa-is-counting-on-a-lot-of-unproven-rockets-for-its-artemis-plan/

[sevenperforce]

I feel like this design is pretty much the perfect baseline for a reusable, bare-bones shuttle. Same set of engines for descent and ascent, efficient use of drop tanks, and easily refueled. Not gonna do anything but get you there and back again, but that's all you need if you have surface assets.

Also really good as an emergency, backup departure vehicle.

Being so low-slung means you can put a docking port on one side and drive a pressurized rover right up to it. No need for EVA to get into a base.

[DeltaDizzy]

Something that I believe few have noticed is the similarity between the Dynetics lander and an older concept floated by General Dynamics...

[tater]

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

I feel like this design is pretty much the perfect baseline for a reusable, bare-bones shuttle. Same set of engines for descent and ascent, efficient use of drop tanks, and easily refueled. Not gonna do anything but get you there and back again, but that's all you need if you have surface assets.

Also really good as an emergency, backup departure vehicle.

Being so low-slung means you can put a docking port on one side and drive a pressurized rover right up to it. No need for EVA to get into a base.

Yeah, I do like it as I said a few months ago in the human lander thread.

It also goes to the point I was trying to make in the Artemis thread re: pre-deployed base assets. All the lander has to be is a taxi. Ideally, another vehicle would deploy a hab ahead of time. Lander is minimal, and the astronauts get to have nicer facilities. The ability to have a serious airlock to try and isolate dust from the hab vs having the crew literally living in the airlock would be huge, IMO.

[K^2]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned asparagus staging in this thread yet.

Also in before announcement that to make deadlines, this will be FH payload.

[sevenperforce]

47 minutes ago, K^2 said:

I'm surprised nobody mentioned asparagus staging in this thread yet.

Also in before announcement that to make deadlines, this will be FH payload.

Not quite asparagus bc there are no engines on the drop stages.

If I had more time I would pixel-count and guess at the relative prop capacity of each tank. Did Dynetics give any indication of what props or engines it wanted to use?