Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
texl1649 wrote:I just don't think many folks appreciate the degree of challenges of launching a methelox orbital vehicle which is also a full flow staged combustion engine. Neither, on their own, have been done before. It's sort of a big deal.
speedygonzales wrote:Possible explanation here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoD4zDnC3Ig
If the bulkhead separating O2 and CH4 ruptured it could explain both why it seemed tail heavy during descent and why it exploded shortly after ignition. The engines would run fine on the unmixed fuel and oxidizer left in the pipes, but as soon as mixed fuel/oxidizer reached the engine combustion would propagate back to the tank causing the explosion.
FGITD wrote:Seems almost boring these days, but another successful F9 starlink launch in the books. Most interesting part for me was the landing. The drone ship camera cut out, but stage 1 kept rolling. Can’t remember the last time we got to see a complete landing from the stage 1 point of view.
ThePointblank wrote:Hearing that SpaceX has won the NASA Lunar Landing System contract, which is worth $2.9 billion USD:
https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/statu ... 97505?s=19
Basically SpaceX had the lowest price and had adjusted their budget schedule to meet NASA budget, and thus was the only bidder that qualified. Dynetics price was reportedly significantly higher, and Blue Origin was even higher.
FGITD wrote:ThePointblank wrote:Hearing that SpaceX has won the NASA Lunar Landing System contract, which is worth $2.9 billion USD:
https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/statu ... 97505?s=19
Basically SpaceX had the lowest price and had adjusted their budget schedule to meet NASA budget, and thus was the only bidder that qualified. Dynetics price was reportedly significantly higher, and Blue Origin was even higher.
Now confirmed.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/04 ... ar-lander/
A great win, and I think also a huge vote of confidence in the starship program. Will be a little funny that the astronauts will cross from this little Orion capsule into this gigantic lander, but also opens up opportunities to bring more to the lunar surface.
CRJockey wrote:FGITD wrote:ThePointblank wrote:Hearing that SpaceX has won the NASA Lunar Landing System contract, which is worth $2.9 billion USD:
https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/statu ... 97505?s=19
Basically SpaceX had the lowest price and had adjusted their budget schedule to meet NASA budget, and thus was the only bidder that qualified. Dynetics price was reportedly significantly higher, and Blue Origin was even higher.
Now confirmed.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/04 ... ar-lander/
A great win, and I think also a huge vote of confidence in the starship program. Will be a little funny that the astronauts will cross from this little Orion capsule into this gigantic lander, but also opens up opportunities to bring more to the lunar surface.
Strong feat and a huge vote of confidence indeed.
I really hope my lifetime will see a permanent base on moon with a couple of dozen residents. Will be a huge step forward in science possibilities and even philosophically a tremendous achievement to have settled on another body in space, even if it doesn’t qualify as another world.
ThePointblank wrote:CRJockey wrote:FGITD wrote:
Now confirmed.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/04 ... ar-lander/
A great win, and I think also a huge vote of confidence in the starship program. Will be a little funny that the astronauts will cross from this little Orion capsule into this gigantic lander, but also opens up opportunities to bring more to the lunar surface.
Strong feat and a huge vote of confidence indeed.
I really hope my lifetime will see a permanent base on moon with a couple of dozen residents. Will be a huge step forward in science possibilities and even philosophically a tremendous achievement to have settled on another body in space, even if it doesn’t qualify as another world.
My gut feeling is that NASA knew SpaceX was going to develop and build Starship and then use it to travel to the Moon and beyond, so for them to try to compete with another system just didn't make sense, especially if what NASA said the prices were for the other systems were going to be.
Francoflier wrote:I wonder how many refuelings of Starship it would take to complete the journey.
...now if they can fly one without it blowing up, that'd be a step in the right direction.
Francoflier wrote:I wonder how many refuelings of Starship it would take to complete the journey.
I suspect one after launch and prior to accelerating to translunar injection, and maybe again after its return from the Moon to Earth orbit for de-orbiting and retropropulsive landing?
Even then, Starship is a large and heavy vehicle and I'm surprised it would have the Delta-V to accelerate itself from LEO to the Moon, make a propulsive landing there (with no atmosphere to slow it down), then liftoff and accelerate back towards Earth orbit.
Good news either way. As much as I welcome private ventures into space, NASA backing still gives Starship a brighter future...
...now if they can fly one without it blowing up, that'd be a step in the right direction.
jollo wrote:Could anyone summarize for me the planned NASA's lunar exploration architecture? IMU it's still based on a Lunar Gateway in NRHO (first launched on a Falcon Heavy with a "slow" transit to lunar orbit, fully robotic), and SpaceX only won the reusable transit-descent-ascent-transit element from the Gateway to lunar surface and back. So SpaceX's lander is meant to spend it's whole operational life shuttling crews between the Moon's surface and cislunar space: never meant to come back to Earth (neither to LEO nor to Earth's surface). If this is correct, the moon lander will be a *very* different beast from Starship's prototypes now trying to nail down belly flops and propulsive landings: the lander will only be human-rated for transit-descent-ascent-transit, not for launch from Earth's surface, nor for re-entry from LEO and landing?
Specifically: how is the lander going to be lauched and flown one-way to cis-lunar space (fully robotic, I expect)? How is the fuel for lunar surface trips going to be launched and flown to the Gateway?
Also, IMU the plan is to fly crews direct from Earth's surface to the Gateway, and then back to Earth's surface, with SLS+Orion. Orion has a max undocked mission duration of 21 days, right? So how is the whole mission timeline going to work? How many launches are going to be needed to support a single mission? Which launchers?
Thanks in advance for the education!
Nomadd wrote:Are you trying to put me out of business?
jollo wrote:Could anyone summarize for me the planned NASA's lunar exploration architecture?
Francoflier wrote:Nomadd wrote:Are you trying to put me out of business?
Look, I'm no Warren Buffet, but waiting for scrap metal to fall from the sky does not sound like a sustainable business model in the long term.
texl1649 wrote:The direct impact of this award is development of the lunar starship, aka moonship. And then 2 flights (one manned). This would not entail the ship linking up with the new lunar gateway, funding of which is ‘on hold’ essentially (and SpaceX has the contract to support this, yes).
SpaceX’s mission depends upon an operations approach of unprecedented pace, scale, and synchronized movement of the vehicles in its architecture. This includes a significant number of vehicle launches in rapid succession, the refurbishment and reuse of those vehicles, and numerous in-space cryogenic propellant transfer events. I acknowledge the immense complexity and heightened risk associated with the very high number of events necessary to execute the front end of SpaceX’s mission...
mxaxai wrote:https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/file ... -final.pdf
From what I gather, NASA/SpaceX is planning a series of launches before the first astronauts land on the moon:
1. 'Fuelship' (or several)
2. 'Moonship' + cargo, no fuel --> rendezvous with 'Fuelship' in LEO --> depart to lunar orbit
3. SLS with Orion + Astronauts, no cargo --> rendezvous with 'Moonship' to transfer astronauts
Then 'Moonship' lands on the Moon while the Orion capsule remains in lunar orbit. Cargo is offloaded and the crew return to Orion (as well as any cargo or samples that shall return to Earth).
If they want to save fuel, they could launch the Starships directly to the moon and rendezvous there rather than in LEO. A free return trajectory would be ideal to avoid lunar orbit insertion for the Fuelship. Then Moonship is put into lunar orbit and waits there for Orion while Fuelship is disposed of by sending it back to Earth.
GDB wrote:That is, two crew stay on the Orion, two go down on Lunar Starship for a 7 day surface time.
Commenter: Did the pilot announce it? That's awesome.
Uploader: He was the pilot! But they didn’t realize what it was at first and it was an early flight so they kept quiet.
ThePointblank wrote:Blue Origin is protesting the award of the contract to SpaceX for the Human Landing System competition:
https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-prote ... tem-award/
Something tells me they won't succeed...
ThePointblank wrote:Blue Origin is protesting the award of the contract to SpaceX for the Human Landing System competition:
https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-prote ... tem-award/
Something tells me they won't succeed...
flyingturtle wrote:https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/space-junk-sleuths-track-down-the-rocket-chunks-that-lit-up-the-northwests-skies-last-month/
About a guy who hunted for the Falcon 9 upper stage debris when it landed in the northwestern United States... interesting stuff.
(Partially relephant song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro - "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? - It's not my department, says Wernher von Braun")