Total Members Voted: 91
Voting closed: 05/19/2023 02:45 am
Can’t make up my mind. This will be a politically motivated pick, based on corporate Congressional “representation.” (Unlike KL’s original reason-based pick, for which her club membership was duly cancelled.) So, LM vs NG. The NT has additional Congressional-district diversity in the form of Draper et al, so maybe they get the edge.Am I being too cynical? Probably. Not.
For fun, here was a poster Dynetics was showing at the LSIC workshop a few weeks ago.~Jon
other: all bids rejected
Voted for Dynetics / Grumman lander. I' m in love with the concept.And with Grumman onboard there is a lot of pork barrel in place to satisfy Congress.On the other hand:Blue NT is a bit less NT, but you forgot Boeing is now teaming with Blue.I wonder if they are planning to lauch a full extra SLS for the Artemis V lander. (especulation)
Thank you for posting this. I wish we would actually release some of the media we make.
you can carry 21 tons of liquid oxygen back up to NHRO, but how much propellant does it need at NHRO to land on the Moon empty?What is the wet mass and dry mass of the Dynetics lander?
Hope it is a lander that the crew can fly to a safe landing or manually abort if necessary. Also one where the crew module is close to the ground not 100 feet in the air Not Space X
Quote from: theonlyspace on 05/17/2023 05:03 pmHope it is a lander that the crew can fly to a safe landing or manually abort if necessary. Also one where the crew module is close to the ground not 100 feet in the air Not Space XNot SpaceX. A familiar refrain, unfortunately.Yes, unabashed fan (boy) and becoming more so every day.NASA is about to spend two or three times as much money as it gave SpaceX for the massive Starship HLS, on a second lander that would fit inside a Starship payload bay.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 05/17/2023 05:41 pmyou can carry 21 tons of liquid oxygen back up to NHRO, but how much propellant does it need at NHRO to land on the Moon empty?What is the wet mass and dry mass of the Dynetics lander?It's a very tight thing. I've set up some math which gets 21 tons of LOX back, but it needs ~18 tons of propellant at NRHO, so in fact, you're only getting ~3 tons back. Basically converting methalox into lox at a ratio of 1.2For a single launch to be able to provide enough propellant, that indicates Starship is launching a Dynetics tanker utilizing the full mass capability of Starship. On a side note, this tanker would look very much like a third stage for those interested in that.And also good to know that it has fully and rapidly reusable landing legs.
Bottomloader SSTOs are one of my favorite non-traditional architectures…
I have to say when they announced Blue, I was initially disappointed. My inner cynic grumbled something about the triumph of zipcode engineering or something like that. But when they started showing details about their lander (that I'm sure people have already been going into ad nauseum over in other parts of the forum), my opinion changed. I like the new architecture a ton more than the original approach. Bottomloader SSTOs are one of my favorite non-traditional architectures, and a reusable cisluner refueling tug sounds intriguing too. They still have to prove they can execute on complex projects and on time, but it looks like they've picked an architecture worth funding. One that should provide a decent fraction of the benefits I thought Dynetics' ALPACA had over Blue's old solution. Bravo for making me change my mind!And congrats to the 39% of you that guessed correctly.~Jon