Poll

Which company or team will be selected by NASA to build the Artemis V HLS lander, under NextSTEPs Appendix P?

The National Team (Blue Origin, LM, Draper, Astrobotics, Honeybee)
35 (38.5%)
Dynetics/NG
42 (46.2%)
Someone else
14 (15.4%)

Total Members Voted: 91

Voting closed: 05/19/2023 02:45 am


Author Topic: Who Will Be Selected to Build the Artemis V Lander (To Be Announced 5/19)  (Read 12395 times)

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5541
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4372
  • Likes Given: 1781
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)
Appendix P is a fixed-price bid for two missions: an uncrewed landing demo and a crewed landing. The bid would have to include the cost to the bidder of these two SLS launches. Even at a low-ball cost of $2 Billion/SLS this would make the price too high for NASA to award the contract. It would also put the lander at a prohibitive price disadvantage versus Starship HLS Option B, with which it must compete for landings beyond Artemis V. The SpaceX Option B award was $1.13 Billion for one launch (nominally Artemis IV), and that includes the incremental cevelopment costs from Option A and Option B.

Offline whitelancer64

Voted Dynetics.

One thing I really like is that there's so much flexibility in the design. Crew or cargo delivery, rapid and easy surface access.

There is possible future synergy with SpaceX, particularly if lunar production of LOX happens at useful scale. They can bring LOX up from the lunar surface to the SpaceX lunar orbital propellant depot, and also refuel from the methane SpaceX brings there.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Gliderflyer

For fun, here was a poster Dynetics was showing at the LSIC workshop a few weeks ago.

~Jon

Thank you for posting this. I wish we would actually release some of the media we make.
I tried it at home

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6812
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3994
  • Likes Given: 1686
Thank you for posting this. I wish we would actually release some of the media we make.

Glad to! I just wish Blue had posted updated info on their lander concept as well.

~Jon

Offline Hug

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Australia
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 95
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?

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 1.2

For 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.

Offline punder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1238
  • Liked: 1827
  • Likes Given: 1437
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
Not 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.
« Last Edit: 05/18/2023 02:04 am by punder »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1811
  • Likes Given: 1302
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
Not 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.
You should look at the "sustaining" HLS lander contract as a ransom payment to the Washington state Congressional critters. Since there will likely IMO only one under sized and very expensive lander getting funded. If it isn't prematurely canceled due to likely high development cost and likely schedule slips to the right. Especially when there should be a massive cheaper and mature alternative available that could be a Lunar surface habitat.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39276
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25255
  • Likes Given: 12118
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?

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 1.2

For 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.
I think the argument might be that “hey, we’re landing this thing on the Moon to deliver cargo anyway, might as well haul up something useful while we’re at it, since we want to reuse the lander anyway.”

You probably need to stage the depot in LLO for it to actually be a useful way of providing a bunch of extra propellant.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline uhuznaa

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 317
  • Liked: 267
  • Likes Given: 24
For fun, here was a poster Dynetics was showing at the LSIC workshop a few weeks ago.

~Jon

What I don't like with this is the engines being so close to the ground for a single stage descend/ascend vehicle and with the four engines so far apart it looks there is no practical redundancy, any one of the four engines failing will mean a bad day. Well, maybe wide gimbaling and some serious thrust reserves could help with this.

But if NASA will be happy with this they should be happy with Starship HLS landing and launching with its center Raptors too.

Offline TrevorMonty

With fuel at each end it should in theory be capable of transporting crew between LEO -Gateway-LEO. Eliminating need for Orion and SLS. Whether that fuel comes from SS, Vulcan or lunar ISRU still going be lot cheaper than SLS+Orion.

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2769
  • Liked: 787
  • Likes Given: 1135
ALPACA seems to me the best thought out and most flexible of them all.
Apologies in advance for any lack of civility - it's unintended

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 822
Voted NT, hope I'm wrong.
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline punder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1238
  • Liked: 1827
  • Likes Given: 1437
No livestream or public telecon?

Offline punder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1238
  • Liked: 1827
  • Likes Given: 1437
Here’s something…

Offline punder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1238
  • Liked: 1827
  • Likes Given: 1437
Chat says Blue Origin

Offline lightleviathan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 167
  • Liked: 146
  • Likes Given: 47
It's Blue and the NT 😔

Online AllenB

  • Member
  • Posts: 78
  • Evanston, IL, USA
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 350
Well, this is tough to get excited about.

That said, I'm ready and willing to become a BO fan. They've just got to start completing projects first.

Oh, and a little bit of openness wouldn't hurt either.

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1743
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1929
  • Likes Given: 1278
Would be neat to you.. actually see the lander... we all know what Blue Origin’s logo looks like...

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6812
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3994
  • Likes Given: 1686
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

Offline punder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1238
  • Liked: 1827
  • Likes Given: 1437
Bottomloader SSTOs are one of my favorite non-traditional architectures…
It’s Lunar Roton!  :D

(Posted before I saw your t/Space posts)
« Last Edit: 05/20/2023 12:11 am by punder »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0