NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => Blue Origin => Topic started by: sanman on 03/03/2017 10:05 pm

Title: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: sanman on 03/03/2017 10:05 pm
The Mk1 Lunar Cargo lander is on a separate thread:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59772.msg2535237#msg2535237



As part of Blue Origin's proposal to deliver supplies to the Moon for paying customers, founder Jeff Bezos mentioned a  lunar lander vehicle known as Blue Moon, which would ferry goods to the surface.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/technology/ct-bezos-amazon-moon-20170303-story.html


What are the likely specifications of this vehicle? What propulsion will it use?
In his AvWeek talk, Bezos mentions upper-stage/vacuum version of the BE-3 liquid-H2 engine -- so will that be used on the lander? I thought you want a low-volatility fuel that doesn't boil off in transit.
Bezos also mentions possibly flying on SLS or Atlas-V -- what kind of mass envelope does that impose on the lander?

If unmanned flights/deliveries to the lunar surface are used to man-rate the vehicle for later manned flights, then what kinds of unmanned payloads would be sent to the Moon? Robot rovers mainly?
What might be the limits on the mass-return capability?
Does this require an Apollo-style design architecture?

(Hey, that name sounds familiar (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38883.200) - should've taken out a trademark on it)  ;)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: sdsds on 03/04/2017 01:28 am
For crewed lunar landings experience (which is to say, Apollo) indicates a solution can be achieved by dividing the descent into two phases: a braking burn (which utilizes quite a bit of thrust) and a hovering touch down which requires relatively little thrust.The Lunar Module Descent Engine operated in two distinct thrust regimes for this very reason.

But of course more recent experience with vertical rocket landings on Earth (F9, New Shepard) suggest a different approach might be possible on the Moon as well, i.le. don't bother with hovering, just hoverslam onto the surface.

I think the wording Bezos used suggests he might be thinking the new approach might work on the Moon as well. Do others read him that way?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Jimmy Murdok on 03/04/2017 02:17 am
SLS and Orion will only shine if there is an attractive lunar project. A lander is a must that NASA needs, it's time to find funds for a lunar lander private challenge, there is a coral of private companies with interesting projects, hardware and funds waiting for a plan leaded by NASA were they can put everything on place. Selling Mars by mid 30's is not appealing.

There are several robot size landers on it's way, concepts from Boeing-Masten and Blue for human sized ones, Bigelow, 3 capsules, low cost cargo capacities... connect the dots and build a South Pole public-private architecture that does not break the bank. That would put NASA back on track roviding leadership and a clear objective for the big rocket and Orion.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/04/2017 09:40 am
The Atlas may not be ideal LV for it but does allow it fly before 2020. With NG or Vulcan it would be capable of 5t, use a SLS and it could be 10t.

Use lander as solar power station, have solar panels similar to Cygnus deploy from top and track sun. With robotic arm payloads can be winched to surface. For ice mining the tanks could be used for storing extracted water until LH/LOX processing plant is landed.

Refuel at DSH and it could be used as crew lander, surface access may require winched platform.

The best thing about this lander is that is based on flight proven vehicle and company has money to make it happen.

Edit.
After bit more thought I've realised they will need a whole new control system. The NS control surfaces will need to be replaced with small engines or gas thrusters.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: sanman on 03/04/2017 05:43 pm
When I think of a lunar lander, I think of something that looks non-aerodynamic, like the Apollo's LEM or Constellation's Altair, whereas New Shepard is of course aerodynamic as it's made for Earthly suborbital flights.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/02/an-exclusive-look-at-jeff-bezos-plan-to-set-up-amazon-like-delivery-for-future-human-settlement-of-the-moon/

Quote
Last year, Blue Origin successfully launched and landed its suborbital rocket, the New Shepard, five times within less than a year, flying just past the 62-mile edge of space and then landing vertically on a landing pad at the company’s West Texas facility.

That same technology could be used to land the Blue Moon vehicle on the lunar surface, the company said. Its white paper shows what looks like a modified New Shepard rocket, standing on the moon with an American flag, a NASA logo and Blue Origin’s feather symbol.

So I assume that's just a symbolic representation of the Blue Moon lunar lander, and not an actual representation of what it's supposed to look like. We're not able to see the actual white paper or that image, but anything that looks vaguely like New Shepard sounds like it's mainly optimized for Earthly aerodynamic flight, rather than for lunar flight. There's no need for fin-ring or tall-and-skinny design as compared to the classical lander shape.

Besides, I thought people here argued that New Shepard was mainly a pathfinder design.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: sanman on 03/06/2017 07:39 pm
From the Av Week article posted by Navier-Stokes:

http://www.aviationweek.com/space/blue-origin-developing-10000-lb-lunar-polar-lander

Quote
The New Shepard, set to begin flying humans this year, is the basis for the Blue Moon concept, Bezos said. Its BE-3U upper stage engine, a high-altitude variant of the hydrogen-fueled BE-3 that took the first New Shepard booster to space five times in 2016 without a change-out, would send the lander into its trans-lunar injection trajectory. It would retain enough capability after that to begin slowing the vehicle toward its target on the lunar surface, he said.

Like New Shepard, Blue Moon would land tail-down, braking with retropropulsion from a set of 11,000-lb.-thrust liquid oxygen/methane engines already in development at Blue Origin’s Kent, Washington, facility, Bezos said.

So why is it using Methalox for the landing thrusters, instead of Hydrolox all the way? Is it because the Methalox suffers from less boiloff compared to Hydrolox? Are there any other reasons? I don't think there's any way to harvest Methane from the lunar surface, is there?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: AncientU on 03/06/2017 07:47 pm
Methlox seems to be the easiest cryo propellant.
Commonality with other designs, too.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/06/2017 10:51 pm
From the Av Week article posted by Navier-Stokes:

http://www.aviationweek.com/space/blue-origin-developing-10000-lb-lunar-polar-lander

Quote
The New Shepard, set to begin flying humans this year, is the basis for the Blue Moon concept, Bezos said. Its BE-3U upper stage engine, a high-altitude variant of the hydrogen-fueled BE-3 that took the first New Shepard booster to space five times in 2016 without a change-out, would send the lander into its trans-lunar injection trajectory. It would retain enough capability after that to begin slowing the vehicle toward its target on the lunar surface, he said.

Like New Shepard, Blue Moon would land tail-down, braking with retropropulsion from a set of 11,000-lb.-thrust liquid oxygen/methane engines already in development at Blue Origin’s Kent, Washington, facility, Bezos said.

So why is it using Methalox for the landing thrusters, instead of Hydrolox all the way? Is it because the Methalox suffers from less boiloff compared to Hydrolox? Are there any other reasons? I don't think there's any way to harvest Methane from the lunar surface, is there?

The BE3U will do the TLI and de orbit burn, doubt it would throttle low enough for lunar landing. They needed smaller engines for landing, plus these engines could be used to hover for last minute course changes. Being Methane means they could be used in 2nd stage of NG for orbital maneuvers and maybe for landing in future. Wouldn't be surprised if these methane engines are a spin off of BE4 development.

As for harvesting Methane, these landers are destined for a one way trip, at least until water is being harvested and processed into fuel. Which is quite a few years and cargo landers away.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: AncientU on 03/06/2017 11:13 pm
From the Av Week article posted by Navier-Stokes:

http://www.aviationweek.com/space/blue-origin-developing-10000-lb-lunar-polar-lander

Quote
The New Shepard, set to begin flying humans this year, is the basis for the Blue Moon concept, Bezos said. Its BE-3U upper stage engine, a high-altitude variant of the hydrogen-fueled BE-3 that took the first New Shepard booster to space five times in 2016 without a change-out, would send the lander into its trans-lunar injection trajectory. It would retain enough capability after that to begin slowing the vehicle toward its target on the lunar surface, he said.

Like New Shepard, Blue Moon would land tail-down, braking with retropropulsion from a set of 11,000-lb.-thrust liquid oxygen/methane engines already in development at Blue Origin’s Kent, Washington, facility, Bezos said.

So why is it using Methalox for the landing thrusters, instead of Hydrolox all the way? Is it because the Methalox suffers from less boiloff compared to Hydrolox? Are there any other reasons? I don't think there's any way to harvest Methane from the lunar surface, is there?

The BE3U will do the TLI and de orbit burn, doubt it would throttle low enough for lunar landing. They needed smaller engines for landing, plus these engines could be used to hover for last minute course changes. Being Methane means they could be used in 2nd stage of NG for orbital maneuvers and maybe for landing in future. Wouldn't be surprised if these methane engines are a spin off of BE4 development.

As for harvesting Methane, these landers are destined for a one way trip, at least until water is being harvested and processed into fuel. Which is quite a few years and cargo landers away.

BE-4 engines are 500klbf staged combustion engines (50x larger and much too complex for a lander).
BE-3 are 10x larger and simpler (though hydrolox)... if anything, a BE-3 derivative. 

More likely is pressure-fed or pump-fed, simple engines.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 03/07/2017 04:22 pm
So why is it using Methalox for the landing thrusters, instead of Hydrolox all the way? Is it because the Methalox suffers from less boiloff compared to Hydrolox? Are there any other reasons? I don't think there's any way to harvest Methane from the lunar surface, is there?
BE-4 engines are 500klbf staged combustion engines (50x larger and much too complex for a lander).
BE-3 are 10x larger and simpler (though hydrolox)... if anything, a BE-3 derivative. 

More likely is pressure-fed or pump-fed, simple engines.

I'm thinking the thrusters are actually being developed for New Glenn booster and 2nd stage RCS.  Makes sense for those to be methalox.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: AncientU on 03/07/2017 04:32 pm
So why is it using Methalox for the landing thrusters, instead of Hydrolox all the way? Is it because the Methalox suffers from less boiloff compared to Hydrolox? Are there any other reasons? I don't think there's any way to harvest Methane from the lunar surface, is there?
BE-4 engines are 500klbf staged combustion engines (50x larger and much too complex for a lander).
BE-3 are 10x larger and simpler (though hydrolox)... if anything, a BE-3 derivative. 

More likely is pressure-fed or pump-fed, simple engines.

I'm thinking the thrusters are actually being developed for New Glenn booster and 2nd stage RCS.  Makes sense for those to be methalox.

Second stage control should be much smaller thrusters.  Draco thrusters are <100lbf.

First stage could use larger thrusters -- quite a mass to reorient for reentry, but wouldn't need to be quick unless they are considering RTLS.  A single superdraco is 16,000 lbf, so about the right category for the lander; still might be too big for attitude control.

Whatever thrusters are used, it they are methlox, thumbs up!
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 03/07/2017 04:37 pm
You're right I misread that the landing thrusters are 11,000 lbf. 
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/07/2017 06:48 pm
Engines are a big deal, they take forever to develop, you need to use them broadly/extensively to recover investment/support/continuity, and you are constantly improving them. So you don't do many different kinds of them. Note that the two stage NG, like FH/F9, basically use just one base engine.

BO's lander uses a BE-3 derivative (likely an overexpanded BE-3U), because he has the engine, he wants hydrolox in-space propulsion efficiencies. Now, if you build such a lander, it will scale to a huge landed drymass - likely the biggest lander only short of the ITS/BFS enormity.

Such a single engine lander would likely be used for cargo, because of reliability concerns. It could eventually be extremely cost effective, if you could bring down the cost of hydrolox infrastructure end to end. Something ULA has some experience with. To do that you'd also need demand, much like the demand for F9R payloads to support a reusable booster.

We don't see a radical growth in the number of payloads to space. Since Apollo, we've had less than 10 payloads to the moon, compared to hundreds to a thousand of other payloads.

So it's likely to assume that the business revenue of such a lander will take decades to develop, after the first lander lands ... once anew.

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/07/2017 06:50 pm
So why is it using Methalox for the landing thrusters, instead of Hydrolox all the way? Is it because the Methalox suffers from less boiloff compared to Hydrolox? Are there any other reasons? I don't think there's any way to harvest Methane from the lunar surface, is there?
BE-4 engines are 500klbf staged combustion engines (50x larger and much too complex for a lander).
BE-3 are 10x larger and simpler (though hydrolox)... if anything, a BE-3 derivative. 

More likely is pressure-fed or pump-fed, simple engines.

I'm thinking the thrusters are actually being developed for New Glenn booster and 2nd stage RCS.  Makes sense for those to be methalox.

Second stage control should be much smaller thrusters.  Draco thrusters are <100lbf.

First stage could use larger thrusters -- quite a mass to reorient for reentry, but wouldn't need to be quick unless they are considering RTLS.  A single superdraco is 16,000 lbf, so about the right category for the lander; still might be too big for attitude control.

Whatever thrusters are used, it they are methlox, thumbs up!
2nd stage landing engines most likely.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: savuporo on 03/07/2017 06:59 pm
What propulsion will it use?
Not a pump-fed engine. Or an electric pump, perhaps.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/08/2017 11:01 am
What propulsion will it use?
Not a pump-fed engine. Or an electric pump, perhaps.
And why NOT pump-fed? Smaller pumpfed engines have been developed. The Fregat stage is pumpfed but half the thrust. Do you have any evidence that it's not pump-fed? If it's just your opinion, say so. Don't state it as if it's a fact.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: daveklingler on 03/08/2017 10:27 pm
What propulsion will it use?
Not a pump-fed engine. Or an electric pump, perhaps.
And why NOT pump-fed? Smaller pumpfed engines have been developed. The Fregat stage is pumpfed but half the thrust. Do you have any evidence that it's not pump-fed? If it's just your opinion, say so. Don't state it as if it's a fact.

I don't have any evidence, but I'm going to guess a pressure-fed, clean-sheet design based on a need for simplicity.  I don't see any way this engine could be derived from either the BE-3 or BE-4, so I think it's new. 

If it turns out not to be pressure fed, I'll go with expander cycle, because I can easily see how they'd consider a methalox expander cycle engine of that size to be very useful.  There's been a lot of interest in methalox expander cycle engines of late, and it's entirely possible one or more of the researchers ended up at Blue.

edit - I think this is a pretty interesting bit of news all by itself.  Blue has another new engine.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: sanman on 03/09/2017 12:07 pm
So again from the same AvWeek article:

http://aviationweek.com/space/blue-origin-developing-10000-lb-lunar-polar-lander

Quote
The lander would be “launch-vehicle agnostic,” able to lift off from Earth on NASA’s heavy-lift Space Launch System (SLS), the United Launch Alliance Atlas V; the reusable New Glenn orbital launcher Blue Origin is developing, and even the Falcon Heavy under development by reusable-launch rival SpaceX.

Bezos said the lander’s payload would be scalable, with an SLS launch enabling 10,000 lb. to the lunar surface and smaller payloads on less capable launchers achieved by reducing the propellant load and number of descent engines.

He says the lander mass would be scalable by reducing number of engines and propellant load, in order to match the payload requirements. So if Blue Moon travels on SLS, the overall mass envelope would be 10,000 lbs - both lander and payload would have to fit within that. What kind of mass envelopes are possible with the other launchers mentioned?

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: savuporo on 03/09/2017 11:15 pm
What propulsion will it use?
Not a pump-fed engine. Or an electric pump, perhaps.
And why NOT pump-fed? Smaller pumpfed engines have been developed. The Fregat stage is pumpfed but half the thrust. Do you have any evidence that it's not pump-fed? If it's just your opinion, say so. Don't state it as if it's a fact.

Because going pump fed from no deep space flight heritage is simply infeasible, considering it hasn't been done before.
State of the art of deep space main engines is still hypergolic, pressure fed.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/09/2017 11:47 pm
If Be3 is doing deorbit burn then pressure feed should be fine for landing engines. These landers are not meant to fly again.

Blue must have a long term use for them, the most obvious is for storing extracted water. Maybe habitats.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: sanman on 03/10/2017 04:24 am
I was just wondering why methalox in particular for those landing thrusters. You guys have said it's the easiest cryoprop, and that it may be a spinoff of BE-4.

What about LH2-Fluorine? It's got superior Isp, and the Moon has no ozone layer or atmosphere to contaminate, and the mass savings it provides could be significant when lugging it all the way to the Moon.

A 1-way lander that isn't reused wouldn't have to worry so much about the higher reactivity of fluorine posing greater corrosion risk over time.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/10/2017 06:01 am
What about LH2-Fluorine? It's got superior Isp, and the Moon has no ozone layer or atmosphere to contaminate, and the mass savings it provides could be significant when lugging it all the way to the Moon.

Unfortunately, LF2 is extremely toxic and corrosive. It would be a nightmare if something went wrong on the ground. Being cryogenic, you'd need to take extreme care with the boil-off. Its so powerful, that it will burn with water, with an Isp similar to that of solid motors!

Propellants  MR   dp (kg/L)  ve (m/s) Id (Ns/L)
F2/H2       14.6   0.6553     4704     3083
F2/H2O       2.1   1.2942     2876     3722
F2/HTP       0.88  1.4689     2966     4357
F2/NH3       3.4   1.1770     4115     4843
F2/B2H6      6.4   1.1314     4416     4996
F2/N2H4      2.3   1.3073     4212     5506
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: sanman on 03/10/2017 12:42 pm
Yeah, I know Fluorine is famously toxic, but would that matter so much on the Moon? Okay, you wouldn't want any mishaps on Earth, but in the lunar environment the toxicity wouldn't be terribly relevant. Meanwhile there's a fair amount of Fluorine in some of the lunar rocks:


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016703711003450
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: savuporo on 03/10/2017 12:59 pm
Yeah, I know Fluorine is famously toxic, but would that matter so much on the Moon?..
It's not about the target operational environment. The problem is that someone would have to spend a good decade doing development with it, and then shift to operations with fueling and spacecraft integration issues etc.

There is a good reason why a reasonable part of industry is searching for other alternatives to hydrazine as well. Going fluorine would be a step backwards, not forward.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: brickmack on 03/10/2017 03:08 pm
Because going pump fed from no deep space flight heritage is simply infeasible, considering it hasn't been done before.
State of the art of deep space main engines is still hypergolic, pressure fed.

Theres no such thing as a "deep space main engine", the statement is meaningless. Any engine becomes a deep space main engine once you take it to deep space and use it. The only functional difference between this application and a standard upper stage is time on-orbit, and theres plenty of examples of pump fed engines lasting far longer in space than is necessary for this
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/11/2017 04:19 am
What propulsion will it use?
Not a pump-fed engine. Or an electric pump, perhaps.
And why NOT pump-fed? Smaller pumpfed engines have been developed. The Fregat stage is pumpfed but half the thrust. Do you have any evidence that it's not pump-fed? If it's just your opinion, say so. Don't state it as if it's a fact.

Because going pump fed from no deep space flight heritage is simply infeasible, considering it hasn't been done before.
State of the art of deep space main engines is still hypergolic, pressure fed.
Fregat, which is the small pump-fed example I used, is as deep space as anything. I believe it can last for days in orbit in between burns, which is enough to go all the way to the Moon.

Blue Origin hasn't even done anything orbital yet, but that doesn't seem to be stopping their ambitions, so don't let that count as evidence it wouldn't be pumpfed.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Kryten on 03/11/2017 09:21 am
Fregat, which is the small pump-fed example I used, is as deep space as anything. I believe it can last for days in orbit in between burns, which is enough to go all the way to the Moon.
Fregat's ancestor, the Phobos probes' ADU propulsion unit, used the same engine for Mars orbit insertion after a six month cruise.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Dante80 on 03/13/2017 01:49 am
I don't think that the lander will utilize BE-3. Bezos never said that explicitly (he talked about the system using the BE-3U, not the lander itself), and he also talked about the lander having multiple descent engines.

BE-2 comes to mind. I might be wrong on this of course.

Edit: Saw the quote above about methalox thrusters. My bad.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Norm38 on 03/13/2017 01:49 pm
But of course more recent experience with vertical rocket landings on Earth (F9, New Shepard) suggest a different approach might be possible on the Moon as well, i.le. don't bother with hovering, just hoverslam onto the surface.

Hoverslam landings  are probably fine once a base is operational and a nice big landing field has been cleared.  But for early missions, how much imaging resolution will they have before hand to know they're not coming down on top of a big boulder, or other terrain they can't land on?  They may need to be able to hover and translate. 
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: savuporo on 03/13/2017 03:26 pm
Because going pump fed from no deep space flight heritage is simply infeasible, considering it hasn't been done before.
State of the art of deep space main engines is still hypergolic, pressure fed.

Theres no such thing as a "deep space main engine", the statement is meaningless. ..
Yes  there is.

BT-4, Leros variants, AJ10 derivatives and so on. Common characteristics are low complexity, high redundancy, extensive flight heritage.

Indeed it appears KTDU-425A/KRD-425A/11D425A flew to Mars and fired - i wasn't aware at all. And according to sources, some predecessors from the S5 engine series, 11D417/KRD-417 flown on Luna 15-24 were already pump-fed as well. ( I'm now really interested in obtaining a copy of Bolonkin A. A. The Development of Soviet Rocket Engines, Delphic Ass., 1991, 134 p. ISBN 1-55831-130-0 that would probably be the authoritative source documenting the evolution of it )

Note that this engine series underwent extensive development iterations and multiple spaceflights before it became part of Ye-8-5, Ye-8-5M, ADU and eventually Fregat.

Fregat has also had a spectacular series of malfunctions, but more often than not they have been control systems related than engine/plumbing.

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: sdsds on 03/14/2017 07:36 am
how much imaging resolution will they have before hand to know they're not coming down on top of a big boulder, or other terrain they can't land on?

Maybe they could locate a landing site with synthetic aperture radar?

Quote
a miniSAR-equipped aircraft flying within 10 kilometers over a golf course "could resolve the fact that there were two golf balls 4 inches apart"
http://www.aviationtoday.com/2006/09/01/product-focus-sar-antennas-increased-abilities-smaller-size/
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: sanman on 03/15/2017 05:38 pm
Or maybe even just LIDAR?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/05/2017 04:28 pm
Real design or just artist's impression? UPDATE: from other tweets, think this is real design

Quote
Blue Origin's Rob Meyerson discusses proposed "Blue Moon" lander for supplying lunar settlement under public-private partnership. #33SS

https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/849653603308589058 (https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/849653603308589058)

Edit to add clearer angle from:
https://twitter.com/timmermansr/status/849652340076539904 (https://twitter.com/timmermansr/status/849652340076539904)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/05/2017 07:45 pm
Here's a write-up by Alan Boyle of what Rob Meyerson said today:

http://www.geekwire.com/2017/blue-origin-sneak-peek-blue-moon-lunar-lander/ (http://www.geekwire.com/2017/blue-origin-sneak-peek-blue-moon-lunar-lander/)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/05/2017 08:23 pm
The concept as shown appears to be a cargo lander with legs that telescope but do not fold, and given the selections of launch vehicles, size, and energies required, is either hydrolox or methalox, handling LOI, PDI, landing, and possibly ascent/ EOI (if reused).

Note the thrust can be accepted by an adapter at the top - perhaps the concept is to launch upside down, tanks and engine up. Such a concept could be adapted after the design matured for crew as well as cargo, with various additions including docking adapter.

This design isn't well suited to sorties but more follows the model of Altair, FLO, and Russian reusable landers in terms of payload delivery and operations tempo.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 04/05/2017 08:33 pm
The concept as shown appears to be a cargo lander with legs that telescope but do not fold, and given the selections of launch vehicles, size, and energies required, is either hydrolox or methalox, handling LOI, PDI, landing, and possibly ascent/ EOI (if reused).

Note the thrust can be accepted by an adapter at the top - perhaps the concept is to launch upside down, tanks and engine up. Such a concept could be adapted after the design matured for crew as well as cargo, with various additions including docking adapter.

This design isn't well suited to sorties but more follows the model of Altair, FLO, and Russian reusable landers in terms of payload delivery and operations tempo.
According to the Aviation Week article (http://aviationweek.com/space/blue-origin-developing-10000-lb-lunar-polar-lander) in March, BE-3U handles TLI through PDI. Landing is handled by 11,000-lb methalox descent engines. The number of descent engines is scalable based on the launch vehicle.

Edit: The phrasing in the Aviation Week article isn't particularly clear with respect to use of the BE-3U during descent and could possibly be interpreted as referring to LOI: "It [BE-3U] would retain enough capability after that to begin slowing the vehicle toward its target on the lunar surface, he said."
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/05/2017 11:26 pm
The concept as shown appears to be a cargo lander with legs that telescope but do not fold, and given the selections of launch vehicles, size, and energies required, is either hydrolox or methalox, handling LOI, PDI, landing, and possibly ascent/ EOI (if reused).

Note the thrust can be accepted by an adapter at the top - perhaps the concept is to launch upside down, tanks and engine up. Such a concept could be adapted after the design matured for crew as well as cargo, with various additions including docking adapter.

This design isn't well suited to sorties but more follows the model of Altair, FLO, and Russian reusable landers in terms of payload delivery and operations tempo.
According to the Aviation Week article (http://aviationweek.com/space/blue-origin-developing-10000-lb-lunar-polar-lander) in March,
My comments (as I've highlighted above) are solely directed to the Rob Meyerson graphic.

They likely don't apply to the Av week article. You'll have to ask Rob/BO to reconcile the two.

Quote
BE-3U handles TLI through PDI. Landing is handled by 11,000-lb methalox descent engines. The number of descent engines is scalable based on the launch vehicle.

Edit: The phrasing in the Aviation Week article isn't particularly clear with respect to use of the BE-3U during descent and could possibly be interpreted as referring to LOI: "It [BE-3U] would retain enough capability after that to begin slowing the vehicle toward its target on the lunar surface, he said."
Please note significant discrepancies between these two.

1) Four large tanks, not six. If you have three (LH2, LOx, LCH4/propane) you can't do that with four and handle TLI through PDI, less landing.

2) The vehicle does not show propulsion/engines - however, from sizing and leg extension, you can barely fit a BE-3U bell, and likely you'd desire a larger expansion ratio with an in-space propulsion, especially for TLI/LOI.

3) Likely you can use BE-3U for braking part of landing, and the following concern of landing is that of terminal burn for landing shock mitigation. Just as F9 lands with three engines and then cuts off two leaving one, you could use a tiny set of thrusters, possibly variants of the methalox RCS thrusters BO has already tested at its Kent location. However, none of this is visible from the concept shown.

Another item - if this is part of a scale-able lander concept, one would have to assume that the concept shown is the smallest "pathfinder" version, as nothing presents itself as using the capability of a hydrolox lander (see for comparison ULA's DTAL lander that does show scaling as a full-up lunar hydrolox architecture including  propellant depots.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 04/05/2017 11:48 pm
My comments (as I've highlighted above) are solely directed to the Rob Meyerson graphic.
They likely don't apply to the Av week article. You'll have to ask Rob/BO to reconcile the two.
The Aviation Week article is only a month old at this point and was sourced directly from comments by Jeff Bezos. It's possible that the design has changed since then or that Frank Morring may have misrepresented some of the details; however, I am inclined to believe that both descriptions represent the same concept.

Please note significant discrepancies between these two.
2) The vehicle does not show propulsion/engines - however, from sizing and leg extension, you can barely fit a BE-3U bell, and likely you'd desire a larger expansion ratio with an in-space propulsion, especially for TLI/LOI.
I suspect that Blue Moon may be actually be two stage vehicle: a BE-3U hydrolox crasher stage and methalox lander.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/06/2017 12:57 am
The 2stage would make sense. The BE3U crasher would be variation of NG 3rd stage which is also likely to be basis of Orbitals NGLV upper stage.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: redliox on 04/06/2017 01:13 am
So far it's pleasing to hear about the Blue Moon Lander.  Perhaps it will be to Luna what Red Dragon may be to Mars.  It's nice to see another company showing it can be as ambitious as SpaceX.

Although I favor Mars slightly more than Luna, I do want this to pan out.  A cargo vehicle either to the surface or the (Gateway I think is what it's being called now?) Lunar space station is a decent start and the combination of a hydrolox upper/crasher stage with a methalox landing system is reasonable; bulky compared to the old LEM but when you think about it the LEM was a small, borderline-improvised rush job made for the Cold War.  Whatever we put on the Moon this time around needs to deliver more and perform more specific functions.

It's no SpaceX ITS but this could be made reality more swiftly.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/06/2017 02:15 am
Please note that no one has demonstrated a hydrolox stage with ZBO necessary for such a mission.

Also, a methalox propulsion lander would need a similar means as well.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/06/2017 02:37 am
Why do we need zero boil-off, again? Oh right, we don't. Small amount of boil-off is fine.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/06/2017 03:29 am
Why do we need zero boil-off, again? Oh right, we don't. Small amount of boil-off is fine.
Ok.

Please calculate the boil-off for a hydrolox stage that launches to parking orbit, does TLI, coasts 3-4 days, does LOI to LLO, two orbits - about 8-10 hours, does PDI,  and hour of life and perhaps a braking burn.

You'll find irrespective of the other requirement of continuous power to keep the stage alive (something like a kilowatt base, improvable with stage power downs / bring ups, which are a bit chancy beyond prelaunch conditioning) that you'll lose a minimum of 60-70% of your props over that time.

If you don't, I'd really love to see how you bring that off, and so would a lot of other talented folk. Oh, and that's not all - remember its an US and all that goes with it, including the mass budget to do so.

In short, it's all about weight budget and getting payload to the surface. With ZBF your trades for preserving mass look the best.

If we're to be doing Amazon Prime to the lunar surface, perhaps you don't want to end up just delivering a bag of Kona coffee with each mission?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: daveklingler on 04/06/2017 06:05 am
Why do we need zero boil-off, again? Oh right, we don't. Small amount of boil-off is fine.
Ok.

Please calculate the boil-off for a hydrolox stage that launches to parking orbit, does TLI, coasts 3-4 days, does LOI to LLO, two orbits - about 8-10 hours, does PDI,  and hour of life and perhaps a braking burn.

With passive thermal management and 40 MLI layers, about 8% annually for an EELV-sized hydrogen tank, or about 2-3% per year for the same number of layers on a 200 mt tank.  I think the claim was pretty close to zero for ACES with IVF.  Unless I'm missing something? 

ACES with a XEUS kit?

http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Upper_Stages/ACES-Stage_Concept-AIAASpace_2015.pdf

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 04/06/2017 10:56 pm
Another article:
http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-ready-to-support-nasa-lunar-missions-with-blue-moon/
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: daveklingler on 04/08/2017 01:20 am
Or one can just put 25 tons on the lunar surface and return to orbit with something a little more elaborate.  :)

http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Upper_Stages/ACES-Stage_Concept-AIAASpace_2015.pdf

I have a sneaking suspicion that Blue and ULA will find more areas of cooperation over the next few years.  A NG would do a nice job tanking up an ACES depot in L2.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/26/2017 03:01 pm
From today's senate hearing (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42776.0):

Quote
Jeff Foust‏ @jeff_foust

Meyerson: Blue willing to invest in “Blue Moon” lunar lander concept in partnership with NASA; return to Moon worthy national goal.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/857242844934877185 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/857242844934877185)

Quote
Eric Berger ‏Verified account @SciGuySpace

Eric Berger Retweeted Jeff Foust

Willing to invest "significantly." Which IMO is significant.
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/857242959653351424 (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/857242959653351424)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 04/26/2017 08:47 pm
From today's senate hearing (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42776.0):

Quote
Jeff Foust‏ @jeff_foust

Meyerson: Blue willing to invest in “Blue Moon” lunar lander concept in partnership with NASA; return to Moon worthy national goal.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/857242844934877185 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/857242844934877185)

Quote
Eric Berger ‏Verified account @SciGuySpace

Eric Berger Retweeted Jeff Foust

Willing to invest "significantly." Which IMO is significant.
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/857242959653351424 (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/857242959653351424)
Ok, so now it is only a question of When not If.

It will happen, but when will the first launch of the BML occur?
Did he mention a NET date for first landing?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FishInferno on 09/30/2017 01:29 am
I hope SpaceX's announcement of BFR being capable of Lunar landings puts enough pressure on BO to finally release something juicy about Blue Moon.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: QuantumG on 09/30/2017 02:15 am
Just send moneytm
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JEF_300 on 10/06/2017 12:36 am
So at the first National Space Council meeting today, the concept of returning to the Moon within 5 years was brought up in the first panel. Blue Origin was in the second, and said that the Blue Moon lander could be completed "...within the next 5 years."

The video of the meeting is available on the White House YouTube channel. The comment about Blue Moon is at 1:05:25
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: savuporo on 10/06/2017 02:13 am
So far it's pleasing to hear about the Blue Moon Lander.  Perhaps it will be to Luna what Red Dragon may be to Mars. ..

Careful with what you wish for.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 12/12/2017 02:22 pm
With all this back to the moon business and the (possible) need for landers I was thinking it's a shame Blue Moon is so small with "only" 4500 kg cargo payload to the surface. So I looked at history...

The Apollo Lunar Ascent Module massed 4700kg fully fueled - without astronauts. That's close enough to either be an extremely interesting coincidence or frustratingly just short of a possible 2 person lunar lander.


That's assuming a 2 stage architecture, a single stage would have plenty or margin IF supported by ISRU.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: jebbo on 01/22/2018 06:36 pm
Quote
Blue Moon is designed to fly on any launch vehicle, including SLS, Atlas V, Vulcan and New Glenn. Delivering large payloads to the lunar surface, Blue Moon can help put astronauts on the moon – this time to stay. #BlueMoon #Apollo50th

https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/955509552878821376 (https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/955509552878821376)

Edit: from looking at the terminator on earth, clearly a polar landing. I think north, as I think you can just about make out Alaska & Antarctica though I wouldn't bet on it ;-)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: AncientU on 01/22/2018 09:21 pm
Shadows from lander would be much longer on Lunar pole, and would extend toward Earth on the horizon (maybe actually below the horizon) and to the right a bit. 
Image is actually impossible shadows-wise, just a nice photo-shop.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: jebbo on 01/23/2018 06:30 am
True ;)

--- Tony
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: su27k on 07/04/2018 04:22 am
Blue Origin targets moon landing by 2023 as an early step toward lunar settlement (https://www.geekwire.com/2018/blue-origin-targets-moon-landing-2023-early-step-toward-lunar-settlement/)

Quote
Charania said “we’re actively working on the descent stage for Blue Moon, the capabilities, the partnerships that are required to enable that service … to start going back to the moon with larger and larger payloads.”
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Semmel on 07/04/2018 10:37 am
Blue Origin targets moon landing by 2023 as an early step toward lunar settlement (https://www.geekwire.com/2018/blue-origin-targets-moon-landing-2023-early-step-toward-lunar-settlement/)

Quote
Charania said “we’re actively working on the descent stage for Blue Moon, the capabilities, the partnerships that are required to enable that service … to start going back to the moon with larger and larger payloads.”

Cool, hope they reach earth orbit by that time too! :)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: woods170 on 07/04/2018 10:53 am
Blue Origin targets moon landing by 2023 as an early step toward lunar settlement (https://www.geekwire.com/2018/blue-origin-targets-moon-landing-2023-early-step-toward-lunar-settlement/)

Quote
Charania said “we’re actively working on the descent stage for Blue Moon, the capabilities, the partnerships that are required to enable that service … to start going back to the moon with larger and larger payloads.”

Cool, hope they reach earth orbit by that time too! :)

Actually, they would be better off having reached Earth orbit a few years before that.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: SciNews on 10/03/2018 05:44 pm
Blue Origin | “Let’s go to the Moon” is key focus at IAC 2018 https://www.blueorigin.com/news/news/lets-go-to-the-moon-is-key-focus-at-iac-2018
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/04/2018 06:15 am
https://www.ohb.de/en/news/ohb-group-signs-letter-of-intent-for-cooperation-with-blue-origin/

02. October 2018
Press Release
OHB Group signs Letter of Intent for cooperation with Blue Origin

Bremen, October 2, 2018. The OHB Group today signed a Letter of Intent (LOI) for future cooperation with the U.S. aerospace company Blue Origin. The document was signed by Dr. Lutz Bertling and Kurt Melching, members of the Management Board of OHB SE, Hans J. Steininger, CEO of MT Aerospace and Bob Smith, CEO of Blue Origin, during a bilateral meeting at the International Space Congress IAC in Bremen.

The aim is to explore the extent to which OHB, MT Aerospace and Blue Origin can work together across the Atlantic. The companies have partnered on a future Blue Moon mission to the lunar surface – Blue Origin’s lunar lander capable of bringing several metric tons of cargo to the Moon. The companies will collaborate on a payload on board Blue Origin’s reusable orbital rocket New Glenn. The use of these systems and possible cooperation will be the subject of in-depth discussions in the transatlantic dialogue.

"We are delighted to have gained Blue Origin as a dialogue partner who has established itself over the past few years as one of the leading companies in the aerospace industry," says Lutz Bertling. "We are convinced that the mixture of the respective competencies will quickly lead to concrete approaches for further cooperation".
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Markstark on 01/08/2019 06:17 pm
https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1082683612468776960
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Markstark on 01/08/2019 06:19 pm
I wonder if Blue Moon was not selected for CLPS because of the 2023 service date. Perhaps they will try to enter at the 2 year on-ramp.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: matthewkantar on 01/08/2019 06:47 pm
Ten thousand pounds cargo, or total?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/09/2019 05:34 am
I wonder if Blue Moon was not selected for CLPS because of the 2023 service date. Perhaps they will try to enter at the 2 year on-ramp.

Blue Moon was too big for CLPS:

Quote
NASA also will look for payloads for the miniature landers in addition to landers capable of delivering 500 to 1,000 kilograms to the surface of the Moon

https://spacenews.com/nasa-to-buy-rides-on-commercial-landers-by-years-end/
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/11/2019 01:54 am
I wonder if Blue Moon was not selected for CLPS because of the 2023 service date. Perhaps they will try to enter at the 2 year on-ramp.

Blue Moon was too big for CLPS:

Quote
NASA also will look for payloads for the miniature landers in addition to landers capable of delivering 500 to 1,000 kilograms to the surface of the Moon

https://spacenews.com/nasa-to-buy-rides-on-commercial-landers-by-years-end/
No such thing as too big. Of course Blue Moon can land 1000kg to the surface. Margin isn't penalized. There IS such a thing as too expensive for that 1000kg.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/12/2019 12:58 pm
I wonder if Blue Moon was not selected for CLPS because of the 2023 service date. Perhaps they will try to enter at the 2 year on-ramp.

Blue Moon was too big for CLPS:

Quote
NASA also will look for payloads for the miniature landers in addition to landers capable of delivering 500 to 1,000 kilograms to the surface of the Moon

https://spacenews.com/nasa-to-buy-rides-on-commercial-landers-by-years-end/
No such thing as too big. Of course Blue Moon can land 1000kg to the surface. Margin isn't penalized. There IS such a thing as too expensive for that 1000kg.

Really, you are going to be this pedantic?

Yes the Blue Moon, IF BID, would be too high for the competition.

Because...it...is...bigger

Is that really that different from saying it is too big for the competition?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/15/2019 04:55 am
I wonder if Blue Moon was not selected for CLPS because of the 2023 service date. Perhaps they will try to enter at the 2 year on-ramp.

Blue Moon was too big for CLPS:

Quote
NASA also will look for payloads for the miniature landers in addition to landers capable of delivering 500 to 1,000 kilograms to the surface of the Moon

https://spacenews.com/nasa-to-buy-rides-on-commercial-landers-by-years-end/
No such thing as too big. Of course Blue Moon can land 1000kg to the surface. Margin isn't penalized. There IS such a thing as too expensive for that 1000kg.

Really, you are going to be this pedantic?

Yes the Blue Moon, IF BID, would be too high for the competition.

Because...it...is...bigger

Is that really that different from saying it is too big for the competition?
Yes, it is different. A fully reusable BFR (for instance) would probably be just as cheap as an expendable 1000kg lander, perhaps even cheaper.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/15/2019 06:34 am
I wonder if Blue Moon was not selected for CLPS because of the 2023 service date. Perhaps they will try to enter at the 2 year on-ramp.

Blue Moon was too big for CLPS:

Quote
NASA also will look for payloads for the miniature landers in addition to landers capable of delivering 500 to 1,000 kilograms to the surface of the Moon

https://spacenews.com/nasa-to-buy-rides-on-commercial-landers-by-years-end/
No such thing as too big. Of course Blue Moon can land 1000kg to the surface. Margin isn't penalized. There IS such a thing as too expensive for that 1000kg.

Really, you are going to be this pedantic?

Yes the Blue Moon, IF BID, would be too high for the competition.

Because...it...is...bigger

Is that really that different from saying it is too big for the competition?
Yes, it is different. A fully reusable BFR (for instance) would probably be just as cheap as an expendable 1000kg lander, perhaps even cheaper.
You have factor in price and critical timing of BFR tanker flights (quality X ???) to deliver same 5t a single NG and expendable Blue lander can. The NG has lot lower mission risk as its only one launch and one booster recovery.

The BFR has to do at least X succesful launches and recover X*2 stages (X boosters + X US) one from lunar return reentry speed.

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/15/2019 08:24 pm
I wonder if Blue Moon was not selected for CLPS because of the 2023 service date. Perhaps they will try to enter at the 2 year on-ramp.

Blue Moon was too big for CLPS:

Quote
NASA also will look for payloads for the miniature landers in addition to landers capable of delivering 500 to 1,000 kilograms to the surface of the Moon

https://spacenews.com/nasa-to-buy-rides-on-commercial-landers-by-years-end/
No such thing as too big. Of course Blue Moon can land 1000kg to the surface. Margin isn't penalized. There IS such a thing as too expensive for that 1000kg.

Really, you are going to be this pedantic?

Yes the Blue Moon, IF BID, would be too high for the competition.

Because...it...is...bigger

Is that really that different from saying it is too big for the competition?
Yes, it is different. A fully reusable BFR (for instance) would probably be just as cheap as an expendable 1000kg lander, perhaps even cheaper.

It is interesting that out of the 3 CRS-2 providers, the one that re-uses no hardware is the cheapest while the one that re-uses the most hardware is the most expensive.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: envy887 on 01/15/2019 08:55 pm
I wonder if Blue Moon was not selected for CLPS because of the 2023 service date. Perhaps they will try to enter at the 2 year on-ramp.

Blue Moon was too big for CLPS:

Quote
NASA also will look for payloads for the miniature landers in addition to landers capable of delivering 500 to 1,000 kilograms to the surface of the Moon

https://spacenews.com/nasa-to-buy-rides-on-commercial-landers-by-years-end/
No such thing as too big. Of course Blue Moon can land 1000kg to the surface. Margin isn't penalized. There IS such a thing as too expensive for that 1000kg.

Really, you are going to be this pedantic?

Yes the Blue Moon, IF BID, would be too high for the competition.

Because...it...is...bigger

Is that really that different from saying it is too big for the competition?
Yes, it is different. A fully reusable BFR (for instance) would probably be just as cheap as an expendable 1000kg lander, perhaps even cheaper.

It is interesting that out of the 3 CRS-2 providers, the one that re-uses no hardware is the cheapest while the one that re-uses the most hardware is the most expensive.

Do we know that CRS2 prices include any reuse? None of SpaceX's other NASA contracts do, as far as I can tell. They require new boosters and new capsules.

The GAO's suggestion that NASA negotiate cash reductions for reuse, instead of additional services as on CRS1, strongly suggests that the CRS2 prices they looked at did not include any reuse.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/15/2019 09:11 pm
I wonder if Blue Moon was not selected for CLPS because of the 2023 service date. Perhaps they will try to enter at the 2 year on-ramp.

Blue Moon was too big for CLPS:

Quote
NASA also will look for payloads for the miniature landers in addition to landers capable of delivering 500 to 1,000 kilograms to the surface of the Moon

https://spacenews.com/nasa-to-buy-rides-on-commercial-landers-by-years-end/
No such thing as too big. Of course Blue Moon can land 1000kg to the surface. Margin isn't penalized. There IS such a thing as too expensive for that 1000kg.

Really, you are going to be this pedantic?

Yes the Blue Moon, IF BID, would be too high for the competition.

Because...it...is...bigger

Is that really that different from saying it is too big for the competition?
Yes, it is different. A fully reusable BFR (for instance) would probably be just as cheap as an expendable 1000kg lander, perhaps even cheaper.

It is interesting that out of the 3 CRS-2 providers, the one that re-uses no hardware is the cheapest while the one that re-uses the most hardware is the most expensive.

Do we know that CRS2 prices include any reuse? None of SpaceX's other NASA contracts do, as far as I can tell. They require new boosters and new capsules.

The GAO's suggestion that NASA negotiate cash reductions for reuse, instead of additional services as on CRS1, strongly suggests that the CRS2 prices they looked at did not include any reuse.

So, extrapolating out farther, the price for the BFR flight is going to be the same as if the booster goes down (similar to the last CRS flight) and the upper stage breaks up on re-entry as the price in the near future will be the maximum foreseeable cost (which means recovery failed). So, it would be as expensive as an expendable flight, and it won't be as cheap as a 1000 kg launch on a rocket that requires an order of magnitude less launches on a rocket an order of magnitude smaller. SpaceX would be taking on a lot of risk if they price everything assuming that out of 6+ booster flights and 6+ spacecraft flights, none of that hardware gets damaged flying a very ambitious flight profile.

For reference, The F9R-Dev1 was destroyed on flight 5 and the the descent module on the LM was damaged 1 out of 6 landings.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GreenShrike on 01/15/2019 10:20 pm
So, extrapolating out farther, the price for the BFR flight is going to be the same as if the booster goes down (similar to the last CRS flight) and the upper stage breaks up on re-entry as the price in the near future will be the maximum foreseeable cost (which means recovery failed). So, it would be as expensive as an expendable flight, and it won't be as cheap as a 1000 kg launch on a rocket that requires an order of magnitude less launches on a rocket an order of magnitude smaller.

You forgot to list the next order of magnitude: the cheap 1000kg launch carries an order of magnitude less payload.

You'd need an order of magnitude more cost for the 1000kg flights to put 10t on the Moon, and an order of magnitude more launches and, thus, risk.

Oh, and that's if BFR only lands 10t on the Moon. Those would be *two* orders if BFR manages 100t landed after orbital refueling.

BFR is... uh, *big*.

SpaceX would be taking on a lot of risk if they price everything assuming that out of 6+ booster flights and 6+ spacecraft flights, none of that hardware gets damaged flying a very ambitious flight profile.

SpaceX, as I think the CRS contracts show, is capable of pricing appropriately.

How much is 100t cargo landed on the Moon worth? If the "cheap" 1000kg launch is priced at $50M per flight, that's... uh, $5B?

Do you think SpaceX would take that for a BFS and several tanker launches, even if the BFS was classed as expendable and left to sit on the Moon? What about a measly $2B?


If someone actually hires SpaceX to put cargo on the moon, I think lunar lander type solutions like Blue Moon will thereafter be seen as somewhat wanting.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: catdlr on 02/02/2019 07:16 am
From this article update (half way down) it states that the
Quote
Israel Aerospace Industries signed a teaming agreement with German satellite manufacturer OHB System AG to provide a commercial lunar delivery service to the European Space Agency.

Article  (https://www.geekwire.com/2019/israeli-lunar-lander-passes-tests-preparation-spacex-launch-moon/)

quote from the Jan 30th update to this article:

Quote
Update for 11:30 a.m. PT Jan. 30:
OHB has also partnered with Blue Origin, the Kent, Wash.-based space company founded by Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos, on a future moon mission that would use Blue Origin’s significantly larger Blue Moon Lander.


Emphasis BOLD is mine, Tony.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Ludus on 02/14/2019 09:48 pm
It would be interesting to see what sort of Spaceship would result from Blue using the BE-3U for a Zubrin’s style LEV. It might use 3 of them in line since they can throttle down quite a lot. It would then have 3 modes, use all three engines, use the outer 2, or use the center alone. It would be configured like the SpaceX hopper. Plenty of redundancy,

This would have a pretty serious capability to land cargo and crew and transport them back to earth orbit. It could also as Zubrin says be used point to point on the moon for serious exploration from the base using ISRU propellant.

It would of course have the defect of being too robust and practical since it wouldn’t need SLS/Orion/LOP-G at all and would just enable a lunar base, ISRU and exploration by all by itself and this of course defeats the real purpose.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 02/14/2019 10:28 pm
It would be interesting to see what sort of Spaceship would result from Blue using the BE-3U for a Zubrin’s style LEV. It might use 3 of them in line since they can throttle down quite a lot. It would then have 3 modes, use all three engines, use the outer 2, or use the center alone. It would be configured like the SpaceX hopper. Plenty of redundancy,
purpose.

Kind of off topic to be honest. Blue Moon has only been stated to be up to 4500 kg of payload, which if powered by a single BE-3U is already pretty overpowered at 710 kN and capable of throttling down to 88% except when still carrying lots of landing propellant.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/14/2019 11:01 pm
It would be interesting to see what sort of Spaceship would result from Blue using the BE-3U for a Zubrin’s style LEV. It might use 3 of them in line since they can throttle down quite a lot. It would then have 3 modes, use all three engines, use the outer 2, or use the center alone. It would be configured like the SpaceX hopper. Plenty of redundancy,
purpose.

Kind of off topic to be honest. Blue Moon has only been stated to be up to 4500 kg of payload, which if powered by a single BE-3U is already pretty overpowered at 710 kN and capable of throttling down to 88% except when still carrying lots of landing propellant.
Be3U is OK as OTV engine but really need something smaller (2-3 1000kg engines)for final landing. Don't need to be very efficient as only used for final touch down as BE3U handles deorbit burn.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/16/2019 02:38 am
I wonder if Blue Moon was not selected for CLPS because of the 2023 service date. Perhaps they will try to enter at the 2 year on-ramp.

Blue Moon was too big for CLPS:

Quote
NASA also will look for payloads for the miniature landers in addition to landers capable of delivering 500 to 1,000 kilograms to the surface of the Moon

https://spacenews.com/nasa-to-buy-rides-on-commercial-landers-by-years-end/
No such thing as too big. Of course Blue Moon can land 1000kg to the surface. Margin isn't penalized. There IS such a thing as too expensive for that 1000kg.

Really, you are going to be this pedantic?

Yes the Blue Moon, IF BID, would be too high for the competition.

Because...it...is...bigger

Is that really that different from saying it is too big for the competition?
Yes, it is different. A fully reusable BFR (for instance) would probably be just as cheap as an expendable 1000kg lander, perhaps even cheaper.
You have factor in...
...I have.

Reusable BFR still much cheaper. And higher flight rate actually translates into lower chance of losing the payload versus single-shot.

...additionally, EXPENDABLE BFR may be cheaper and can perhaps do the mission without refueling.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Lar on 02/16/2019 03:32 am
Reusable BFR still much cheaper. And higher flight rate actually translates into lower chance of losing the payload versus single-shot.

...additionally, EXPENDABLE BFR may be cheaper and can perhaps do the mission without refueling.
Plus leave all that refined metal and plumbing and tankage and stuff on the surface.

But this is not a thread about BFR except very tangentially. This starts to veer into Blue vs X. Which we have a thread for.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: PM3 on 03/31/2019 04:15 pm
NASA Is Working With Blue Origin on a Lunar Lander (https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/space-flight/nasa-has-been-working-with-blue-origin-on-a-lunar-lander)

Quote from: Mark Harris
In October, NASA signed a previously unreported Space Act Agreement “for the purpose of collaboration with Blue Origin to advance medium-to-large commercial lunar surface lander systems.”
...
In the Space Act arrangement, NASA would provide Blue Origin with the in-space trajectory analysis software called Copernicus, to help plan Blue Moon’s journey. The agency would also supply reports and studies about a return to the moon, including surveys of potential landing sites. Blue Origin even wanted to know about the status of unopened samples of lunar rock from the Apollo missions.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: redliox on 05/01/2019 01:33 am
There was an alleged announcement that something's going to be announced on May 9, with and image of Shackleton's expedition ship as a clue on Twitter:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5FsViLUYAEFBKA.jpg:large)
https://twitter.com/blueorigin (https://twitter.com/blueorigin)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 05/09/2019 05:34 am
Blue Origin just posted a machanical engineer job specifically for Blue Moon Lander:

Quote
Mechanical Engineer - Blue Moon Lander (002)
Kent, Washington
Description: 
As part of a small, passionate and accomplished team of experts, you will support the design, development, and test of mechanical systems for the Blue Moon Lander. This position will directly impact the history of space exploration and will require your dedicated commitment and detailed attention towards safe and repeatable spaceflight.
https://blueorigin.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/BlueOrigin/job/Kent-Washington/Mechanical-Engineer---Blue-Moon-Lander--002-_R478
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 05/09/2019 06:09 am
They've posted multiples and ones going back for months, but yes another indicator that tomorrow's announcement is likely involving Blue Moon lander.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/09/2019 05:42 pm
https://twitter.com/meharris/status/1126527747780694016

Quote
Mini scoop: The @BlueOrigin Blue Moon lunar lander will have a 3D-printed thrust chamber,. The company is paying @NASA $300,000 to test it at @NASA_Marshall, according to a recent Space Act Agreement.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5995216-2019-3-6-29040-SAA8-1829040-Blue-Origin.html
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/09/2019 08:42 pm
https://twitter.com/erdayastronaut/status/1126587844565270529

Quote
This is Blue Moon! @blueorigin has been working on this for THREE years! 3.6 metric tones to the surface. Eventually 6.5 tones to the surface.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Wargrim on 05/09/2019 09:53 pm
I was about to ask when it is ready to fly, but then i realized it is custom built for New Glenn and so there is no need for it to be flight ready before 2021.

Still would like to hear from people with more knowledge on space hardware what they think how close this model and the renders are to a fully functional lander.

The fact that they have an engine and have worked on this for "years" makes it appear like an introduction right with New Glenn would not be impossible.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JEF_300 on 05/10/2019 03:06 am
So we know the main engine is the new BE-7, but what are the control thrusters? I have a screenshot from Blue's website below; the BE-1 seems like it's in that class. Does anyone know enough about that engine to confirm that?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: theinternetftw on 05/10/2019 03:40 am
So we know the main engine is the new BE-7, but what are the control thrusters? I have a screenshot from Blue's website below; the BE-1 seems like it's in that class. Does anyone know enough about that engine to confirm that?

BE-1 was the main engine for their Goddard test vehicle. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Origin_Goddard)

They would design a new engine for RCS in the sub-kN range.

I would guess that'd be BE-5, BE-6, or BE-8 (if they use that scheme for an RCS engine).
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Lar on 05/10/2019 04:38 am
BE1-1 might be in the thruster class for this vehicle, but I don't see them using peroxide thrusters...
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/10/2019 07:40 am
I don't think they'd use BEx name for thrusters.

BE5 or BE6 could be small methane engine.   Original description for Blue Moon Lander stated a BE3 main engine with methane landing engines. They may have developed or half developed a methane engine before dropping it.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 05/10/2019 08:06 am
What's that ascent stage gonna run for an engine?
If they want that NASA $$ they have to provide the ascent stage too.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Michel Van on 05/10/2019 08:33 am
the Blue Origin presentation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ98hGUe6FM

there Long term Goals are Surprising
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Star One on 05/10/2019 06:10 pm
Scott Manley on the Blue Moon lander

https://youtu.be/7I17kvYhCB8
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: redliox on 05/10/2019 06:51 pm
So the Blue Moon could accommodate an ascent stage of slightly better than 6 (metric I presume) tons?  Useful for one-way payloads, but I'm less sure for crewed vehicles.  Apollo LEM could reach LLO fine, but the problem is Orion can't reach LLO as is.  Either this ascent stage has to travel higher or Orion has to go lower, the later I'm more doubtful of since NASA (and ESA who builds the service modules) is on a time crunch.

I have seen images of crewed rovers atop Blue Moon, which could be something it could do.  Perhaps like his Amazon company, Bezos' Blue Moon could be best suited for cargo delivery.  Crew ascent stages might need a little work, especially if they expect to compete against SpaceX Spaceship (main edge I could see there is perhaps Bezos beating Elon to the Moon [talk about a space race there!]).

Mostly though, I'm wondering what could be done with the aforementioned 6 (metric?) tons.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: CitabriaFlyer on 05/10/2019 06:59 pm
I can imagine an extra Blue Moon at Gateway could enable Orion to travel to low lunar orbit to better support landed astronauts.  In that case the ascent stage need not have the performance or consumables to travel all the way back to Gateway.  Perhaps Orion can then perform trans Earth injection from low lunar orbit.  Perhaps more robust abort options could exist for the surface crew.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Lar on 05/10/2019 07:15 pm
.... or maybe a fully reusable system that can go from LEO to lunar surface via a variety of routes and that  doesn't initially need lunar surface refueling is a better approach? Just wondering out loud...
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/10/2019 07:19 pm
So the Blue Moon could accommodate an ascent stage of slightly better than 6 (metric I presume) tons?  Useful for one-way payloads, but I'm less sure for crewed vehicles.  Apollo LEM could reach LLO fine, but the problem is Orion can't reach LLO as is.  Either this ascent stage has to travel higher or Orion has to go lower, the later I'm more doubtful of since NASA (and ESA who builds the service modules) is on a time crunch.

I have seen images of crewed rovers atop Blue Moon, which could be something it could do.  Perhaps like his Amazon company, Bezos' Blue Moon could be best suited for cargo delivery.  Crew ascent stages might need a little work, especially if they expect to compete against SpaceX Spaceship (main edge I could see there is perhaps Bezos beating Elon to the Moon [talk about a space race there!]).

Mostly though, I'm wondering what could be done with the aforementioned 6 (metric?) tons.

You could use a second ascent stage co-manifested with Orion on SLS 1B  to do the LLO -> NRHO trip on the way back if there is a shortfall (round trip of only 1.5 km/s). But there are a lot of advancements in materials and avionics that may make the ~35% greater delta-v in the slightly heavier package possible not to mention we are potentially talking about a very different fuel and not carrying 111 kg of rocks either (or film for that matter). That 111 kg might not sound like much but 9.8*300*ln(5111/2000) - 9.8*300*ln(5000/2000) = 65 m/s, about 10% of the extra performance that you need. Additionally, Orion could remove about 200 m/s of full insertion to gateway on the way back (Orion has extra performance which in the gateway case can be used for towing modules for assembly or other manuevers if assembly or co-manifesting is not used).

edit: lol, error in math:

9.8*300*ln(5000/2000) - 9.8*300*ln(5111/2111) = 94 m/s. More than 10%, more like 13%.

edit 2:

Alright, how about the other ~600 m/s. Technically if you deleted the EVA suits at 91 kg each and the lunar samples, you would save ~300 kg of mass. The delta-v boost then looks approximately like this like this:

9.8*300*ln(5000/2000) - 9.8*300*ln(5300/2300) = 240 m/s. That is approaching half of the extra delta-v that you need. The question isn't really if this is technically feasible to land people on the moon this way, the question is really how functional they will be (especially without infrastructure there) when they get there and if Orion has to meet them in a different orbit on the way back.

Technically, this lander could be up to 6.5 t as well, while the apollo ascent module was more like 5 t. If you add 1.5 t of fuel/tankage and only .3 t of mass to the LEM ascent module, you get the following approximate delta-v boost:

9.8*300*ln(6500/2300) - 9.8*300*ln(5000/2000) = 360 m/s. Both strategies together of less equipment on the up-mass and the additional mass available on the down-mass would approximately allow you to make up the difference between ascent to LLO and ascent to NRHO. But I would suggest looking at the avionics system for mass savings as well with the goal of keeping some of that equipment.
 
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: butters on 05/10/2019 07:20 pm
So the Blue Moon could accommodate an ascent stage of slightly better than 6 (metric I presume) tons?  Useful for one-way payloads, but I'm less sure for crewed vehicles.  Apollo LEM could reach LLO fine, but the problem is Orion can't reach LLO as is.  Either this ascent stage has to travel higher or Orion has to go lower, the later I'm more doubtful of since NASA (and ESA who builds the service modules) is on a time crunch.

I have seen images of crewed rovers atop Blue Moon, which could be something it could do.  Perhaps like his Amazon company, Bezos' Blue Moon could be best suited for cargo delivery.  Crew ascent stages might need a little work, especially if they expect to compete against SpaceX Spaceship (main edge I could see there is perhaps Bezos beating Elon to the Moon [talk about a space race there!]).

Mostly though, I'm wondering what could be done with the aforementioned 6 (metric?) tons.

It seems like Washington would be inclined to support giving the descent stage contract to Blue and the ascent stage to Lockheed. But I doubt Lockheed can get their Orion-based ascent stage proposal below 8mT, so that might be a problem.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/10/2019 08:06 pm
So the Blue Moon could accommodate an ascent stage of slightly better than 6 (metric I presume) tons?  Useful for one-way payloads, but I'm less sure for crewed vehicles.  Apollo LEM could reach LLO fine, but the problem is Orion can't reach LLO as is.  Either this ascent stage has to travel higher or Orion has to go lower, the later I'm more doubtful of since NASA (and ESA who builds the service modules) is on a time crunch.

I have seen images of crewed rovers atop Blue Moon, which could be something it could do.  Perhaps like his Amazon company, Bezos' Blue Moon could be best suited for cargo delivery.  Crew ascent stages might need a little work, especially if they expect to compete against SpaceX Spaceship (main edge I could see there is perhaps Bezos beating Elon to the Moon [talk about a space race there!]).

Mostly though, I'm wondering what could be done with the aforementioned 6 (metric?) tons.

It seems like Washington would be inclined to support giving the descent stage contract to Blue and the ascent stage to Lockheed. But I doubt Lockheed can get their Orion-based ascent stage proposal below 8mT, so that might be a problem.
Better clean sheet design than Orion based compromise. Only thing Orion version had going for it was quicker build schedule. More likely the schedule and costs would blow out with all unforeseen work arounds that happen when trying to make something do job it wasn't designed for.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JEF_300 on 05/10/2019 08:41 pm
So the Blue Moon could accommodate an ascent stage of slightly better than 6 (metric I presume) tons?  Useful for one-way payloads, but I'm less sure for crewed vehicles.  Apollo LEM could reach LLO fine, but the problem is Orion can't reach LLO as is.  Either this ascent stage has to travel higher or Orion has to go lower, the later I'm more doubtful of since NASA (and ESA who builds the service modules) is on a time crunch.

NASA's current planned lander architecture has three stages: a decent stage, a reusable ascent stage, and an (also reusable I think) transfer stage. The transfer stage exists for exactly this reason.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JEF_300 on 05/11/2019 12:46 am
So I noticed that the tank behind the landing leg appears to be labeled GOX Accumulator. We could probably learn a lot just by pouring over this video and staring at blurry labels.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Joseph Peterson on 05/11/2019 02:11 am
.... or maybe a fully reusable system that can go from LEO to lunar surface via a variety of routes and that  doesn't initially need lunar surface refueling is a better approach? Just wondering out loud...

***SPECULATION ALERT***

I argue the pro side on my Disqus account all the time.  The baseline rocket stage I use for comparisons is a refuelable 4.5 km/s, 5 tonne payload capacity, MMH/NTO.  Assuming $250 million for Dragon/Starliner crew transfer to LEO and back, $100 million each to deliver two fully fueled stages to LEO, and tankers that can deliver 15 tonnes of prop to LLO at $200 million each, launch costs for a full Lunar surface mission are $1.25 billion.

Note:  $100 million is either New Glenn of Falcon Heavy fully reusable or center core expended.  $200 million is Falcon Heavy at $150 million plus a $50 million expendable tanker or 1.5 $100 million New Glenn launches with $33.3 million expendable tankers.  Using half New Glenns is acceptable because a pair of tankers is required for each landing.

Note 2:  Crew size and mission duration minimum goal is two able to work from sunrise to sunset.  Reuse the rocket stage delivering cargo and Dragon/Starliner might end up being the limiting factor.

Disclaimer:  The baseline is set up so I can modify the concept to compare different proposals.  My intention is not to suggest NASA fund this. (Although I did intentionally search for a baseline architecture that can conduct a full surface mission for launch costs that are less than the ARS estimate of how much sending a single Orion to NRHO using SLS will cost.)

So how does Blue Moon compare to my admittedly crappy baseline concept?

If I understand correctly these are the critical stats for Blue Moon:

Wet Mass: 15 tonnes
Dry Mass: <3.175 tonnes, say 3 tonnes since it is a nice round number.
Isp: 453 s
Payload Capacity: 3.6 tonnes

Assuming these are correct we are looking at 4.6 km/s, or enough delta v for expendable missions via either LLO or NRHO launched on a single New Glenn, OR round trips to LLO and back without refueling when fueled on the surface.  I'm not certain this is the plan, but the numbers appear to work out.

For argument's sake assume the same $100 million above will cover New Glenn providing part of the TLI.  EDIT: Part of TLI is 600+ m/s.

Now to do some extrapolating.

My baseline rocket stage is fully reusable.  The $1.25 billion price point is for a crew mission.  The Blue Moon stats we have are for a one-way expendable cargo mission.  Luckily I decided to keep the baseline simple so it can be modified for an apples to apples comparison.  The baseline requires ~9 tonnes of propellant to be able to return the ~4 tonne dry mass rocket and 5 tonne crew module to LLO.  Theoretically it should be able to deliver ~26 tonnes, assuming we don't care about structural integrity.  Since not caring about structural integrity isn't smart, and we already have a price for 15 tonnes of cargo delivered to LLO, 15 tonnes is a reasonable placeholder for maximum expendable payload without designing an entirely new vehicle.

The launch costs for delivering 15 tonnes of payload to the Moon expending a baseline rocket include launching the rocket to LEO($100 million), delivering the payload to LLO($200 million), and two tankers($400 million).  The full second tanker isn't necessary, so propellant can be saved for future landings.  For simplicity's sake I will disregard this for the moment.  The total launch cost to compete with is $700 million.

Delivering 15 tonnes of payload to the Moon using Blue Moon requires 4 1/6ths Blue Moons.  Multiple by $100 million per mission, then subtract from the baseline's $700 million, and we end up with net launch costs savings of $285 million.

We must consider the cost of the expended hardware.  If the value of 4 and a sixth Blue Moons is $285 million more than the value of my baseline rocket(I prefer the term Lunar launch vehicle, but then again I'm trying to design for future Lunar residents), launching the tankers is the way to go.

***End Speculation***

I could go on in depth about second order effects like the effect of higher launch tempos on the price of launches, but I've convinced myself.  Blue Moon is competitive with my baseline.  Therefore Blue Moon as "infrastructure" for Lunar development is preferable to SLS/Orion/Gateway.

It may not sound like it but I feel far better about Blue Origin than I have in years.  4.5 km/s buys 95+% of cis-Lunar, usually with a ridiculous amount of margin.  4.6 km/s isn't 1 km/s overkill like fully reusable NRHO staging.  Hallelujah, Blue Origin is targeting Lunar orbit.

Now where is that LEO/LLO crew transfer vehicle?  Blue Moon could do it, if only we had hydrolox in LLO for the return trip.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Joseph Peterson on 05/11/2019 03:02 am
Sorry for the second post in a row, but I have to ask these questions where I can get knowledgeable answers, NSF.

The lower thrusters and an LOX pipe appear to be at excessive risks from debris during landing.  Is it reasonable to expect that Blue Moon landings on unprepared surfaces will have shielding to protect these apparently sensitive bits?

If so, roughly how much should I expect said shielding to mass?

Edit: GrammerGrammar.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/11/2019 03:28 pm
NASA already has the basis for an reusable ascent stage with airlock/mud-room from their SEV program, just build it already...
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/11/2019 04:55 pm
SEV links
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/technology/space_exploration_vehicle/index.html
https://blogs.nasa.gov/analogsfieldtesting/author/rlind/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyMttMYq3PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypnTV3EWAxY
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24909.100
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Proponent on 05/11/2019 08:42 pm
The BE-7's specific impulse isn't much better than an RL-10's.  So what's the advantage of the dual-expansion cycle?  Does it, despite the increased parts count, improve thrust-to-weight ratio?  I can see how it might, since it would allow a higher chamber pressure and, hence, a higher thrust density.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Proponent on 05/11/2019 09:02 pm
If I understand correctly these are the critical stats for Blue Moon:

Wet Mass: 15 tonnes
Dry Mass: <3.175 tonnes, say 3 tonnes since it is a nice round number.
Isp: 453 s
Payload Capacity: 3.6 tonnes

Assuming these are correct we are looking at 4.6 km/s, or enough delta v for expendable missions via either LLO or NRHO launched on a single New Glenn, OR round trips to LLO and back without refueling when fueled on the surface.  I'm not certain this is the plan, but the numbers appear to work out.

Very good point.  For the initial mission, you might not even need a damn gateway.

But the total delta-V of the Apollo LM was about 4.7 km/s (http://astronautix.com/a/apollolm.html) (I get, coincidentally 4.6 km/s).  With modern lunar maps and terrain-matching guidance, one could probably get away with a lower delta-V than Apollo needed, but I think, all things considered, a round-trip from NRHO to the surface is out of the question.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 05/11/2019 09:12 pm
What's that ascent stage gonna run for an engine?
If they want that NASA $$ they have to provide the ascent stage too.

Looking a little bit into this the BE-7 is perfectly sized for the ascent vehicle also - it really is a tiny little engine.
At lift off the TWR of the 6500 kg ascent module would only be 3.8, and the passengers experiences 0.8g initially. If they can achieve deep throttle like the RL-10 variants can that should be perfectly fine towards the end of the burn.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/12/2019 04:31 am
What's that ascent stage gonna run for an engine?
If they want that NASA $$ they have to provide the ascent stage too.

Looking a little bit into this the BE-7 is perfectly sized for the ascent vehicle also - it really is a tiny little engine.
At lift off the TWR of the 6500 kg ascent module would only be 3.8, and the passengers experiences 0.8g initially. If they can achieve deep throttle like the RL-10 variants can that should be perfectly fine towards the end of the burn.

Even without throttle, we are talking about ~22 m/s2 of acceleration assuming 2000 kg at burnout. So, about 2 g which is pretty mild as far as space travel goes.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Proponent on 05/12/2019 07:42 pm
As noted above, Blue Moon's total delta-V carrying a payload of 3.6 t down and back, without refueling on the lunar surface as about the same as that of the two-stage Apollo LM.  And Blue Moon would have a higher T/W at lunar lift-off (calculation attached), reducing losses.

As far as moon 2024 goes, then, does that mean Blue Moon fits the bill provided someone develops a crew cabin (no propulsion needed) and an NRHO-to-LLO tug?  If so, why didn't Bezos mention that?  Is he more interested in pitching the stretched-tank version for an NRHO-to-surface profile without tug (haven't run any numbers on that)?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 05/12/2019 08:24 pm
You must be assuming refueling somewhere in cis-lunar? Fully fuelled Blue Moon masses 18,600 kg which is above the max stated mass of New Glen  to GTO. I believe Blue Moon needs to perform some of the TLI burn, staging from an elliptical orbit a little bit shy of a full GTO trajectory, which doesnt leave much for propellant on landing.

Now if a New Glenn upper stage and Orion flying on SLS could get a fully fueled lander to gateway.. still wondering how much performance a NG upper stage on SLS would hve.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 05/12/2019 10:17 pm
So the Blue Moon could accommodate an ascent stage of slightly better than 6 (metric I presume) tons?  Useful for one-way payloads, but I'm less sure for crewed vehicles.  Apollo LEM could reach LLO fine, but the problem is Orion can't reach LLO as is.  Either this ascent stage has to travel higher or Orion has to go lower, the later I'm more doubtful of since NASA (and ESA who builds the service modules) is on a time crunch.

NASA's current planned lander architecture has three stages: a decent stage, a reusable ascent stage, and an (also reusable I think) transfer stage. The transfer stage exists for exactly this reason.

And, incidentally, Blue Origin previously mentioned that they have been looking at space tugs previously. More surprised we haven’t heard more about it:

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/972506710555463680
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/13/2019 03:24 am
Space tug or OTV is just as important as lander. Need some way of delivering supplies and fuel(for ascent stage) to lunar orbit.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Patchouli on 05/13/2019 03:41 am
NASA already has the basis for an reusable ascent stage with airlock/mud-room from their SEV program, just build it already...

A lot of work has been already done on the SEV so it would make since to use it as the ascent stage.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/13/2019 06:49 am
You must be assuming refueling somewhere in cis-lunar? Fully fuelled Blue Moon masses 18,600 kg which is above the max stated mass of New Glen  to GTO. I believe Blue Moon needs to perform some of the TLI burn, staging from an elliptical orbit a little bit shy of a full GTO trajectory, which doesnt leave much for propellant on landing.

I analysed this in the below thread. A single NG can launch Blue Moon (BM) to the Moon, but the tanks are empty after it lands. BM does 1,352 m/s of the TLI burn.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41146.msg1944670#msg1944670
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Oli on 05/13/2019 03:11 pm
And, incidentally, Blue Origin previously mentioned that they have been looking at space tugs previously. More surprised we haven’t heard more about it:

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/972506710555463680

A reusable LEO-LLO/NRHO space tug would kind of question the purpose of Orion.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/13/2019 03:20 pm
And, incidentally, Blue Origin previously mentioned that they have been looking at space tugs previously. More surprised we haven’t heard more about it:

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/972506710555463680

A reusable LEO-LLO/NRHO space tug would kind of question the purpose of Orion.

That is about 7 km/s of delta-v. Nearly orbital in presumably a single stage. How much would that mass? Are you doing multi-pass aerobraking in a manned vehicle similar to what was done for MRO?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: catiare on 05/13/2019 03:33 pm
NASA already has the basis for an reusable ascent stage with airlock/mud-room from their SEV program, just build it already...

Do you happen to know the mass of the SEV without the work package interface?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/13/2019 03:40 pm
NASA already has the basis for an reusable ascent stage with airlock/mud-room from their SEV program, just build it already...

Do you happen to know the mass of the SEV without the work package interface?
Not yet... you've been reading my mind! :) I'm going to continue to look...
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Oli on 05/13/2019 06:40 pm
A reusable LEO-LLO/NRHO space tug would kind of question the purpose of Orion.

That is about 7 km/s of delta-v. Nearly orbital in presumably a single stage. How much would that mass? Are you doing multi-pass aerobraking in a manned vehicle similar to what was done for MRO?

All propulsive. Made a rough estimate here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48073.msg1942500#msg1942500).
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Proponent on 05/13/2019 08:36 pm
You must be assuming refueling somewhere in cis-lunar? Fully fuelled Blue Moon masses 18,600 kg which is above the max stated mass of New Glen  to GTO. I believe Blue Moon needs to perform some of the TLI burn, staging from an elliptical orbit a little bit shy of a full GTO trajectory, which doesnt leave much for propellant on landing.

Now if a New Glenn upper stage and Orion flying on SLS could get a fully fueled lander to gateway.. still wondering how much performance a NG upper stage on SLS would hve.

Yes, I'm assuming Blue Moon starts fully fueled in LLO.

It looks to me, by the way, that Blue Moon's wide stance may require a 7-m fairing, tying it to NG.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/13/2019 08:58 pm
You must be assuming refueling somewhere in cis-lunar? Fully fuelled Blue Moon masses 18,600 kg which is above the max stated mass of New Glen  to GTO. I believe Blue Moon needs to perform some of the TLI burn, staging from an elliptical orbit a little bit shy of a full GTO trajectory, which doesnt leave much for propellant on landing.

Now if a New Glenn upper stage and Orion flying on SLS could get a fully fueled lander to gateway.. still wondering how much performance a NG upper stage on SLS would hve.

Yes, I'm assuming Blue Moon starts fully fueled in LLO.

It looks to me, by the way, that Blue Moon's wide stance may require a 7-m fairing, tying it to NG.
SLS Cargo can use an 8.4m fairing IIRC unless that's been changed...

Edit to add: Just located an old NSF article.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/11/nasa-payload-fairings-options-multi-mission-sls-capability/
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/15/2019 05:05 pm
Apart from the SEV for an ascent stage one could consider a "modified Cygnus" or a combination of the two...
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: robert_d on 05/15/2019 06:18 pm
Apart from the SEV for an ascent stage one could consider a "modified Cygnus" or a combination of the two...
I have been thinking about a Cygnus derived ascent stage. I don't think the Blue Moon Lander is quite big enough, and am skeptical about starting out using LH2. But using two blue moon engines might be big enough? Trying to gather data on weight. I want to find the proper thread to post some questions such as about pressure vessels back in Apollo versus now.

My thought is that if you divorce moving the ascent and descent stages together except from LLO to the surface, it might be possible to mount the ascent stage in a gap in the center of the descent stage, perpendicular to its long axis. This would allow more freedom in packing a descent stage into a small faring; while still keeping the ascent stage no farther off the surface than the Apollo LM.
   
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/15/2019 06:52 pm
Apart from the SEV for an ascent stage one could consider a "modified Cygnus" or a combination of the two...
I have been thinking about a Cygnus derived ascent stage. I don't think the Blue Moon Lander is quite big enough, and am skeptical about starting out using LH2. But using two blue moon engines might be big enough? Trying to gather data on weight. I want to find the proper thread to post some questions such as about pressure vessels back in Apollo versus now.

My thought is that if you divorce moving the ascent and descent stages together except from LLO to the surface, it might be possible to mount the ascent stage in a gap in the center of the descent stage, perpendicular to its long axis. This would allow more freedom in packing a descent stage into a small faring; while still keeping the ascent stage no farther off the surface than the Apollo LM.
   
Interesting, maybe you can rough sketch one up? Going with hydrogen is always going to result in a large lander...
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: clongton on 05/15/2019 10:11 pm
I seriously doubt that Bezos would be willing to adapt so someone else's spacecraft. He will do the ascent stage in-house.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/15/2019 10:24 pm
I seriously doubt that Bezos would be willing to adapt so someone else's spacecraft. He will do the ascent stage in-house.
I'm all for that! :)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 05/17/2019 07:16 pm
And, incidentally, Blue Origin previously mentioned that they have been looking at space tugs previously. More surprised we haven’t heard more about it:

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/972506710555463680

Well I guess this question is answered now.

Included in NASA's human lander awards:
Quote
Blue Origin – Kent, Washington
One descent element study, one transfer vehicle study, and one transfer vehicle prototype
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-taps-11-american-companies-to-advance-human-lunar-landers/
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/18/2019 02:11 am
Apart from the SEV for an ascent stage one could consider a "modified Cygnus" or a combination of the two...
That is basically all the requirements for the Gateway.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Stan-1967 on 05/18/2019 04:02 am

My thought is that if you divorce moving the ascent and descent stages together except from LLO to the surface, it might be possible to mount the ascent stage in a gap in the center of the descent stage, perpendicular to its long axis. This would allow more freedom in packing a descent stage into a small faring; while still keeping the ascent stage no farther off the surface than the Apollo LM.
   
my "bold" in the above quote:

I think what you are describing is what the Bloostar rocket from Zero2Infinity has proposed, yes/no?
http://www.zero2infinity.space/bloostar/
It is an interesting idea for lunar descent/ascent.


Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/18/2019 09:14 pm

My thought is that if you divorce moving the ascent and descent stages together except from LLO to the surface, it might be possible to mount the ascent stage in a gap in the center of the descent stage, perpendicular to its long axis. This would allow more freedom in packing a descent stage into a small faring; while still keeping the ascent stage no farther off the surface than the Apollo LM.
   
my "bold" in the above quote:

I think what you are describing is what the Bloostar rocket from Zero2Infinity has proposed, yes/no?
http://www.zero2infinity.space/bloostar/
It is an interesting idea for lunar descent/ascent.
Moon express have same idea with MX9. Ascent stage is surrounded by 8 descent stages.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TGMetsFan98 on 05/31/2019 10:33 pm
NASA Awards contract to Blue Origin to test Blue Moon sensor suite on-board New Shepard:

“The work will include the integration of NASA developed technology into Blue Origin's New Shepard launch vehicle, providing opportunities to mature critical sensor technology and algorithms that enable precision and soft landing. Testing will be performed at approximately 100 km altitude on-board the flight proven New Shepard vertical takeoff vertical landing (VTVL) suborbital vehicle.


Blue Origin and NASA will use the flight data to anchor analyses and models and support follow-on ground-based algorithm testing and development. The NASA-developed sensor suite will enable Blue Moon to precisely land anywhere on the lunar surface, from the equator to the poles, from the rim of Shackleton crater to permanently shadowed regions, from the far side locations on the South Pole/Aitken basin to lunar lava tubes.”

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=b3a449b7f790c11d2a4259d7e893eb7c&utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Chasm on 06/01/2019 01:50 pm
PM3 is starting to get old.
Time to think bout a new retirement stunt. Stick some shoes on the feet and land it off pad. 
Ok, preferably after developing most of the landing site selection software. 8)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: envy887 on 06/01/2019 06:51 pm
PM3 is starting to get old.
Time to think bout a new retirement stunt. Stick some shoes on the feet and land it off pad. 
Ok, preferably after developing most of the landing site selection software. 8)

PM3 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;u=57403) probably wouldn't appreciate being retired that way :D
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/01/2019 10:50 pm
NASA Awards contract to Blue Origin to test Blue Moon sensor suite on-board New Shepard:

“The work will include the integration of NASA developed technology into Blue Origin's New Shepard launch vehicle, providing opportunities to mature critical sensor technology and algorithms that enable precision and soft landing. Testing will be performed at approximately 100 km altitude on-board the flight proven New Shepard vertical takeoff vertical landing (VTVL) suborbital vehicle.


Blue Origin and NASA will use the flight data to anchor analyses and models and support follow-on ground-based algorithm testing and development. The NASA-developed sensor suite will enable Blue Moon to precisely land anywhere on the lunar surface, from the equator to the poles, from the rim of Shackleton crater to permanently shadowed regions, from the far side locations on the South Pole/Aitken basin to lunar lava tubes.”

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&amp;mode=form&amp;tab=core&amp;id=b3a449b7f790c11d2a4259d7e893eb7c&amp;utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=ios_app
Sounds like they will try and identify landing locations from 100km. Need to identify and keep camera locked onto location during descent even if landing on pad.

Not landing on a rock or slope is tricking part of lunar landing.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 06/02/2019 04:51 pm
Confirmation that Blue themselves are working on the ascent atage: https://spacenews.com/nasa-seeks-a-rapid-launch-of-a-lunar-lander/

Quote
A company official, speaking on background after the event, confirmed that Blue Origin is planning to develop its own ascent stage for Blue Moon. The company foresees having the initial descent stage ready to fly in 2023, with the stretched version, along with the ascent stage, tested and ready to carry astronauts in 2024.

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/02/2019 06:34 pm
Technically, the source says they’re /planning on/ working on the ascent stage...
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/02/2019 08:19 pm
While Blue may have experienced HSF and deep space engineers from traditional aerospace companies, Blue itself as company doesn't have this experience.

The ascent stage is critical for crew safety. This is one vehicle where I think a more experienced oldspace company should be involved. Ideally a partnership with Blue.



Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/02/2019 10:07 pm
While Blue may have experienced HSF and deep space engineers from traditional aerospace companies, Blue itself as company doesn't have this experience.

The ascent stage is critical for crew safety. This is one vehicle where I think a more experienced oldspace company should be involved. Ideally a partnership with Blue.
I disagree. The OldSpace companies don’t really have much more operational experience here. They might if we were talking 30 or 40 years ago.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Chasm on 06/02/2019 10:47 pm
Blue seems to be willing to take their time to get it right the first time when it comes to human space flight.
Annoying as that is when it comes to New Sheppard.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/02/2019 10:54 pm
Blue seems to be willing to take their time to get it right the first time when it comes to human space flight.
Annoying as that is when it comes to New Sheppard.
Theyre taking their time. Period.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Star One on 06/03/2019 07:41 am
Blue seems to be willing to take their time to get it right the first time when it comes to human space flight.
Annoying as that is when it comes to New Sheppard.
Theyre taking their time. Period.

There’s nothing wrong with that.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/03/2019 12:51 pm
Blue seems to be willing to take their time to get it right the first time when it comes to human space flight.
Annoying as that is when it comes to New Sheppard.
Theyre taking their time. Period.

There’s nothing wrong with that.
Opportunity cost. I mean, if you don’t think spaceflight matters, then sure.

But now Blue Origin is a linchpin in ULA’s Vulcan. New Glenn (presumably) is a linchpin in NASA’s Gateway’s PPE Which has been funded. They’ve signed several payloads for New Glenn with commercial companies who need rides to space. New Glenn has received considerable financing from the Air Force. They have space act agreements with NASA, meaning NASA civil servants are being paid to help them. They’ve been given small amounts here and there under things like CCDev with the understanding that they’ll someday actually do something.

Blue Origin can’t just be run as a hobby any more. They have to deliver, just as we expect from other companies.
Title: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Star One on 06/03/2019 01:37 pm
Blue seems to be willing to take their time to get it right the first time when it comes to human space flight.
Annoying as that is when it comes to New Sheppard.
Theyre taking their time. Period.

There’s nothing wrong with that.
Opportunity cost. I mean, if you don’t think spaceflight matters, then sure.

But now Blue Origin is a linchpin in ULA’s Vulcan. New Glenn (presumably) is a linchpin in NASA’s Gateway’s PPE Which has been funded. They’ve signed several payloads for New Glenn with commercial companies who need rides to space. New Glenn has received considerable financing from the Air Force. They have space act agreements with NASA, meaning NASA civil servants are being paid to help them. They’ve been given small amounts here and there under things like CCDev with the understanding that they’ll someday actually do something.

Blue Origin can’t just be run as a hobby any more. They have to deliver, just as we expect from other companies.

They never were run as a hobby as far as I can see. A man like Bezos doesn’t do companies as hobbies.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: b0objunior on 06/03/2019 04:22 pm
Blue seems to be willing to take their time to get it right the first time when it comes to human space flight.
Annoying as that is when it comes to New Sheppard.
Theyre taking their time. Period.

There’s nothing wrong with that.
Opportunity cost. I mean, if you don’t think spaceflight matters, then sure.

But now Blue Origin is a linchpin in ULA’s Vulcan. New Glenn (presumably) is a linchpin in NASA’s Gateway’s PPE Which has been funded. They’ve signed several payloads for New Glenn with commercial companies who need rides to space. New Glenn has received considerable financing from the Air Force. They have space act agreements with NASA, meaning NASA civil servants are being paid to help them. They’ve been given small amounts here and there under things like CCDev with the understanding that they’ll someday actually do something.

Blue Origin can’t just be run as a hobby any more. They have to deliver, just as we expect from other companies.
You act like they never did anything, or that everybody working there are dense? Why so much hate for a company?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Lars-J on 06/03/2019 04:40 pm
Quote
Blue Origin can’t just be run as a hobby any more. They have to deliver, just as we expect from other companies.

They never were run as a hobby as far as I can see. A man like Bezos doesn’t do companies as hobbies.

If Blue Origin (as it was until a few years ago) does not qualify as a company run as a hobby, then what does? A company that over its first decade was funded by one man with no external investment, which sold nothing (hardware or services). Can you think of a company that fits the bill better as a "hobby company"? I sure can't.

Unless you are arguing that no company can be someone's hobby company? (That would be a different argument)
Title: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Star One on 06/03/2019 07:32 pm
Quote
Blue Origin can’t just be run as a hobby any more. They have to deliver, just as we expect from other companies.

They never were run as a hobby as far as I can see. A man like Bezos doesn’t do companies as hobbies.

If Blue Origin (as it was until a few years ago) does not qualify as a company run as a hobby, then what does? A company that over its first decade was funded by one man with no external investment, which sold nothing (hardware or services). Can you think of a company that fits the bill better as a "hobby company"? I sure can't.

Unless you are arguing that no company can be someone's hobby company? (That would be a different argument)

It just struck me as a sneering remark to make about them. I’d argue that Space X is no less one person’s personal vision than Blue Origin.

The thing is time again it seems to be the same old posters who operate double standards when it comes to talking about the two companies. I’ve said before on here it always reminds me of the nonsense you get on parts of mobile technology forums in talking about iOS and Android.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DistantTemple on 06/03/2019 07:42 pm
All being well, the official topic of this thread should (soon?) begin to report on a real project from BO, for a real NASA contract. That will be a good contrast to the empty linguistics, and derision from amateur writers. As for building rocket engines as a hobby... BO is currently building/developing them - professionally, but another hero of mine and likely many here, literally built a rocket engine in his shed for a hobby: Tom Mueller! And that engine was I think a major contribution to the Merlin engine!
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Lars-J on 06/03/2019 08:19 pm
If Blue Origin (as it was until a few years ago) does not qualify as a company run as a hobby, then what does? A company that over its first decade was funded by one man with no external investment, which sold nothing (hardware or services). Can you think of a company that fits the bill better as a "hobby company"? I sure can't.

Unless you are arguing that no company can be someone's hobby company? (That would be a different argument)

It just struck me as a sneering remark to make about them. I’d argue that Space X is no less one person’s personal vision than Blue Origin.

What does personal vision have to do with it? Every company founder has a personal vision. Are you deliberately avoiding the points I made that support that Blue Origin operated as 'hobby company'? (see my bolded parts)

And I think you are reading a good/bad judgement into the term 'hobby' that isn't there. People do amazing things with their hobbies.

No one doubts Bezos' vision... Just that he has not (until recently) shown much urgency it getting it done soon - kind of like a hobbyist. It *does* appear to be changing, and we are all excited to see it.

The thing is time again it seems to be the same old posters who operate double standards when it comes to talking about the two companies. I’ve said before on here it always reminds me of the nonsense you get on parts of mobile technology forums in talking about iOS and Android.

Double standards should be pointed out if you see them. If you think I have some, let me know (private message or not). There are a lot of people that have some skepticism about Blue Origin. But once NG launches, Blue Origin will instantly gain a HUGE amount of credibility. You are old enough on this forum to know that this is how it was for SpaceX in the beginning.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JEF_300 on 06/03/2019 09:46 pm
Does anyone have any idea how big Blue Moon is? I mean yeah, we saw it on stage behind Bezos, and we know it fits in a 7-meter fairing, but I'd really like to know exactly how big it is.

Would it happen to be about 5-meters, about the same size as the Orion capsule that will eventually run out of service module engines? Asking for no particular reason.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/03/2019 09:58 pm
Does anyone have any idea how big Blue Moon is? I mean yeah, we saw it on stage behind Bezos, and we know it fits in a 7-meter fairing, but I'd really like to know exactly how big it is.

Would it happen to be about 5-meters, about the same size as the Orion capsule that will eventually run out of service module engines? Asking for no particular reason.
Look at it compared to Bezos on stage and calculate size.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Chasm on 06/03/2019 10:28 pm
Roughly, at first glance.

Jeff is ~1.70m tall and his head lines up with the top of the lower leg joint as he walks next to it.
That give slightly under 2m ground clearance for the main body.
~2.8m body height without the stuff on top.
4m body diameter without legs.

2.5m big ball diameter?


Subscale model as far as NG and SLS fairings go. ;)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Lars-J on 06/03/2019 10:38 pm
Does anyone have any idea how big Blue Moon is? I mean yeah, we saw it on stage behind Bezos, and we know it fits in a 7-meter fairing, but I'd really like to know exactly how big it is.

Would it happen to be about 5-meters, about the same size as the Orion capsule that will eventually run out of service module engines? Asking for no particular reason.

Based on this image, it looks like it might *barely* fit inside a 5m fairing. But it would be reeeaallly tight. If current cargo version of SLS has a 5.5m fairing (does it?) it could fit that.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JEF_300 on 06/03/2019 10:40 pm
Does anyone have any idea how big Blue Moon is? I mean yeah, we saw it on stage behind Bezos, and we know it fits in a 7-meter fairing, but I'd really like to know exactly how big it is.
Look at it compared to Bezos on stage and calculate size.

I can't calculate the size that way. At best I can estimate it very poorly. Honestly, I can't even pin down how tall Bezos is. Some sources say 5' 7", others say 5' 8". And what if the heels of his dress shoes give him another inch? And of course, in any shot where there's a side-on of Bezos and the lander, it's impossible to determine how far away he is from the lander, so I can't account for the difference in apparent size. And there are a million other little things like that.

I went ahead and did it, and got 4.3 meters in diameter as my answer, but I would guess that could be half a meter too big or as much as 2 meters too small. Thus my real estimate is that Blue Moon has a diameter of between 3.8 and 6.3 meters.

So I would desperately appreciate it if someone has real numbers.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/03/2019 11:05 pm
Wow, okay, I go to work for a few hours and this thread blows up. Give me a second to respond. And for the record, I’m not at all against Blue Origin & most certainly not against those working there.

This started when I mentioned that they're taking their time period, the implication being that they haven't delivered anything for anyone (other than dev contracts and possibly a few small sounding rocket payloads?):
Quote
Blue seems to be willing to take their time to get it right the first time when it comes to human space flight.
Annoying as that is when it comes to New Sheppard.
Theyre taking their time. Period.
Star One then said there's nothing wrong with that, so I explained exactly what's wrong with taking your time and not delivering. Somehow that means I hate Blue Origin. I do not. I KNOW, in fact, what they should be capable of.

It is a fact that Blue Origin has yet to reach operational capability for any real customer. Even New Shepard, whose whole point is to carry people to space for fun, still has not carried even a test pilot. And their two other major products, BE-4 and New Glenn, are both behind schedule. Blue Origin had said they'd be done with qualifying BE-4 for flight in 2017 but still haven't qualified it here in 2019. There is pretty good evidence of their lack of operational delivery so far, it's not just speculation.

And because people are obviously implying I have a double standard with SpaceX... SpaceX absolutely had similar concerns during part of their history. And for much of that time, it was legitimate. SpaceX abandoned Falcon 1 after just 2 successful flights and went straight for Falcon 9, skipping Falcon 5 and 1e. But they eventually succeeded, as I suspect Blue Origin will.

But it's perfectly appropriate to be skeptical of a company that has delivered even less operationally than SpaceX while existing for longer and receiving strings-free money in the meantime. Blue is getting tons of attention while not delivering anything significant for customer on New Shepard, BE-4, or New Glenn. And it's not even skepticism I have, it's frustration that they're not performing to the level I know they can. I don't actually think that intentionally going super slow actually helps. In that sense, it's the opposite of skepticism: I'm not satisfied with the, what's the phrase? The soft bigotry of low expectations.

And there's actually still legitimate frustration with SpaceX for not yet delivering crew to ISS while announcing grand plans and a radical new architecture. It's a legitimate point, although now SpaceX effectively owns the commercial launch market and has gone very far in proving themselves (which I guess adds to the frustration: it's no longer a struggling company, so what're they waiting for?). Another SpaceX example is Red Dragon.


Anyway, I'm done. Let's get back to the lander, please.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/04/2019 02:29 pm
Does anyone have any idea how big Blue Moon is? I mean yeah, we saw it on stage behind Bezos, and we know it fits in a 7-meter fairing, but I'd really like to know exactly how big it is.
Look at it compared to Bezos on stage and calculate size.

I can't calculate the size that way. At best I can estimate it very poorly. Honestly, I can't even pin down how tall Bezos is. Some sources say 5' 7", others say 5' 8". And what if the heels of his dress shoes give him another inch? And of course, in any shot where there's a side-on of Bezos and the lander, it's impossible to determine how far away he is from the lander, so I can't account for the difference in apparent size. And there are a million other little things like that.

I went ahead and did it, and got 4.3 meters in diameter as my answer, but I would guess that could be half a meter too big or as much as 2 meters too small. Thus my real estimate is that Blue Moon has a diameter of between 3.8 and 6.3 meters.

So I would desperately appreciate it if someone has real numbers.
Just want to say I love this kind of analysis. :)

Also, I'd like to point out that part of the reason the Blue Moon lander is so big (in spite of being similar in capability to the Apollo lunar module descent stage) is that it uses liquid hydrogen instead of the much denser hydrazine. Hydrazine is 14 times more dense than hydrogen, plus their hydrogen tank has to be over-sized since hydrogen rockets tend to burn especially fuel rich to optimize for a low atomic weight and because of margin for boil-off (and surface power). Thus, don't be surprised if the hydrogen tank is ten times as large as a comparable hydrazine tank.

But it’s good to lean forward with an ISRU-friendly propellant.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/04/2019 04:24 pm

Also, I'd like to point out that part of the reason the Blue Moon lander is so big (in spite of being similar in capability to the Apollo lunar module descent stage) is that it uses liquid hydrogen instead of the much denser hydrazine.

Even the smaller one isn't similar in capability to the lunar module descent stage.

Blue Moon cargo version with Lunar Module ascent stage:
ln((4700+15000)/(4700+3100)) * 9.8 * 453 = 4113 m/s

Blue Moon cargo version with 2 Lunar Module ascent stage:
ln((4700+4700+15000)/(4700+4700+3100)) * 9.8 * 453 = 2969 m/s

Lunar Module descent stage with Lunar Module ascent stage:
ln((4700+10330)/(4700+2130)) * 9.8 * 311 = 2403 m/s

edit: added a rough size comparison
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JEF_300 on 06/04/2019 06:33 pm
So I found a Space.com article that gives size specifications, but I don't trust it in the slightest. What "payload bay"?

https://www.space.com/blue-origin-blue-moon-lander-explained.html (https://www.space.com/blue-origin-blue-moon-lander-explained.html)
Quote
Blue Moon has a 23-foot (7 meters) payload bay that will stand about 14 feet (4 m) with its four landing legs fully deployed. When it's fully loaded with fuel, the lander weighs about 16.5 tons (15 metric tons). By the time it reaches the lunar surface, having burned up almost all of its fuel, the lander will weigh only about 3.3 tons (3 metric tons).
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/04/2019 11:16 pm

Also, I'd like to point out that part of the reason the Blue Moon lander is so big (in spite of being similar in capability to the Apollo lunar module descent stage) is that it uses liquid hydrogen instead of the much denser hydrazine.

Even the smaller one isn't similar in capability to the lunar module descent stage.

Blue Moon cargo version with Lunar Module ascent stage:
ln((4700+15000)/(4700+3100)) * 9.8 * 453 = 4113 m/s

Blue Moon cargo version with 2 Lunar Module ascent stage:
ln((4700+4700+15000)/(4700+4700+3100)) * 9.8 * 453 = 2969 m/s

Lunar Module descent stage with Lunar Module ascent stage:
ln((4700+10330)/(4700+2130)) * 9.8 * 311 = 2403 m/s

edit: added a rough size comparison
You seemed to use the same dry mass proportion for hydrolox as for the hypergol version. That’s not a good assumption considering a difference of 2-3x in density.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/04/2019 11:25 pm

Also, I'd like to point out that part of the reason the Blue Moon lander is so big (in spite of being similar in capability to the Apollo lunar module descent stage) is that it uses liquid hydrogen instead of the much denser hydrazine.

Even the smaller one isn't similar in capability to the lunar module descent stage.

Blue Moon cargo version with Lunar Module ascent stage:
ln((4700+15000)/(4700+3100)) * 9.8 * 453 = 4113 m/s

Blue Moon cargo version with 2 Lunar Module ascent stage:
ln((4700+4700+15000)/(4700+4700+3100)) * 9.8 * 453 = 2969 m/s

Lunar Module descent stage with Lunar Module ascent stage:
ln((4700+10330)/(4700+2130)) * 9.8 * 311 = 2403 m/s

edit: added a rough size comparison
You seemed to use the same dry mass proportion for hydrolox as for the hypergol version. That’s not a good assumption considering a difference of 2-3x in density.

The lunar module dry/fuel mass comes from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module

The Blue Moon dry/fuel mass comes from(~40:10 in video):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ98hGUe6FM&t=2282s

What you are suggesting is that they would be hard pressed to meet their specifications. That is entirely possible.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/05/2019 02:21 am
Ah, thanks!

I just looked at the ratio of dry/wet and it seemed basically identical between the two, which I assumed wasn't a coincidence.

If BE-7 is pump-fed (I think it is?), it may be feasible for them to achieve those ratios. Apollo LM was pressure-fed and so needed heavier tanks.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JEF_300 on 06/05/2019 08:19 am
If BE-7 is pump-fed (I think it is?), it may be feasible for them to achieve those ratios. Apollo LM was pressure-fed and so needed heavier tanks.

Expander Cycle engines do use turbopumps, and thus so does BE-7 (I believe the consensus on the BE-7 thread is that it's a Closed Dual Expander Cycle with between 0 and 2 Splits, although they're pretty sure there's at least 1)

So I think you're probably right. It's another solid argument against hypergolic landers that hadn't occurred to me before; the mass fraction ends up about the same. I mean, unless someone is building a hypergolic expander engine.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/05/2019 02:17 pm
If BE-7 is pump-fed (I think it is?), it may be feasible for them to achieve those ratios. Apollo LM was pressure-fed and so needed heavier tanks.

Expander Cycle engines do use turbopumps, and thus so does BE-7 (I believe the consensus on the BE-7 thread is that it's a Closed Dual Expander Cycle with between 0 and 2 Splits, although they're pretty sure there's at least 1)

So I think you're probably right. It's another solid argument against hypergolic landers that hadn't occurred to me before; the mass fraction ends up about the same. I mean, unless someone is building a hypergolic expander engine.
The Russians had used turbo pump fed engines for their LK lander (which was tested successfully in LEO). They saved enough weight that they could then install redundant engines, allowing engine-out capability for ascent, which the Apollo LM didn’t have. Russia still uses a variant of that stage.

So it has nothing to do with hypergols and everything to do with pressure-fed vs pump-fed.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JEF_300 on 06/05/2019 03:21 pm
If BE-7 is pump-fed (I think it is?), it may be feasible for them to achieve those ratios. Apollo LM was pressure-fed and so needed heavier tanks.

Expander Cycle engines do use turbopumps, and thus so does BE-7 (I believe the consensus on the BE-7 thread is that it's a Closed Dual Expander Cycle with between 0 and 2 Splits, although they're pretty sure there's at least 1)

So I think you're probably right. It's another solid argument against hypergolic landers that hadn't occurred to me before; the mass fraction ends up about the same. I mean, unless someone is building a hypergolic expander engine.
The Russians had used turbo pump fed engines for their LK lander (which was tested successfully in LEO). They saved enough weight that they could then install redundant engines, allowing engine-out capability for ascent, which the Apollo LM didn’t have. Russia still uses a variant of that stage.

So it has nothing to do with hypergols and everything to do with pressure-fed vs pump-fed.

I know, but the US doesn't have any pump-fed vacuum hypergolic engines at the moment. So unless someone is building one, pressure-fed and hypergolic are going to be synonymous in any US lander design.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 06/05/2019 03:23 pm
Hate to continue this tangent... but electric pump fed hypergolic engines would trade well at this scale...
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/05/2019 11:31 pm
If BE-7 is pump-fed (I think it is?), it may be feasible for them to achieve those ratios. Apollo LM was pressure-fed and so needed heavier tanks.

Expander Cycle engines do use turbopumps, and thus so does BE-7 (I believe the consensus on the BE-7 thread is that it's a Closed Dual Expander Cycle with between 0 and 2 Splits, although they're pretty sure there's at least 1)

So I think you're probably right. It's another solid argument against hypergolic landers that hadn't occurred to me before; the mass fraction ends up about the same. I mean, unless someone is building a hypergolic expander engine.
The Russians had used turbo pump fed engines for their LK lander (which was tested successfully in LEO). They saved enough weight that they could then install redundant engines, allowing engine-out capability for ascent, which the Apollo LM didn’t have. Russia still uses a variant of that stage.

So it has nothing to do with hypergols and everything to do with pressure-fed vs pump-fed.

I know, but the US doesn't have any pump-fed vacuum hypergolic engines at the moment. So unless someone is building one, pressure-fed and hypergolic are going to be synonymous in any US lander design.
Do you have any evidence the US has none?

It's poor form to just define two non-synonymous things to be the same. The whole “but we don’t literally have this exact thing, so we’ll just ignore the possibility of it” type of analysis. Besides, it’s untrue.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/06/2019 12:14 am
Hate to continue this tangent... but electric pump fed hypergolic engines would trade well at this scale...
Ventions (now Astra) has done or is indeed doing this: https://sbir.nasa.gov/SBIR/abstracts/16/sbir/phase1/SBIR-16-1-S4.03-8343.html
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: clongton on 06/08/2019 12:13 pm
While Blue may have experienced HSF and deep space engineers from traditional aerospace companies, Blue itself as company doesn't have this experience.

The ascent stage is critical for crew safety. This is one vehicle where I think a more experienced oldspace company should be involved. Ideally a partnership with Blue.

1. There are no "oldspace" companies with engineering staff that are experienced in this way.
They have all either retired or passed away many years ago.
2. All the "oldspace" companies that did that work were actually "newspace" companies when they did that work.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: clongton on 06/08/2019 12:32 pm
No one doubts Bezos' vision... Just that he has not (until recently) shown much urgency it getting it done soon - kind of like a hobbyist.

Just as a point of order where does it say that in order to differentiate a professional business from a hobby business there must be a sense of urgency? Usually when someone starts a business they are looking for a return on investment as quickly as possible, but that is only because they will lose their investment if it doesn't quickly turn around. That is not a concern for someone like Jeff Bezos, the richest man on Earth, who's entire investment in BO, as huge as it is, can be considered pocket change wrt his personal wealth. A quick ROI from BO was obviously not a concern to him. He preferred to develop his professional business more slowly. Why? Because he could afford to. It was not a hobby business. It never was. He simply chose to develop it slower than you are used to seeing from other, less well financed individuals or groups.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Lars-J on 06/09/2019 06:38 am
No one doubts Bezos' vision... Just that he has not (until recently) shown much urgency it getting it done soon - kind of like a hobbyist.

Just as a point of order where does it say that in order to differentiate a professional business from a hobby business there must be a sense of urgency? Usually when someone starts a business they are looking for a return on investment as quickly as possible, but that is only because they will lose their investment if it doesn't quickly turn around. That is not a concern for someone like Jeff Bezos, the richest man on Earth, who's entire investment in BO, as huge as it is, can be considered pocket change wrt his personal wealth. A quick ROI from BO was obviously not a concern to him. He preferred to develop his professional business more slowly. Why? Because he could afford to. It was not a hobby business. It never was. He simply chose to develop it slower than you are used to seeing from other, less well financed individuals or groups.

Sigh. Why are you quoting me out of context? The very POINT of my post (if you read all of it) was that it was the lack of any products or services for sale that classified it as a hobby company for me. Not the urgency. I just added that the lack of urgency can be viewed as an additional point of evidence.

So let me just state it again to be clear. If someone wants to quote this post, include THIS:
For the first 14 years as a company Blue Origin did not sell any products or services. That is very different than being able to run a company at a loss for an extended period - like Amazon. Amazon is not and has never been a hobby. Blue Origin was a hobby but is no longer. IMO.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/09/2019 08:45 am
For the first 14 years as a company Blue Origin did not sell any products or services. That is very different than being able to run a company at a loss for an extended period - like Amazon. Amazon is not and has never been a hobby. Blue Origin was a hobby but is no longer. IMO.

That covers the period from 2000 to 2014. Since then, blue did sell payload space to NASA and other customers on the last few New Shepard flights. It also has agreements to sell BE-4 engines to ULA and launch payloads on New Glenn, so might have gotten some deposits on those.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: clongton on 06/09/2019 01:41 pm
Sigh. Why are you quoting me out of context?

Sigh. I'm not. Bezos is developing BO at a very different pace than the average new company. You seem to be having difficulty adapting to that. There are no rules here. BO is not, never was and never will be a hobby business.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TripleSeven on 06/09/2019 01:57 pm


Sigh. I'm not. Bezos is developing BO at a very different pace than the average new company. You seem to be having difficulty adapting to that. There are no rules here. BO is not, never was and never will be a hobby business.

I would agree with that.  BO reminds me of when I inherited "the farm" in my 20's.  I had no professional training in its operation, had zero knowledge of the industry and what was working on it for a bunch of decades had stopped working.  It took me 15 years to acquire the knowledge, staff and product and now it makes money.  I had the assets to spend the money and not need it to make any...

He, BEzos has the luxury of the assets to "go slowly" and find out "what works" and "who works"   and it seems like reasonable judgement since if you went back 15 years from today...nothing on the grand scheme of things has changed...the space "scene" especially with humans is about where it was then in terms of the overall "product" .  that stasis may or may not last much longer...but right now...well 2004 is not that long ago :)

I think he has been coming into it from that perspective
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: speedevil on 06/09/2019 02:08 pm
For the first 14 years as a company Blue Origin did not sell any products or services. That is very different than being able to run a company at a loss for an extended period - like Amazon. Amazon is not and has never been a hobby. Blue Origin was a hobby but is no longer. IMO.
It can reasonably be called a hobby company (IMO) if it's not your main activity, and you are not driving it towards profit or market share.
An investment banker who keeps bees and sells honey at a dramatic loss doesn't make that in any way not a hobby business.

It is trending towards where it might be unambiguously called 'not a hobby' - but unless I've missed large contracts (possible) it is still very lossmaking and yet still gradatim.

It has clearly moved away from unambiguously hobby, but it's got a long way to go.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: clongton on 06/09/2019 03:08 pm
It can reasonably be called a hobby company (IMO) if it's not your main activity, and you are not driving it towards profit or market share.

By your own definition it is not a hobby business. The only thing different is the pace of development. He clearly didn't need to prioritize profit as quickly as possible, like all the others out there - including SpaceX, but the market share he is driving at, in his own words, has been millions of people living and working in space and he said that he founded Blue Origin specifically to begin that process. His vision is very long term as he also stated that after he is gone that others will need to finish the work that he started with the founding of Blue Origin. He has been carefully establishing his company at a pace that will ensure BO's continuing survival beyond him. 
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DistantTemple on 06/09/2019 03:26 pm
snip...
It can reasonably be called a hobby company (IMO) if it's not your main activity, and you are not driving it towards profit or market share.
An investment banker who keeps bees and sells honey at a dramatic loss doesn't make that in any way not a hobby business.
...snip

Just look at amazon. A small space selling books on the early internet, when most people weren't really aware of it.... when folks had to send payment by cheque! Rather hobby-like, a bit like keeping bees! .... BO is aiming to be one of (or THE) biggest solar-system corporations... just like Amazon (market share?). No definitely not a hobby! Also the Gradatum probably fits the growth of expectation and demand. It will take a while for "living and working in space" to be accepted- just like it has taken a while for so much shopping to go online.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TripleSeven on 06/09/2019 03:29 pm


By your own definition it is not a hobby business. The only thing different is the pace of development. He clearly didn't need to prioritize profit as quickly as possible, like all the others out there - including SpaceX, but the market share he is driving at, in his own words, has been millions of people living and working in space and he said that he founded Blue Origin specifically to begin that process. His vision is very long term as he also stated that after he is gone that others will need to finish the work that he started with the founding of Blue Origin. He has been carefully establishing his company at a pace that will ensure BO's continuing survival beyond him.

I also think he has been trying to find the technology which can affect a particular market that he thinks is sustaining as you put it "beyond him"

this seems to be a little more difficult in "space" then on earth.  Amazon was a "leap in the dark" that does not seem (at least now) to have a sibling to in spaceflight in particular human spaceflight.  ie something that one can "toss the entire wad at" and either fail miserably or succeed beyond ones wildest dreams

the "internet" constellations "might" be that or they could like the original Iridium be an amazing bust that someone else either has to deorbit or find a use for.

my guess is that Jeff has been trying to merge both the technology and a market together...and what he believes is that at some point there is going to be a genuine government effort to both make ISS work and to push on to the Moon, and he is trying to develop a product which will be sustained by some of that spending.

More then one time he has compared trying to move out into space to how Seattle developed.  its all in finding a product that has a market.  so far time is not that big a factor...
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 06/09/2019 03:59 pm
^If only there was a thread where people could discuss Blue Origin's business strategy.

Oh wait there is. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38883.0)

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/09/2019 04:30 pm
Currently the only market for Blue Moon is NASA, same as other aerospace primes like Lockheed Martin.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Lar on 06/09/2019 08:20 pm
(fan) I can be a skeptic and excited at the same time. Go Blue. Let's see you deliver stuff at the pace needed to stay in the game. What you did so far is nice and all, but too gradatim. I'll be cheering for you whenever you win on merit. And booing whenever you pull shenanigans like the landing patent, 39A, etc.

(mod) and yea, there is a thread for general business strategy stuff. Use it. Stick to the lander here.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/30/2019 07:45 pm
NASA awarded Blue Origin multiple awards for technology developments related to Blue Moon:

Quote
Blue Origin of Kent, Washington, will collaborate with NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston and Goddard to mature a navigation and guidance system for safe and precise landing at a range of locations on the Moon.

Quote
Blue Origin will partner with Glenn and Johnson to mature a fuel cell power system for the company’s Blue Moon lander. The system could provide uninterrupted power during the lunar night, which lasts for about two weeks in most locations.

Quote
Blue Origin, Marshall and Langley will evaluate and mature high-temperature materials for liquid rocket engine nozzles that could be used on lunar landers.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-announces-us-industry-partnerships-to-advance-moon-mars-technology/

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/01/2019 01:03 am
Lastest info on Kilopower reactors has 10kW version at 1500kg. With couple of Blue landers should be possible to setup icw mining operations inside one of polar craters.
One lander with reactor + electrolysis plant + cyrocooler. Use lander tanks for storing LH and LOX. Second lander would carry rovers and mining equipment.
At rough rule of thumb its 1t per year per kw so 10t for this setup. Most power is needed for cracking water. If water is transport to crater rim via small lunar hopper then lot more fuel can be produced using solar power.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: sanman on 08/02/2019 02:25 am
Can Blue Moon be adapted for a hopper role? Or could a dedicated hopper be derived from it?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/22/2019 06:47 am
https://twitter.com/spiel2001/status/1186440270516277248

Quote
Great to see the #BlueMoon lunar lander on display at the @IAC2019DC; looking forward to a week of informative meetings, plenaries, papers, and presentations #IAC2019
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 10/22/2019 12:58 pm
Blue Origin Announces National Team for NASA’s Human Landing System Artemis (https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blue-origin-announces-national-team-for-nasas-human-landing-system-artemis)
Quote
Today, Blue Origin is proud to announce a national team to offer a Human Landing System for NASA’s Artemis program to return Americans to the lunar surface by 2024.

Blue Origin has signed teaming agreements with Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Draper. These partners have decades of experience supporting NASA with human space flight systems, launch vehicles, orbital logistics, deep-space missions, interplanetary navigation and planetary landings.

Our combined experience is uniquely positioned to meet NASA’s needs for the Artemis program. Each partner will bring their industry leading solutions to the following roles:
* Blue Origin, as prime contractor, leads program management, systems engineering, safety and mission assurance, and mission engineering while providing the Descent Element that is based on the multi-year development of the Blue Moon lunar lander and its BE-7 engine.
* Lockheed Martin develops the reusable Ascent Element vehicle and leads crewed flight operations and training.
* Northrop Grumman provides the Transfer Element vehicle that brings the landing system down towards the Moon.
* Draper leads descent guidance and provides flight avionics.

“National challenges call for a national response. We are humbled and inspired to lead this deeply committed team that will land NASA astronauts on the Moon,” said Bob Smith, CEO, Blue Origin. “Combining our partners’ heritage with our advance work on the Blue Moon lunar lander and its BE-7 engine, our team is looking forward to working with NASA in support of the Artemis program.”

“Lockheed Martin has been honored to help NASA explore space for more than 50 years, providing deep space robotic missions, planetary landers, space shuttle heritage and the Orion exploration spacecraft,” said Rick Ambrose, executive vice president, Lockheed Martin Space. “We value Blue Origin’s thoughtful approach to developing human-rated flight systems, and are thrilled to be part of a national team with this mix of innovation and experience. We look forward to safely and sustainably returning our nation to the surface of the Moon by 2024.”

“Northrop Grumman’s commitment to put Americans back on the moon dates back over 50 years ago with the delivery of the first lunar lander for the historic Apollo Program,” said Blake Larson, corporate vice president and president of Innovation Systems, Northrop Grumman. “Along with our ongoing work on the Space Launch System boosters, astronaut escape system, and the Gateway habitat, we are proud to be a part of the Blue Origin national team to support NASA’s Artemis program and the ambitious goal to return to the moon by 2024.”

“When the nation needs precision guidance, it calls on Draper,” said Kaigham J. Gabriel, President and CEO, Draper. “We guided Apollo to the moon and back nearly 50 years ago. We’re ready to do it again with the Blue Origin team for Artemis.”

It’s time to go back to the Moon, this time to stay.

-Gradatim Ferociter
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: HarmonicGF2 on 10/22/2019 01:13 pm
Blue Origin, Lockheed, Northrop join forces for Artemis lunar lander
https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-lockheed-northrop-join-forces-for-artemis-lunar-lander/   
Article says tight deadline made them team up. Blue Origin will be the primary contractor.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Eric Hedman on 10/22/2019 01:24 pm
Blue Origin, Lockheed, Northrop join forces for Artemis lunar lander
https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-lockheed-northrop-join-forces-for-artemis-lunar-lander/   
Article says tight deadline made them team up. Blue Origin will be the primary contractor.
I was wondering how Blue could ramp up capabilities to build a complete solution.  Now I wonder who else will team up to compete with them.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Semmel on 10/22/2019 02:07 pm
That structure sounds like a text book NASA contract.

What I dont understand though, BO provides the "Descent Element", and NG provides the "Transfer Element vehicle that brings the landing system down towards the Moon". Isn't that the same? Or do they mean the transfer between Earth and Gateway? I am a bit confused.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 10/22/2019 02:17 pm
That structure sounds like a text book NASA contract.

What I dont understand though, BO provides the "Descent Element", and NG provides the "Transfer Element vehicle that brings the landing system down towards the Moon". Isn't that the same? Or do they mean the transfer between Earth and Gateway? I am a bit confused.

I know for sure that the Cygnus-derived transfer stage will bring the lander down from NRHO (where Gateway is) to LLO, where the descent stage will take over. But I’m not sure if the transfer stage will re-dock with the ascent stage later on, in order to lift it back up to NRHO for returning the astronauts to Gateway after a surface excursion.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Eric Hedman on 10/22/2019 02:37 pm
But I’m not sure if the transfer stage will re-dock with the ascent stage later on, in order to lift it back up to NRHO for returning the astronauts to Gateway after a surface excursion.
I don't think that has been decided.  Depending upon the final mass distribution between these three elements and the potential for reuse of elements there are probably still a lot of factors that haven't been worked out in regards to this.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/22/2019 05:27 pm
Blue Origin, Lockheed, Northrop join forces for Artemis lunar lander
https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-lockheed-northrop-join-forces-for-artemis-lunar-lander/   
Article says tight deadline made them team up. Blue Origin will be the primary contractor.

With Blue Origin as the prime contractor. One can assume that unplanned funding requirements will be funded by Bezos with later reimbursement from NASA.

But don't think the "Team USA lander" will be in service by the 2024 target date. Due to integration issues with the modules in the lander stack IMO.

 :)
Maybe hell will freezes over. The "Team USA lander" might fly on Super Heavies with expendable upper stages if the nominal launch option of the New Glenn is not ready in time and the Super Heavy is operational. Presuming the "Team USA lander" is ready by 2024.
 :)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/22/2019 05:27 pm
The crew ascent module should be straight forward for LM, Orion provides almost all essential components. Few options for pressure vessel, Orion pressure vessel, Cygnus or clean sheet design. Mass of Orion vessel maybe issue especially compared to Cygnus.

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Rzeppa on 10/22/2019 06:53 pm
That structure sounds like a text book NASA contract.

What I dont understand though, BO provides the "Descent Element", and NG provides the "Transfer Element vehicle that brings the landing system down towards the Moon". Isn't that the same? Or do they mean the transfer between Earth and Gateway? I am a bit confused.

They need the "transfer element" to go from gateway orbit (NRHO) to low lunar orbit (LLO) and back because Orion's ESM lacks the delta v to get to and escape from LLO. My understanding is that NGIS' transfer element will be derived from Cygnus.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 10/22/2019 07:01 pm
The crew ascent module should be straight forward for LM, Orion provides almost all essential components. Few options for pressure vessel, Orion pressure vessel, Cygnus or clean sheet design. Mass of Orion vessel maybe issue especially compared to Cygnus.

Ascent stage propulsion is a big question.  You have the transfer module which if Cygnus derived is hypergolic based, the lander is hydrolox.
Does Blue supply LM with a BE7 or so they go an entirely different route?

Unsure if Orion derived pressure vessel is still a thing, looks like the barrel up top is the crew module?
https://twitter.com/LockheedMartin/status/1186633805584633856
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/22/2019 07:11 pm
The announcement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCA0snS68XM
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: theinternetftw on 10/22/2019 09:06 pm
Ascent stage propulsion is a big question.  You have the transfer module which if Cygnus derived is hypergolic based, the lander is hydrolox.
Does Blue supply LM with a BE7 or so they go an entirely different route?

Bezos in his announcement said that the Transfer Element will also use the BE-7.  Notably he did not say that the Ascent Element would.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: theinternetftw on 10/22/2019 09:13 pm
But I’m not sure if the transfer stage will re-dock with the ascent stage later on, in order to lift it back up to NRHO for returning the astronauts to Gateway after a surface excursion.
I don't think that has been decided.  Depending upon the final mass distribution between these three elements and the potential for reuse of elements there are probably still a lot of factors that haven't been worked out in regards to this.

In the HLS requirements, any Ascent Element abort (during descent or on the surface) would have to return directly to Gateway.  Alternatives to the given requirements are allowed to be proposed, but would have to be agreed to by NASA.

From the ConOps Document:

* In the event of a problem during descent that requires an aborted landing, the HLS will safely return the crew to the Gateway. This is the only option, as neither the Gateway nor Orion systems have an LLO rescue capability.

* The surface abort option is for the HLS to return the crew to the Gateway. A surface abort may require the crew to shelter in place until the Gateway is in the correct orbital position for an ascent.

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: envy887 on 10/23/2019 01:07 pm
Ascent stage propulsion is a big question.  You have the transfer module which if Cygnus derived is hypergolic based, the lander is hydrolox.
Does Blue supply LM with a BE7 or so they go an entirely different route?

Bezos in his announcement said that the Transfer Element will also use the BE-7.  Notably he did not say that the Ascent Element would.

As the ascent element is coming from Lockheed, I would expect it to be Orion-derived and to use AJ-10 for main propulsion. Reliability is absolutely critical for the ascent stage engine as there is no other way to get the crew home, and it's hard to beat hypergolics and AJ-10 for that.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 10/23/2019 02:48 pm
As the ascent element is coming from Lockheed, I would expect it to be Orion-derived and to use AJ-10 for main propulsion. Reliability is absolutely critical for the ascent stage engine as there is no other way to get the crew home, and it's hard to beat hypergolics and AJ-10 for that.

Makes sense and provides dissimilar redundancies in propulsion which should make a lot of folks happy.

The politics of this team is masterful.

An Orion derived ascent module, to be managed by Johnson Space Center in Houston - the same folks currently managing the Orion program.

Blue Origin acts as primary contractor and internal program management and provides common BE-7 propulsion to the transfer and descent stage, possibly built at Blue Origin's Alabama facility and has already been tested at Marshall Space Flight Center - the same folks who provide transfer stage and descent stage and overall  program management.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: spacenut on 10/23/2019 02:54 pm
The Blue Moon Lander requires distributed launch using existing launchers or New Glenn.  None of the equipment requires SLS except maybe Orion.  I don't see Blue spending much of their own money doing the lander.  They want a contract from NASA. 

Hopefully Starship will come on line in a couple of years and be able to deliver 100 tons of cargo to the moon to compete. 
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/30/2020 05:40 pm
Quote
NASA SELECTS BLUE ORIGIN NATIONAL TEAM TO RETURN HUMANS TO THE MOON

Today the Blue Origin National Team, which includes Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Draper, was selected by NASA to begin to develop the Artemis Human Landing System.

“NASA’s Artemis program will be the next major milestone in the history of human space flight, and we’re honored to be a part of it,” said Bob Smith, CEO, Blue Origin. “Our National Team brings unparalleled heritage, passion and innovation that will enable Americans to return to the lunar surface and inspire another generation. It’s time to go back to the Moon, this time to stay.”

Using existing and in development technologies provides the head start needed to meet NASA’s goal of landing at the South Pole of the Moon. Lockheed Martin’s Ascent Element is based on Orion; Northrop Grumman’s Transfer Element is based on Cygnus; and Blue Origin’s Descent Element is based on the Blue Moon lander and BE-7 engine, which has been in development for several years.

“Lockheed Martin is honored to be partnered with Blue Origin and this National Team as we begin a moment in history that the world will point to for generations,” said Rick Ambrose, executive vice president, Lockheed Martin Space. “The Artemis astronauts will descend to the surface and ascend off the surface inside an advanced crewed ascent element. The best way to accomplish this safely and quickly is to leverage NASA’s investment in Orion, an existing human-rated deep space spaceship, which maximizes common training and operations.”

“Putting humans back on the lunar surface is an inspiring goal for our nation,” said Blake Larson, corporate vice president and president of Northrop Grumman Space Systems. “We are proud to support this team and NASA with our decades of experience, comprehensive capabilities, and our proven space systems, as we return to the Moon.”

“Draper’s extensive portfolio and heritage in human exploration avionics is reinforced by current work on Lockheed Martin’s Orion, NASA’s SLS, Northrop Grumman’s Cygnus and Blue Origin’s engine, New Glenn and Blue Moon programs,” said Seamus Tuohy, Principal Director of Space Systems, Draper. “We are prepared for this united team to return humans to the Moon, just as Draper did with Apollo.”

Each National Team partner brings industry-leading solutions:

Blue Origin, as prime contractor, leads program management, systems engineering, safety and mission assurance, and mission engineering and operations; and develops the Descent Element.
Lockheed Martin develops the reusable Ascent Element vehicle and leads crewed flight operations and training.

Northrop Grumman develops the Transfer Element vehicle that delivers the landing system into low lunar orbit for final descent.
Draper leads descent guidance and provides flight avionics.

The National Team looks forward to embarking on the next steps with NASA and continuing progress to return to the Moon – this time to stay. 

- Gradatim Ferociter

https://www.blueorigin.com/news/nasa-selects-blue-origin-national-team-to-return-humans-to-the-moon
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/30/2020 07:22 pm
https://youtu.be/und5nNosJI0
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 04/30/2020 07:35 pm
Quote
Within Technical Area of Focus 7, Approach to Early System Demonstration, the SEP evaluated Blue Origin’s proposal as having one significant strength, an early flight demonstration of its DE in 2023, that I find to be particularly notable. Blue Origin proposes this early flight demonstration at the same landing site selected for the 2024 crewed demonstration mission, and will test critical technologies and systems such as propulsion; entry descent and landing sensors, algorithms, and concept-of-operations; advanced avionics and automation; passive and active thermal control; and mission operations processes and procedures. By demonstrating these and other key attributes of its DE prior to the crewed demonstration, this testing strategy will significantly reduce schedule and technical risk.

https://beta.sam.gov/api/prod/opps/v3/opportunities/resources/files/3488c1f1556745cb87c046135d8ffe00/download?api_key=null&token=
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: bombyx on 04/30/2020 10:18 pm
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1255920054073298946

Quote
Our National Team solution for the @NASA
 #Artemis Human Landing System program offers a sustainable architecture, with in-space demonstrations, and flexibility on launch to achieve our return to the Moon to stay @LockheedMartin
 @northropgrumman
 @DraperLab

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: bombyx on 05/01/2020 03:25 pm
Another picture from Blue Origin :

https://www.blueorigin.com/latest/
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/01/2020 04:50 pm
It looks like Loverro might be getting what he wants. All of the landers except Starship can work when launched pre-integrated (with fuel and hardware).
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Prettz on 05/01/2020 08:43 pm
I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice the habitat is a propane tank.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/01/2020 08:51 pm
While they don't show NGIS Omega as LV option in pictures it's mostly to be NGIS preferred choice for launching TE. Omega Heavy has similar performance to Vulcan.
It be case of if its available they will use it.

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 05/01/2020 08:57 pm
I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice the habitat is a propane tank.
Actually it reminds me of NASA Space Exploration Vehicle concepts.

SEV Fact Sheet (https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/464826main_SEV_FactSheet_508.pdf)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Eric Hedman on 05/01/2020 11:03 pm
Another picture from Blue Origin :

https://www.blueorigin.com/latest/
I wonder if on the Ascent vehicle if you take off the ascent engine and propellant tanks and replace them with wheels and fuel cell plus some engineering if you have a pressurized rover. 
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: HarmonicGF2 on 05/02/2020 01:51 pm
Do we know which engines the transfer and ascent stages are using?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/02/2020 02:50 pm
Do we know which engines the transfer and ascent stages are using?
Transfer stage is based on Cygnus so I'm assuming  whatever engines it currently uses.
Title: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 05/02/2020 08:30 pm
Do we know which engines the transfer and ascent stages are using?
Transfer stage is based on Cygnus so I'm assuming  whatever engines it currently uses.
I remember reading about BE-7 on the transfer stage, but can‘t remember wether it was an official statement or speculation.

Edit: found a Spaceflightnow article (https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/10/22/bezos-says-space-industry-stalwarts-will-help-blue-origin-build-moon-lander/) citing Bezos:
Quote
The Northrop Grumman-made transfer vehicle will also use the BE-7 engine, Bezos said.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 05/02/2020 08:38 pm
Do we know which engines the transfer and ascent stages are using?
Transfer stage is based on Cygnus so I'm assuming  whatever engines it currently uses.
I remember reading about BE-7 on the transfer stage, but can‘t remember wether it was an official statement or speculation.

That is correct or at least was the plan recently.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/10/22/bezos-says-space-industry-stalwarts-will-help-blue-origin-build-moon-lander/

Quote
The three-element lander’s descent stage will be powered by Blue Origin’s throttleable BE-7 engine, which burns super-cold liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants. The Northrop Grumman-made transfer vehicle will also use the BE-7 engine, Bezos said.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/02/2020 11:31 pm
This means NGIS will develop 12t (vulcan TLI) hydrolox OTV with endurance of weeks if not months. Opens up few possibilities for delivering landers of few mts to LLO or even surface (crasher stage) and interplanetary missions of few mts.



Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 05/03/2020 11:02 am
This means NGIS will develop 12t (vulcan TLI) hydrolox OTV with endurance of weeks if not months. Opens up few possibilities for delivering landers of few mts to LLO or even surface (crasher stage) and interplanetary missions of few mts.
Might be something that enables Europa Clipper on Starship or Falcon Heavy.
Besides that, a Hydrolox Transfer Stage/Space Tug is a valuable addition to the NGIS portfolio indepent of Artemis.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 05/03/2020 11:07 am
This means NGIS will develop 12t (vulcan TLI) hydrolox OTV with endurance of weeks if not months. Opens up few possibilities for delivering landers of few mts to LLO or even surface (crasher stage) and interplanetary missions of few mts.
Might be something that enables Europa Clipper on Starship or Falcon Heavy.
Besides that, a Hydrolox Transfer Stage/Space Tug is a valuable addition to the NGIS portfolio indepent of Artemis.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ugordan on 05/03/2020 11:54 am
Might be something that enables Europa Clipper on Starship or Falcon Heavy.

Too late for Clipper to get the new LV hardware developed and certified. Clipper project needs to know which LV it will actually use Real Soon Now (TM), in the off chance it's anything other than the mandated SLS launch. Any further delays would only incur additional cost and probably development time. Maintaining compatibility with several LVs is already hurting them.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/03/2020 04:07 pm
Might be something that enables Europa Clipper on Starship or Falcon Heavy.

Too late for Clipper to get the new LV hardware developed and certified. Clipper project needs to know which LV it will actually use Real Soon Now (TM), in the off chance it's anything other than the mandated SLS launch. Any further delays would only incur additional cost and probably development time. Maintaining compatibility with several LVs is already hurting them.
SpaceX pads don't have LH support and would be expensive to add for very few missions.

NGIS would rather use Omega if available, failing that it would be NG or Vulcan.

At 6000kg Clipper, OTV would only provide 4km/s DV.  A probe around 2000kg would be better size, then OTV is providing 6km/s, with LV providing most of 3km/s earth departure DV.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ugordan on 05/04/2020 03:54 pm
Too late for Clipper to get the new LV hardware developed and certified.
SpaceX pads don't have LH support and would be expensive to add for very few missions.

Oh definitely. My comment was a more general one about ideas thrown around of new/planned XYZ hardware could help Europa Clipper. The exact same argument can be made about Starship as well.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 05/04/2020 08:48 pm
From the ULA thread:
Blue Origin's lander is apparently 100% hydrolox and powered by all BE-7 engines. Maybe ULA transferred some of their IVF technology to be used on the lander itself, dealing with stuff like pressurization and attitude control?

Despite being mostly associated with Centaur or ACES there is no reason this approach would be limited to an upper stage powered by RL-10. It does however mean that all 3 stages would have to developed in close cooperation which might be difficult seeing how they're build by 3 different companies.

Where did you hear that from? It looks like the same engine in the video, and makes the most for long term ISRU, and we have heard that the transfer stage is BE-7 powered. Still very curious if the ascent stage is also hydrolox.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/04/2020 10:09 pm
From the ULA thread:
Blue Origin's lander is apparently 100% hydrolox and powered by all BE-7 engines. Maybe ULA transferred some of their IVF technology to be used on the lander itself, dealing with stuff like pressurization and attitude control?

Despite being mostly associated with Centaur or ACES there is no reason this approach would be limited to an upper stage powered by RL-10. It does however mean that all 3 stages would have to developed in close cooperation which might be difficult seeing how they're build by 3 different companies.

Where did you hear that from? It looks like the same engine in the video, and makes the most for long term ISRU, and we have heard that the transfer stage is BE-7 powered. Still very curious if the ascent stage is also hydrolox.
Ascent stage is likely to storable propellants. Besides avoiding boiloff issues has instant engine start to allow for emergency abort to orbit in case of descent stage failure.

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: brickmack on 05/26/2020 05:32 pm
Ascent stage is hypergolic, OMS derivative.

ULA IP is not used on any stage. Northrop and Blue both have their own internal equivalents. Weeks to years of hydrolox storage, refuelability, H2/O2 RCS, autogenous pressurization, but nothing from ULA.

Omega is not the baseline launch vehicle for the Transfer Element. That may change if Northrop wins NSSLP
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 05/27/2020 05:33 am
Ascent stage is hypergolic, OMS derivative.

Source?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 06/01/2020 10:54 pm
There is a brief discussion of the Blue Lander with video at the beginning of this video:

https://aiaa.zoom.us/rec/play/vpAtf7iu-z03H9bEsQSDA_8rW9S6LPqs1HBP_PINnh68VXIFM1WnbrdHZOY2XIl2jlHW026GMT5FnLQy

Quote
And in addition, the modularity of the architecture gives us a wide dynamic range of payload delivery capability from a couple of tons on a direct trajectory with a decent element, all the way up to about 15 tons
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/02/2020 01:50 am
There is a brief discussion of the Blue Lander with video at the beginning of this video:

https://aiaa.zoom.us/rec/play/vpAtf7iu-z03H9bEsQSDA_8rW9S6LPqs1HBP_PINnh68VXIFM1WnbrdHZOY2XIl2jlHW026GMT5FnLQy

Quote
And in addition, the modularity of the architecture gives us a wide dynamic range of payload delivery capability from a couple of tons on a direct trajectory with a decent element, all the way up to about 15 tons
15t allows for decent ascent stage that can reach Gateway on its own.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 06/10/2020 12:29 am
See slide 22 of Ken Bowersox's presentation:

Quote from: page 22
“INTEGRATED LANDER VEHICLE” (ILV)
• Three-stage landing system
— Ascent – Lockheed Martin
— Descent – Blue Origin
— Transfer – Northrop Grumman (future refueler)
— GN&C, Avionics, Software – Draper
• Rockets: New Glenn & ULA Vulcan

KEY ATTRIBUTES
• Significant proven spaceflight heritage
• Orion and Gateway compatible

Ken Bowersox's slides are worth looking at. They have some new renders and some adittional information about the landers:

https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/06-08-2020/space-studies-board-and-aeronautics-and-space-engineering-board-joint-spring-meeting-2020
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 06/11/2020 05:05 pm
I was really surprised to see that Astrobotic won the contract to land VIPER and not Blue Origin aboard Blue Moon.  It really seemed like it was Blue's contract to lose. With the extra capacity of Blue Moon they could in theory subsidize their mission price by carrying payloads for other customers or Blue Origin's own.

But despite Blue Moon being years in development and heavily funded they lost out.

Gradatim Ferociter.

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/11/2020 05:47 pm
I was really surprised to see that Astrobotic won the contract to land VIPER and not Blue Origin aboard Blue Moon.  It really seemed like it was Blue's contract to lose. With the extra capacity of Blue Moon they could in theory subsidize their mission price by carrying payloads for other customers or Blue Origin's own.

But despite Blue Moon being years in development and heavily funded they lost out.

Gradatim Ferociter.
Astrobotic have been developing lander for years now, they are furthur along than Blue.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 06/11/2020 07:54 pm
Astrobotic have been developing lander for years now, they are furthur along than Blue.
[/quote]

Their focus seemed to be on Peregrine, with Griffin on the back burner. Its totally different propulsion, although the challenge of landing and operating in the lunar environment is still the same.

I think it says a lot about Astrobotic being a lean and efficient company to manage to get both products signed up for payloads with limited funding.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Mammutti on 06/11/2020 08:26 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1271169131585441796

Quote from: Michael Sheetz
Couluris: Blue Origin "will be able to fly portions of these sensors [for its HLS lander] on our New Shepherd vehicle, prior to going into the next phase so we will be able to demonstrate some of those out of our West Texas facility."
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 06/12/2020 12:40 am
These tweets come from discussions on the webinar below:

Quote from: AAS
Join AAS this week for our next “Future in Space” online discussion – Human Landing Systems – with representatives from @BlueOrigin, @Dynetics and @SpaceX.


Thursday, June 11 at 3:00 ET 
https://twitter.com/astrosociety/status/1270010152721276936

The video of the presentation has been archived.

https://youtu.be/KEnz8V97Qck
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: tbellman on 06/12/2020 01:03 am
Quote from: Michael Sheetz
Couluris: Blue Origin "will be able to fly portions of these sensors [for its HLS lander] on our New Shepherd vehicle, prior to going into the next phase so we will be able to demonstrate some of those out of our West Texas facility."

And the sensors here refer to things for detecting and avoiding surface hazards during landing.  0:48:45 in the AAS discussion that yg1968 linked to.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: equiserre on 06/12/2020 01:47 pm
When asked about the rationale of their arquitecture, John´s response was along the lines of what each company can do... like a "piece of the pie" approach. Then in another question he did clarify that their arquitecture is similar to Apollo, but with modern technology. Seems like a safer approach from a business and schedule perspective, but not optimal from a future moon economy perspective.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/25/2020 04:16 pm
twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1276184479879647233

Quote
Listening in on a webinar providing updates on the Blue Origin-led team to develop a Human Landing System by 2024. I think this is a new rendering? Looks cool.

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1276185283659259908

Quote
Oh boy. Now they're talking about all of the subcontractors. NASA also shows these kinds of maps when they want to impress Congressperson from anywhere, USA that her/his state has a piece of the action too.
twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1276186519406084096

Quote
Here is the Ascent Element of the lander, separated from the Descent Module and Transfer Module.

Edit to add:

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1276187067505131520

Quote
And here is the Transfer Module. It is needed to take the lander from a higher orbit down to low-lunar orbit. This is needed because SLS/Orion can't get into and out of low-lunar orbit on their own.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/25/2020 04:24 pm
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1276187626631020549

Quote
Ooh! Details of the Transfer Element. It's big.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/25/2020 05:03 pm
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1276198432651325442

Quote
The Blue Origin-led National Team is fascinating to watch. None of these companies has, historically, moved fast. But now they're compelled to by the 2024 date. They're also learning to compete in a fixed price environment. Can they adapt?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 06/25/2020 05:29 pm
Ascent stage propulsion confirmed as hypergolic pressure fed (good info earlier from Brickmack):

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1276192788170842112

EDIT: based on this and the 316s ISP of the engine I'm feeling pretty confident in my estimates over here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50892.0
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JEF_300 on 06/25/2020 07:06 pm
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/42455.0/1944732.jpg)

Uh, guys? Is it just me, or are there TWO BE-7s on that Blue Moon? I was under the impression Blue Moon had only one BE-7. Did I just miss something?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 06/25/2020 07:10 pm
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/42455.0/1944732.jpg)

Uh, guys? Is it just me, or are there TWO BE-7s on that Blue Moon? I was under the impression Blue Moon had only one BE-7. Did I just miss something?

You sort of missed something. When the HLS awards came out the new Blue Moon lander shows 2 engines, but Blue Origin's own website still shows just 1 on the human version of the Blue Moon page.
I am curious if they will still bother with the smaller 1 engine version of Blue Moon or just standardize on this stretched 2 engine version.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/25/2020 07:25 pm
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/42455.0/1944732.jpg)

Uh, guys? Is it just me, or are there TWO BE-7s on that Blue Moon? I was under the impression Blue Moon had only one BE-7. Did I just miss something?

You sort of missed something. When the HLS awards came out the new Blue Moon lander shows 2 engines, but Blue Origin's own website still shows just 1 on the human version of the Blue Moon page.
I am curious if they will still bother with the smaller 1 engine version of Blue Moon or just standardize on this stretched 2 engine version.
Dual engines for redundancy on crew lander, cargo version may go to single to lower dry mass.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 06/26/2020 05:42 am
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1276187626631020549

Quote
Ooh! Details of the Transfer Element. It's big.

I am really interested in this being a composite tank structure, and wonder if Blue is also supplying that.
There were rumors before of Blue doing a composite upper stage for New Glenn. This would make sense as a 3rd stage.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/26/2020 01:37 pm
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1276187626631020549

Quote
Ooh! Details of the Transfer Element. It's big.

I am really interested in this being a composite tank structure, and wonder if Blue is also supplying that.
There were rumors before of Blue doing a composite upper stage for New Glenn. This would make sense as a 3rd stage.
ATK are experts in composites and they are part of NGIS now, so I'd be surprised if they used Blue supplied tanks.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Prettz on 06/26/2020 02:35 pm
That's a hell of a lot of expendable hardware behind that ascent stage. Maybe, perhaps, they're already planning a pathway to make the transfer vehicle reusable in the future? One would hope.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JEF_300 on 06/26/2020 04:12 pm
I am really interested in this being a composite tank structure, and wonder if Blue is also supplying that.
There were rumors before of Blue doing a composite upper stage for New Glenn. This would make sense as a 3rd stage.
ATK are experts in composites and they are part of NGIS now, so I'd be surprised if they used Blue supplied tanks.
And aside from those rumors, the only experience Blue has with composites, to my knowledge, is their fairing. So NGIS has the experience, and Blue doesn't. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
...
Although, the OmegA upper stage wasn't composite, right? I seem to recall that it's of pretty traditional construction. You would figure that if they thought they could make composite hydrolox tanks, they would've made that part of OmegA's design.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 06/26/2020 04:21 pm
already planning a pathway to make the transfer vehicle reusable in the future? One would hope.

They are indeed planning that, but it's kind of a moot point since any propellant delivery vehicle is going to end up looking a lot like the transfer stage. Somehow they need to get 17tonnes of propellant to the Gateway to enable 2 stage reuse - half hydrolox and half hypergolic. That is 2 flights just on it's own then a 3rd for the new descent stage.

A larger delivery vehicle would help of course, but that's beyond New Glenn's lift as we know it.

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 06/26/2020 07:08 pm
ATK are experts in composites and they are part of NGIS now, so I'd be surprised if they used Blue supplied tanks.

Yes but experience with liquid hydrogen temp composite? Off the top of my head I can't think of anyone currently building deep cryo composite tanks, even OmegA's upper stage is aluminum. Seems like a lot of development and schedule risk to take on just for the transfer vehicle without some kind of bigger picture synergy with other long term goals. Is the mass margin really that tight on the transfer vehicle to justify it?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 06/26/2020 07:43 pm
https://twitter.com/joe_landon/status/1276584891422068737
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/26/2020 08:16 pm
already planning a pathway to make the transfer vehicle reusable in the future? One would hope.

They are indeed planning that, but it's kind of a moot point since any propellant delivery vehicle is going to end up looking a lot like the transfer stage. Somehow they need to get 17tonnes of propellant to the Gateway to enable 2 stage reuse - half hydrolox and half hypergolic. That is 2 flights just on it's own then a 3rd for the new descent stage.

A larger delivery vehicle would help of course, but that's beyond New Glenn's lift as we know it.
With TE they could launch to LEO instead of TLI. 30mt TE + payload would deliver fuel in two missions and gives them option of NG, Vulcan or Omega Heavy. Hohmann transfer should be possible given they need to store LH for months in space.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 06/27/2020 07:08 am
First attempt at scaling these new images to arrive at some ideas on size.

Two different variations are attached, one assumes the lander is sized to the internal payload width of New Glenn at 6.350m. The other goes to a full 7 meter to match their claim of a 7m payload deck.

I would assume the 6.35m wide version is the more accurate.

With a crew cabin of 2.75m (9 feet) outer diameter that will make for tight quarters for a crew of only two and their suits.

A very quick and dirty estimate on tanks gives:
Blue Moon
2x H2 tanks @ 17m^3= 34 m^3 Total = 2,250 kg LH2
2x O2 tanks @ 5.8m^3 = 11.6m^3 Total = 12,400 kg LOX

Transfer Element
Is a little harder since its not know if the tank is common bulkhead or not.
Assuming NOT common bulkhead:
H2 ~43 m^3 = 2,800  kg
O2 ~ 16 m^3 = 17,000 kg
Unlike Blue Moon not much of the tanks can be seen so this could easily be a lot more or less.

EDIT: It just occurred to me that the LOX tank on the transfer stage could be tucked away inside of the upper section of the transfer stage.
In that case H2 volume is 85m^3 and 5600 kg, LOX would be about 31,000 kg to match the same ratio as Blue Moon. That would be large indeed.

EDIT 2: Flipped around the backwards propellant masses.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/27/2020 07:35 am
already planning a pathway to make the transfer vehicle reusable in the future? One would hope.

They are indeed planning that, but it's kind of a moot point since any propellant delivery vehicle is going to end up looking a lot like the transfer stage. Somehow they need to get 17tonnes of propellant to the Gateway to enable 2 stage reuse - half hydrolox and half hypergolic. That is 2 flights just on it's own then a 3rd for the new descent stage.

A larger delivery vehicle would help of course, but that's beyond New Glenn's lift as we know it.

The "tanker" could look quite different to the transfer stage. For one, it might return to earth meaning either capsule or aircraft shaped. For two, you could deliver propellant via water and split on site meaning the cryogenic tanks are gone. ISS already does the second part and the hydrogen is dumped overboard (correction: was dumped overboard, they have a Sabatier unit that generates water + methane now..the methane gets dumped overboard).
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Danirode on 06/27/2020 07:36 am

A very quick and dirty estimate on tanks gives:
Blue Moon
2x H2 tanks @ 17m^3= 34 m^3 Total = 12,400 kg LH2
2x O2 tanks @ 5.8m^3 = 11.6m^3 Total = 2,250 kg LOX

Transfer Element
Is a little harder since its not know if the tank is common bulkhead or not.
Assuming NOT common bulkead:
H2 ~43 m^3 = 17,000 kg
O2 ~ 16 m^3 = 2,800 kg
Unlike Blue Moon not much of the tanks can be seen so this could easily be a lot more or less.

EDIT: It just occured to me that the LOX tank on the transfer stage could be tucked away inside of the upper section of the transfer stage.
In that case H2 volume is 85m^3 and 31,000 kg, LOX would be about 5600 kg to match the same ration as Blue Moon. That would be large indeed.


Wait...the density of LH  is 71 kg/m^3, and LOX is 1140 kg/m^3....how did you come up with those fuel masses??
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/27/2020 07:52 am

A very quick and dirty estimate on tanks gives:
Blue Moon
2x H2 tanks @ 17m^3= 34 m^3 Total = 12,400 kg LH2
2x O2 tanks @ 5.8m^3 = 11.6m^3 Total = 2,250 kg LOX

Transfer Element
Is a little harder since its not know if the tank is common bulkhead or not.
Assuming NOT common bulkead:
H2 ~43 m^3 = 17,000 kg
O2 ~ 16 m^3 = 2,800 kg
Unlike Blue Moon not much of the tanks can be seen so this could easily be a lot more or less.

EDIT: It just occured to me that the LOX tank on the transfer stage could be tucked away inside of the upper section of the transfer stage.
In that case H2 volume is 85m^3 and 31,000 kg, LOX would be about 5600 kg to match the same ration as Blue Moon. That would be large indeed.


Wait...the density of LH  is 71 kg/m^3, and LOX is 1140 kg/m^3....how did you come up with those fuel masses??

They make more sense if you swap the O2 mass and the H2 mass.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 06/27/2020 04:04 pm
They make more sense if you swap the O2 mass and the H2 mass.

Yes I made a transposing error, thanks for the correction!


Back to the numbers this morning....
I am REALLY interested in that transfer vehicle now. I updated some numbers from the other thread I had created with both the variations from assumed propellant tank volumes.

On the small size (16 tonnes propellant) its optimized to take itself from GTO out to TLI and then Gateway before taking the whole stack to LLO.  Which is kind of overkill - the whole vehicle can take perform its role with only 12 tonnes propellant and not having to perform any of the TLI mission phase.

On the large size (36,500 tonnes propellant) its optimized to take itself from LEO to TLI, then Gateway and etc.
This is also big enough to take Orion from LEO to TLI. Not to mention it already has docking capabilities.
Any improvement to mass fraction here would have a great benefit - which could explain why they chose to go for composite propellant tanks.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/27/2020 09:10 pm
The large radiator TE service module maybe for cryrocooler, if this is case boiloff isn't issue and they can take longer lower DV path to Gateway, saving around 6-700m/s. Also gives them basis of fuel depot.

Alternatively remove service module and use propulsion module on its own as EDS, only needs to last few hours.

ULA as been pushing ACES as high performance OTV for ages, NGIS may beat them to it.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/27/2020 11:10 pm
Here is my concept for how to modify this into a more sustainable lander once you have ISRU set up. You basically delete the docking systems, the ascent fuel tank and the transfer element and squash everything else together( Yes, squashing stuff together is real engineering). Deliver water to gateway, gateway splits it and fills the lunar lander(specifically, the descent element propellant tanks). The lunar lander lands without any staging. You then refill the tanks from lunar ISRU hydrolox and send it back up to gateway. Of course, this is assuming that deleting the ascent propellant tanks allows the descent element to do ~2750 m/s rather than ~2000 m/s.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: envy887 on 06/27/2020 11:22 pm
Here is my concept for how to modify this into a more sustainable lander once you have ISRU set up. You basically delete the docking systems, the ascent fuel tank and the transfer element and squash everything else together( Yes, squashing stuff together is real engineering). Deliver water to gateway, gateway splits it and fills the lunar lander(specifically, the descent element propellant tanks). The lunar lander lands without any staging. You then refill the tanks from lunar ISRU hydrolox and send it back up to gateway. Of course, this is assuming that deleting the ascent propellant tanks allows the descent element to do ~2750 m/s rather than ~2000 m/s.

How much solar power does Gateway need to split water and fill the DE in, say, 6 months? Since you still have to transfer and store cryos, that might not be worth the headaches compared to delivering ready-to-go propellant to Gateway for each mission.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/27/2020 11:47 pm
Here is my concept for how to modify this into a more sustainable lander once you have ISRU set up. You basically delete the docking systems, the ascent fuel tank and the transfer element and squash everything else together( Yes, squashing stuff together is real engineering). Deliver water to gateway, gateway splits it and fills the lunar lander(specifically, the descent element propellant tanks). The lunar lander lands without any staging. You then refill the tanks from lunar ISRU hydrolox and send it back up to gateway. Of course, this is assuming that deleting the ascent propellant tanks allows the descent element to do ~2750 m/s rather than ~2000 m/s.

How much solar power does Gateway need to split water and fill the DE in, say, 6 months? Since you still have to transfer and store cryos, that might not be worth the headaches compared to delivering ready-to-go propellant to Gateway for each mission.

Hydrogen energy density is about 33 megawatt hours per metric ton. Assuming 60% conversion efficiency, that is 55 megawatt hours required per metric ton of H2 (or per 9 t of hydrolox). The 60 kw arrays on the PPE would produce that amount of power in 38 days. So, as long as there isn't a lot of draw other places, producing enough propellant to fill the DE in 6 months shouldn't be much of a problem. Alternatively, more solar power could be delivered with the fuel production unit whenever that happens.

So, the question is the following: Do you sprint for local ISRU on the moon obviating the need to come up with a refueling architecture for the full 3 stage architecture? Or do you focus on the earth based refueler for the full 3 stage stack over the local ISRU.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/28/2020 04:15 am
They've built based on earth supplied fuel, but architecture can use ISRU fuel if present. NB Descent stage maybe capable of 2700m/s, needs to get from LEO or TLI to gateway some how.

For ascents would still want AE fully fuelled to allow for LAS.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 06/28/2020 07:17 am
It's not that hard to close loop on Gateway to surface with ISRU: just reserve the ascent stage propellant for emergency only.

The transfer stage can do the handoff with the ascent stage from LLO to Gateway and back after a refueled lander does the lifting. See this thread: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50892.0
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: pochimax on 06/28/2020 10:26 am
First attempt at scaling these new images to arrive at some ideas on size.

Two different variations are attached, one assumes the lander is sized to the internal payload width of New Glenn at 6.350m. The other goes to a full 7 meter to match their claim of a 7m payload deck.

I would assume the 6.35m wide version is the more accurate.

With a crew cabin of 2.75m (9 feet) outer diameter that will make for tight quarters for a crew of only two and their suits.

Isn' t the crew cabin the same size of the Orion pressure vessel barrel? Did anyone know its diameter?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/NASA_EM-1_Mission_craft_welding_sequence.jpg/695px-NASA_EM-1_Mission_craft_welding_sequence.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/NASA_EM-1_Mission_craft_welding_sequence.jpg/695px-NASA_EM-1_Mission_craft_welding_sequence.jpg)

https://i.imgur.com/7tPI1Bgl.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/7tPI1Bgl.jpg)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 06/29/2020 08:18 pm
Ascent element screen capture that wasn't posted previously below. This is from the Lockmart hosted Webinar: https://vimeo.com/432584969


EDIT: Webinar notes as I get to them.

- Northrop Grumman is indeed looking after the cryogenic composites.
- Blue Origin wants to do a lander demo in December 2023.
- LOL ingress/egress system, or in laymen's terms a ladder  ::)
- Multiple mentions of how they can launch on SLS or commercial rockets
- Ascent element is meant to be refueled and reused.
- Transfer element is designed to evolve into the refueling element for future missions.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/29/2020 09:22 pm
The rest of the new infographics/images.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JEF_300 on 06/29/2020 11:10 pm
Looks like the Transfer Elements composite cryo tanks also have a common bulkhead. Good stuff.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/30/2020 12:50 am
That descent element image makes it pretty easy to measure the hydrogen tanks. Assuming the astronaut is 5 foot 10 inches tall, I get the following

volume per H2 tank: 11.72 cubic meters
total H2 volume: 23.44 cubic meters
H2 capacity: ~1660 kg
Total O2 capacity (assuming RL-10 like O/F ratio of 5.5:1): ~9130 kg

Should be very easy to refuel that if eventually all you need to refuel is the descent element in lunar orbit. It basically fits inside the co-manifest capability of SLS Block 1B.
 
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 06/30/2020 06:17 pm
That descent element image makes it pretty easy to measure the hydrogen tanks. Assuming the astronaut is 5 foot 10 inches tall, I get the following

volume per H2 tank: 11.72 cubic meters
total H2 volume: 23.44 cubic meters
H2 capacity: ~1660 kg
Total O2 capacity (assuming RL-10 like O/F ratio of 5.5:1): ~9130 kg

Should be very easy to refuel that if eventually all you need to refuel is the descent element in lunar orbit. It basically fits inside the co-manifest capability of SLS Block 1B.

I don't trust the astronaut height in those slides. They must have been thrown together by a graphic artist without any sense of scale.

If you take the ascent element and place it next the descent element using the astronaut as a common scaling factor the result is a complete mismatch to the integrated renderings, and a lander that is very far off from the described 7 meter payload deck as the lander only scales to 5 meter  >:(
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Eric Hedman on 06/30/2020 10:52 pm
When I look at these images of the Blue Moon Lander I can't help but think of the possibility when Hydrolox is produced on the Moon how you could get rid of the ascent tanks and engine.  It would make for a pretty nice completely reusable lander.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: pochimax on 07/01/2020 09:22 pm
I think the crew cabin part of the lander is of the same diameter as of the Orion pressure vessel barrel and two heights of it (two barrel rings) It seems to be a stretched Orion.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/NASA_EM-1_Mission_craft_welding_sequence.jpg/695px-NASA_EM-1_Mission_craft_welding_sequence.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/NASA_EM-1_Mission_craft_welding_sequence.jpg/695px-NASA_EM-1_Mission_craft_welding_sequence.jpg)

But i can' t find this dimensions.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 07/01/2020 10:45 pm
Brickmack pointed out to me on Reddit that the docking ring can be used as a known scalar.

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=32429.0;attach=593651;image)

Given that I took the AE slide and estimated its size based on this, creating an orthographic view in the process.
Then I put that all on the entire stack to see where it came out.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TaurusLittrow on 07/02/2020 12:04 pm
Kudos to GWH for scaling the three element stack.

Based on these dimensions, have you calculated the DE's LH2 and LOX tank volumes?

If so, it would be interesting to estimate the wet mass of the DE in light of New Glenn's TLI payload capacity (~14 mT).

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/02/2020 05:50 pm
Kudos to GWH for scaling the three element stack.

Based on these dimensions, have you calculated the DE's LH2 and LOX tank volumes?

If so, it would be interesting to estimate the wet mass of the DE in light of New Glenn's TLI payload capacity (~14 mT).
TLI  to Gateway at NRHO is 430m/s.
14mt DE at TLI would burn 1.5mt so arrive as 12.5mt.

If they allow for Vulcan as LV then TLI mass is more like 11mt. Relying on NG for early missions is big schedule risk. Adding 7m fairing to Vulcan isn't big deal.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TaurusLittrow on 07/02/2020 06:20 pm
Kudos to GWH for scaling the three element stack.

Based on these dimensions, have you calculated the DE's LH2 and LOX tank volumes?

If so, it would be interesting to estimate the wet mass of the DE in light of New Glenn's TLI payload capacity (~14 mT).
TLI  to Gateway at NRHO is 430m/s.
14mt DE at TLI would burn 1.5mt so arrive as 12.5mt.

If they allow for Vulcan as LV then TLI mass is more like 11mt. Relying on NG for early missions is big schedule risk. Adding 7m fairing to Vulcan isn't big deal.

Yes. I'm trying to get an estimate of the wet mass of the DE based on the propellant mass and reasonable mass fraction of the hardware. Just intuitively, the mass must be over 20 mT, which means that NG cannot provide all of the TLI burn. The DE would have to contribute to TLI.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Lars-J on 07/02/2020 06:24 pm
This thing is not exactly elegant...  :-X Based on the scale, there does not appear to be room for an airlock. I assume the entire cabin is vented for an EVA.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JEF_300 on 07/02/2020 07:09 pm
This thing is not exactly elegant...  :-X Based on the scale, there does not appear to be room for an airlock. I assume the entire cabin is vented for an EVA.

When was the last time a spacecraft had to vent the entire cabin for an EVA? Was it Apollo? Cause even Soyuz could use the orbital module as an airlock.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 07/02/2020 08:11 pm
Kudos to GWH for scaling the three element stack.

Based on these dimensions, have you calculated the DE's LH2 and LOX tank volumes?

If so, it would be interesting to estimate the wet mass of the DE in light of New Glenn's TLI payload capacity (~14 mT).
TLI  to Gateway at NRHO is 430m/s.
14mt DE at TLI would burn 1.5mt so arrive as 12.5mt.

If they allow for Vulcan as LV then TLI mass is more like 11mt. Relying on NG for early missions is big schedule risk. Adding 7m fairing to Vulcan isn't big deal.

Yes. I'm trying to get an estimate of the wet mass of the DE based on the propellant mass and reasonable mass fraction of the hardware. Just intuitively, the mass must be over 20 mT, which means that NG cannot provide all of the TLI burn. The DE would have to contribute to TLI.

Very quickly I get 19m^3 of H2 and 3.4m^3 of O2 - but the O2 isn't a great view and may be a little more than that. Total propellant mass 9800 kg.
I'm not super confident in the scaling thought...the docking adapter is relatively small and pretty grainy in the image so maybe its larger than that.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: RonM on 07/02/2020 08:14 pm
This thing is not exactly elegant...  :-X Based on the scale, there does not appear to be room for an airlock. I assume the entire cabin is vented for an EVA.

When was the last time a spacecraft had to vent the entire cabin for an EVA? Was it Apollo? Cause even Soyuz could use the orbital module as an airlock.

If spacecraft EVAs were needed in future flights, the entire USA fleet: Dragon, Orion, and Starliner.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 07/02/2020 08:17 pm
This thing is not exactly elegant...  :-X Based on the scale, there does not appear to be room for an airlock. I assume the entire cabin is vented for an EVA.

It seems quite cramped compared to even the Dynetics lander.  As best I can tell Dynetics lander is based off Cygnus size pressure vessel at 3.07 meters in diameter. Base on the 3D printed model its just shy of 4 meters long. That seems pretty comfortable but maybe some internal volume is lost to hardware.  Even if the Blue Origin and Dynetics lander were identical I think I would prefer the horizontal orientation of the can over Blue's vertical orientation... makes for a lot more elbow room to have a cylinder turned on its side vs upright.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TaurusLittrow on 07/02/2020 08:30 pm
Kudos to GWH for scaling the three element stack.

Based on these dimensions, have you calculated the DE's LH2 and LOX tank volumes?

If so, it would be interesting to estimate the wet mass of the DE in light of New Glenn's TLI payload capacity (~14 mT).
TLI  to Gateway at NRHO is 430m/s.
14mt DE at TLI would burn 1.5mt so arrive as 12.5mt.

If they allow for Vulcan as LV then TLI mass is more like 11mt. Relying on NG for early missions is big schedule risk. Adding 7m fairing to Vulcan isn't big deal.

Yes. I'm trying to get an estimate of the wet mass of the DE based on the propellant mass and reasonable mass fraction of the hardware. Just intuitively, the mass must be over 20 mT, which means that NG cannot provide all of the TLI burn. The DE would have to contribute to TLI.

Very quickly I get 19m^3 of H2 and 3.4m^3 of O2 - but the O2 isn't a great view and may be a little more than that. Total propellant mass 9800 kg.
I'm not super confident in the scaling thought...the docking adapter is relatively small and pretty grainy in the image so maybe its larger than that.

I performed sone quick BotE calculations and came up with about 10,000 kg propellant mass as well. But that can't be accurate based on the parameters Bezos quoted for Blue Moon last year (15 mT wet mass - 3.1 mT dry mass so ~12,000 propellant mass). Those stretch tanks on the DE have to contain more LH2 and LOX.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/02/2020 08:56 pm
Seems like DE has lot more DV than 1900m/s needed from LLO to surface. If I'm right it may have enough fuel on landing to return its self back to LLO without AE.

If this is case they could reuse it, maybe not for crew but for cargo at less.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: meekGee on 07/02/2020 10:39 pm
Brickmack pointed out to me on Reddit that the docking ring can be used as a known scalar.

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=32429.0;attach=593651;image)

Given that I took the AE slide and estimated its size based on this, creating an orthographic view in the process.
Then I put that all on the entire stack to see where it came out.
According to this, how tall is the astronaut in the space suit?  Isn't he a bit short to be a stormtrooper?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 07/02/2020 10:42 pm
According to this, how tall is the astronaut in the space suit?  Isn't he a bit short to be a stormtrooper?

Yes see my post further up, the astronaut doesn't match relative scaling from one slide to the next.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: meekGee on 07/02/2020 10:46 pm
According to this, how tall is the astronaut in the space suit?  Isn't he a bit short to be a stormtrooper?

Yes see my post further up, the astronaut doesn't match relative scaling from one slide to the next.
Yup..  in the bottom image he's like 4' tall..

I expect a bit more from a graphical element whose sole purpose is to provide a sense of scale ..
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 07/03/2020 08:52 pm
Over on reddit user spacerfirstclass dug up total contract value numbers for HLS: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/hkju5i/total_contract_values_for_nasa_human_landing/

The whole post is worth reading but it comes down to this:
SpaceX award 80MSFC20C0034: Total Contract Value $2.252B
Dynetics award 80MSFC20C0035: Total Contract Value $5.273B
Blue Origin award 80MSFC20C0020: Total Contract Value: $10.182B

His links are the following ones:

SpaceX:
https://beta.sam.gov/awards/90321762%2BAWARD
Dynetics:
https://beta.sam.gov/awards/90129403%2BAWARD
Blue:
https://beta.sam.gov/awards/90133353%2BAWARD

See above. Interestingly, the subsidiary that is in charge of the HLS contract is called Blue Origin Federation, LLC.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 07/04/2020 03:27 pm
Ascent element screen capture that wasn't posted previously below. This is from the Lockmart hosted Webinar: https://vimeo.com/432584969


EDIT: Webinar notes as I get to them.

- Northrop Grumman is indeed looking after the cryogenic composites.
- Blue Origin wants to do a lander demo in December 2023.
- LOL ingress/egress system, or in laymen's terms a ladder  ::)
- Multiple mentions of how they can launch on SLS or commercial rockets
- Ascent element is meant to be refueled and reused.
- Transfer element is designed to evolve into the refueling element for future missions.

One thing that was also mentionned is that each element would be launched separately on commercial rockets (unless SLS is used).
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 07/06/2020 06:51 pm
SpaceX award 80MSFC20C0034: Total Contract Value $2.252B
Dynetics award 80MSFC20C0035: Total Contract Value $5.273B
Blue Origin award 80MSFC20C0020: Total Contract Value: $10.182B

See above. Interestingly, the subsidiary that is in charge of the HLS contract is called Blue Origin Federation, LLC.

The total contract value for Blue is no small number.

It's not absurd considering design only of Altair was pegged at $12billion. In this case it is 3 unique spacecraft, designed for deep space and landing on the moon. Hopefully future uses of these emerge outside of the 2024 landing.

I guess a fair commercial comparison would be to look the net cost of CRS and CC:
Commercial Resupply Services - SpaceX's Cargo Dragon: $1.6 billion
Commercial Resupply Services - Orbital ATK's Cygnus: $1.9 billion
Commercial Crew Program - SpaceX Crew Dragon: $3.1 billion
Commercial Crew Program - Boeing's Starliner: $5.1 billion
Total: $11.7 billion
Remove Cargo Dragon from the list and its the same total price. 3 spacecraft total, same total combined price.

On the other hand this is also a proposal with a lot of design heritage in Orion, Cygnus & Satellite servicing, and lander that is a variant of a cargo version being pursued for commercial/altruistic purposes.

It would be nice to know and understand more on the big picture of the long term role of this hardware and how Blue Origin intends to build up a cis-lunar economy. This was something that was stated in the sources selection statements.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/06/2020 07:35 pm
Not all Blue's money they have two other team members to share it with.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 07/10/2020 10:50 am
SpaceX award 80MSFC20C0034: Total Contract Value $2.252B
Dynetics award 80MSFC20C0035: Total Contract Value $5.273B
Blue Origin award 80MSFC20C0020: Total Contract Value: $10.182B

See above. Interestingly, the subsidiary that is in charge of the HLS contract is called Blue Origin Federation, LLC.

The total contract value for Blue is no small number.

It's not absurd considering design only of Altair was pegged at $12billion.

That's like saying the Hindenburg wasn't a terrible loss of life because the Titanic was even worse.

The point is that just because you can find something even worse in history doesn't mean the thing you're comparing to is good.

I guess a fair commercial comparison would be to look the net cost of CRS and CC:
Commercial Resupply Services - SpaceX's Cargo Dragon: $1.6 billion
Commercial Resupply Services - Orbital ATK's Cygnus: $1.9 billion
Commercial Crew Program - SpaceX Crew Dragon: $3.1 billion
Commercial Crew Program - Boeing's Starliner: $5.1 billion
Total: $11.7 billion
Remove Cargo Dragon from the list and its the same total price. 3 spacecraft total, same total combined price.

That's not a good comparison.  You're comparing three different vehicles doing three different jobs against a single system that does only one job (arguably only part of a job, since it doesn't go all the way to or from Earth, just to and from Gateway) that has three components.  No one or two of those components can do that job without the others.  The fact that the system is broken up into components built by different companies doesn't make it more of a value.

The only valid comparison is with other systems that would do the same job.  And we have those.  The SpaceX and Dynetics bids are to do exactly the same job.  And they are for a fraction of the money.

It's completely nonsensical to ignore the apples-to-apples comparison and instead try to compare apples to teacups.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 07/10/2020 11:02 am
It's disappointing to see a Blue Origin bid that's four times the SpaceX bid and twice the Dynetics bid.

Blue Origin was supposed to exist to disrupt the aerospace industry, lowering costs.  This bid is the opposite.  It's much higher costs.

Come on, Blue Origin!  When are you going to start actually doing what you're supposed to exist to do?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: su27k on 07/10/2020 12:58 pm
Someone on reddit commented that Blue Origin is the new old space, unfortunately this looks increasingly true to me. I don't see how they can ask for $10B to build a lander for 4 people while at the same time claiming they wanted to move millions of people and entire Earth's heavy industry to space, I have trouble seeing a path from here to there.

I guess a fair commercial comparison would be to look the net cost of CRS and CC:
Commercial Resupply Services - SpaceX's Cargo Dragon: $1.6 billion
Commercial Resupply Services - Orbital ATK's Cygnus: $1.9 billion
Commercial Crew Program - SpaceX Crew Dragon: $3.1 billion
Commercial Crew Program - Boeing's Starliner: $5.1 billion
Total: $11.7 billion
Remove Cargo Dragon from the list and its the same total price. 3 spacecraft total, same total combined price.

This comparison is not correct because you're comparing the cost of operational missions from CRS and CC to development cost of Blue lunar lander, you should use NASA portion of the development cost for CRS (i.e. COTS) and CC:

COTS - SpaceX's Cargo Dragon and Falcon 9: $396M
COTS - Orbital's Cygnus and Antares: $425M
CC - SpaceX's Crew Dragon: $75M + $460M + $9.6M + ~$1.3B = $1.8B
CC - Boeing's Starliner: $18M + $113M + $480M + $9.9M + ~2.1B + $287M = $3B

Total development cost NASA paid to get two launch vehicles, two cargo spacecrafts, two crew spacecrafts is $5.6B
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 07/10/2020 02:11 pm
LOL hey guys I'm not trying to justify Blue's price that's IMO too high... just trying to scratch at comparisons.

I think the commercial cargo and crew comparison's really bring to light just how high the price is, but wanted to see other takes on it. I left out the development programs for brevity since I'd also need to dig up the NextSTEP programs as well - funding Blue has already received on top of this. I believe these lander contracts do include at least 1 operational mission... so there is that.

Personally I think it's a poor value without the premise that Blue Origin actually exists to lower costs. Given their stated mission I think this proposal at this cost is pretty shoddy.

Break it down with comparisons... say $5b for an ascent vehicle to compare to Starliner
Then $1.9b for the transfer vehicle...... (ouch).
...and the lander costs $3.1 billion... which is obscene for a stretched version of a cargo lander already under development.


Even if you compare the cost of Boeing Starliner to the HLS Lockheed Martin Ascent vehicle I think the cost is way too high.  They are taking basically off the shelf Orion systems and propulsion, bolting them to a really small tin can crew compartment.... then providing a vehicle suitable for operation in deep space, lunar surface and docking operations.
Compared to Starliner that needs to survive launch forces thru maxQ, operate in LEO, dock autonomously, renter, parachute.... operationally Starliner is for more complex than the ascent vehicle.  So again where does the cost come from?

None of the components at an assumed cost are delivering good value in comparison to either the other proposals OR other commercial vehicles..... I threw the post above out there to see what other people thought while I mulled it over, and after deeper consideration it really seems like a bad price.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: pochimax on 07/11/2020 09:32 am
a really small tin can crew compartment....
I disagree with you here.
My opinion is that the crew cabin is the same diameter as de Orion internal pressure vessel, for obvious reasons. So somewhere between 3 and 4 meters in diameter.

Well... really, I don' t know. Maybe Lockheed decided to make an isogrid barrel ring of less diameter than Orion.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 07/11/2020 09:54 am
a really small tin can crew compartment....
I disagree with you here.
My opinion is that the crew cabin is the same diameter as de Orion internal pressure vessel, for obvious reasons. So somewhere between 3 and 4 meters in diameter.

Have you read GWH's post where he derives the dimensions of the various components based on the known size of the docking adaptor from a detailed graphic from the Blue Origin team?

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42455.msg2103047#msg2103047

According to that, the pressure vessel is 2.64 meters in diameter on the outside.  Orion's pressure vessel is 5.02 meters in diameter.  That puts them nowhere close to the same size.

You may think there's an obvious reason that the pressure vessel here would be the same diameter as Orion, but it's not obvious to me.  Re-using tooling from another vehicle is not the only factor.  Orion's shape is dictated by the need for re-entry.  The lander's pressure vessel doesn't have those same constraints.  And, indeed, even aside from the scaling arguments, the shape of the pressure vessel in the renderings from the Blue Origin team show it's much different from the shape of Orion's pressure vessel.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: pochimax on 07/11/2020 11:10 am
You may think there's an obvious reason that the pressure vessel here would be the same diameter as Orion, but it's not obvious to me. 
Yes, you are right. That docking port is the real thing...ok.  :-[
Looking more carefully it seems to fit better with the size of the forward bulkhead diameter. Or even it is something completely different, as you said. who knows...
https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/images/charts-diagrams/20150916_orion-pressure-vessel-weld-breakdown.jpg (https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/images/charts-diagrams/20150916_orion-pressure-vessel-weld-breakdown.jpg)

https://thumbs-prod.si-cdn.com/ty5Fyqe8Eiv2r83Y9UWMEe20tvk=/fit-in/1072x0/https://public-media.si-cdn.com/filer/c5/a8/c5a8fa4d-caed-4b25-b210-1472341b3890/13p_am14_green90210orionpressuretst_live.jpg (https://thumbs-prod.si-cdn.com/ty5Fyqe8Eiv2r83Y9UWMEe20tvk=/fit-in/1072x0/https://public-media.si-cdn.com/filer/c5/a8/c5a8fa4d-caed-4b25-b210-1472341b3890/13p_am14_green90210orionpressuretst_live.jpg)

Quote
And, indeed, even aside from the scaling arguments, the shape of the pressure vessel in the renderings from the Blue Origin team show it's much different from the shape of Orion's pressure vessel.

I think this old Lockheed design for an Orion-derived exploration vehicle has confused me. On the other hand we don' t know if the upper inclined part of the crew cabin is part of the pressure vessel or not. (well, it could be, no "tunnel" and no "forward bulkhead", only a "barrel" (or 2 barrels) and "inclined cone panels"?) haha, changing my mind: if the inclined part of the crew cabin has windows i suppose it must be part of the pressure vessel. OK, again.

https://i.imgur.com/7tPI1Bgl.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/7tPI1Bgl.jpg)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 07/24/2020 03:15 pm
Not really surprising to see the most expensive lander have lobbying pieces pop up like this one from Apollo Astronaut Harrison Scmitt:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/24/back-to-the-moon-this-time-to-stay-380250
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/24/2020 07:22 pm
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1286656934372945921?s=19


I don't read it as Schmitt trying to downselect to one team. He is try to promoting NASA HLS and using experience of National Team as reason keep funding Artemis. Yes he is plugging National Team but isn't discrediting others.

Congress is more likely fund project if they think at least one of landers will succeed and stay within budget.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 07/24/2020 08:03 pm
^Yeah it doesn't read as pressure to downselect to me either.

Plus as someone on reddit pointed out the bottom of the article states he is an advisor on the Blue Origin science advisory board.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/20/2020 03:09 pm
Quote
Blue Origin team delivers lunar lander mockup to NASA
by Jeff Foust — August 20, 2020

WASHINGTON — The Blue Origin-led team that is one of three working on lunar lander concepts for NASA’s Artemis program has delivered a full-sized mockup of that lander to the agency for testing by engineers and astronauts.

Blue Origin announced Aug. 20 that its “National Team” has installed an engineering model of the lander in the Space Vehicle Mockup Facility at the Johnson Space Center. The full-sized, but low-fidelity, mockup includes both the descent element, developed by Blue Origin, and ascent element, built by Lockheed Martin, and stands more than 12 meters high.

https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-team-delivers-lunar-lander-mockup-to-nasa/

Edit: found high res image on Blue website
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/20/2020 03:12 pm
https://youtu.be/xRaGIKqnDpA

Quote
The National Team HLS design leverages significant prior work, flight heritage, and a modular solution. Modular solutions help to enable faster progress due to the independent development and testing of each element, which permits ongoing improvements and evolution without impacting the full system.  This also provides flexibility in the use of different launch vehicles and different concepts of operations.  

The Descent Element is based on Blue Origin’s Blue Moon cargo lander and BE-7 LOX/hydrogen engine, both in development for more than three years. The Ascent Element incorporates avionics, software, life support hardware, crew interfaces, and mission operations from Lockheed Martin’s human-rated, deep-space Orion vehicle that will fly on the Artemis I and II missions soon. A consistent cockpit experience and training from Orion to the AE makes the end-to-end mission safer for Artemis. The Transfer Element, a propulsive stage that starts the lander on its descent trajectory from lunar orbit, is based on Northrop Grumman's Cygnus vehicle that provides logistics resupply to the International Space Station; and Draper provides descent guidance and avionics to the National Team. It’s time to go back to the Moon – to stay.

Learn more here: https://bit.ly/3gcs1iP
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/20/2020 03:13 pm
https://youtu.be/J6kb5YYVges

Quote
The Blue Origin-led Human Landing System (HLS) National Team – comprised of Blue Origin, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Draper – delivered an engineering mockup of a crew lander vehicle that could take American astronauts to the Moon. The lander is set up in the Space Vehicle Mockup Facility (SVMF), NASA Johnson Space Center’s (JSC) iconic Building 9. 

The full-scale engineering mockup showcases two elements of the National Team’s multi-element architecture – the Ascent Element (AE) and Descent Element (DE). Standing at more than 40 feet, it is the Blue Origin National Team’s update to Apollo’s Lunar Module (LM) and will be used to validate the National Team’s approaches for getting crew, equipment, supplies, and samples off and on the vehicle. The team will collaborate with NASA organizations including JSC’s Astronaut Office to perform engineering and crew operations tests with astronauts aiming to fly the final system within several years.

Learn more here: https://bit.ly/32ohvAv

Edit to add:

https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1296466737202962435

Quote
The HLS National Team has delivered an engineering mockup of its lunar lander at @NASA_Johnson. This @NASA #Artemis program technical milestone helps the design meet the requirements for future lunar astronauts. @LockheedMartin @northropgrumman @DraperLab bit.ly/2YiVuS5
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/20/2020 03:18 pm
Full presser, e-mailed from Blue - I think it has a bit more than the website link, posting just in case:

Blue Origin-Led National Team  Delivers  Lunar Lander Engineering Mockup to  NASA

Today, the Blue Origin-led Human Landing System (HLS) National Team – comprised of Blue Origin, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Draper – delivered an engineering mockup of a crew lander vehicle that could take American astronauts to the Moon. The lander is set up in the Space Vehicle Mockup Facility (SVMF), NASA Johnson Space Center's (JSC) iconic Building 9. 


The full-scale engineering mockup showcases two elements of the National Team’s multi-element architecture – the Ascent Element (AE) and Descent Element (DE). Standing at more than 40 feet, it is the Blue Origin National Team's update to Apollo’s Lunar Module (LM) and will be used to validate the National Team’s approaches for getting crew, equipment, supplies, and samples off and on the vehicle. The team will collaborate with NASA organizations including JSC’s Astronaut Office to  perform  engineering and crew operations tests  with astronauts aiming to fly the final system within several years. 
 
“Testing this engineering mockup for crew interaction is  a step toward making this historic mission real,” said Brent Sherwood, vice president of Advanced Development Programs, Blue Origin. “The learning we get from full-scale mockups can’t be done any other way. Benefitting from NASA’s expertise and feedback at this early stage allows us to develop a safe commercial system that meets the agency’s needs.” 
 
The National Team HLS design leverages significant prior work, flight heritage, and a modular solution. Modular solutions help to enable faster progress due to the independent development and testing of each element, which permits ongoing improvements and evolution without impacting the full system. This also provides flexibility in the use of different launch vehicles and different concepts of operations.
 
The Descent Element is based on Blue Origin’s Blue Moon cargo lander and BE-7 LOX/hydrogen engine, both in development for more than three years. The Ascent Element incorporates avionics, software, life support hardware, crew interfaces, and mission operations from Lockheed Martin’s human-rated, deep-space Orion vehicle that will fly on the Artemis I and II missions. A consistent cockpit experience and training from Orion to the AE makes the end-to-end mission safer for Artemis. The Transfer Element, a propulsive stage that starts the lander on its descent trajectory from lunar orbit, is based on Northrop Grumman’s Cygnus vehicle that provides logistics resupply to the International Space Station; and Draper provides descent guidance and avionics to the National Team.
 
“Each partner brings its own outstanding legacy to the National Team. These include developing, integrating, and operating human-rated spacecraft, launch systems and planetary landers. Together we form an excellent team to send our next astronauts to the Moon in 2024,” said Kirk Shireman, vice president of Lunar Campaigns at Lockheed Martin Space. “Augmenting state of the art tools with physically being able to see, interact, and evaluate a full-up lander in person is critical. It will inform our design and requirements earlier in the program allowing us to accelerate our development and meet the 2024 lunar landing goal.”
 
The mockup will remain at JSC through early 2021 for a series of tests and simulations. Over the coming months, the National Team will continue to build and increase mockup fidelity. NASA’s Human Landing System Program is managed at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 08/20/2020 03:30 pm
Looks like Blue Moon went on a diet?

Appears like it's now designed to fit a 5m fairing. The older images still on their website look wider: https://www.blueorigin.com/blue-moon/national-team

They've also replaced the HLS video on their youtube.
https://youtu.be/xRaGIKqnDpA


The descent element looks absolutely tiny now, and the transfer element looks to be stretched more.  At 1:10 they note that the transfer element begins the braking burn. I am suspecting they are shifting some of the delta V in landing to the TE.  I think they HAVE to, there really doesn't appear to be much volume left in the DE tanks.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: lrk on 08/20/2020 03:47 pm
Interesting.  Does this mean that the Transfer Element becomes a crasher stage?  I was under the impression that the TE was supposed to remain in orbit for potential reuse. 
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/20/2020 08:19 pm
Oh hello, I hadn’t noticed before who the LM VP is for their lunar work:

https://twitter.com/lmnews/status/1296535532093267970

Quote
“This full scale mock-up is critical as it will inform our design and requirements earlier in the program allowing us to accelerate our development and meet the 2024 lunar landing goal.” Kirk Shireman, @LockheedMartin VP of lunar campaigns. More: bit.ly/3j01O9b #Artemis
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: bombyx on 08/21/2020 02:56 am
Looks like Blue Moon went on a diet? [...]
 I think they HAVE to, there really doesn't appear to be much volume left in the DE tanks.
I'm not sure that's true.  The DE is stretched and the tanks are different : (sorry, I didn't find any good picture of the new design )  :

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/21/2020 03:22 am
Like to know how elements get there using commercial LVs. TEs maybe used to deliver both AE and DE from earth orbit, in separate missions.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 08/21/2020 03:36 am
I'm not sure that's true.  The DE is stretched and the tanks are different : (sorry, I didn't find any good picture of the new design )  :

Wow you're right. That's a pretty major change.
That's different from the mock up they just built which still has the 4 tank, 2 big 2 small arrangement and not the 4 LOX tank single H2 tank arrangement.

I'm not sure if the complete stack of the new version would fit underneath the crane in this photo  ???
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: grondilu on 08/21/2020 08:54 am
It's disappointing to see that they can't figure out a way to make in-space assembly and instead they keep trying to fit everything in a narrow rocket.

I mean, with that strategy they're never going to bring anything substantially big on the surface.  This tall lander is already showing its limits.

Unless perhaps they do an horizontal landing at some point ?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: high road on 08/21/2020 11:03 am
The Blue Moon architecture is about using existing design work as much as possible. Npt about developing new capabilities from scratch.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steve G on 08/21/2020 11:47 am
The crew compartment actually looks smaller than the original Apollo LM. Any renditions of the interior? How they will sleep? Personal hygiene? That male and female crew will have an acquaintance with each other a lot more than I'd want my wife to know another man!
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TaurusLittrow on 08/21/2020 12:19 pm
This new iteration of the Descent Element certainly looks smaller than the previous version.

I tried to determine the dimensions and mass using the worker as a scaler. Assuming the worker in ~1.83 m.

Height LOX tank= 2.785 m
Width LOX tank = 1.691 m (r = .846 m)

Volume  = 5.00 m3

With a LOX density of 1141 kg/m3, the

Mass LOX = 5705 kg or 11410 kg (for 2 tanks)

Assuming a 6:1 mass ratio for LOX/LH2 combustion, the

Mass LH2 = 1902 kg   

This traslates into 13,312 kg total propellant mass.

Assuming a PMF of 0.77, the total mass of the DE = 13312 + 3062 = 16,374 kg

That's not much more than the cargo Blue Moon that Bezos unveiled last year. Assuming an AE mass of 14 mT, the delta-vee wouldn't be too much greater than 2700 m/s. That's enough to burn into NRHO and get to the surface, but not by much.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 08/21/2020 01:48 pm
This new iteration of the Descent Element certainly looks smaller than the previous version.

I tried to determine the dimensions and mass using the worker as a scaler. Assuming the worker in ~1.83 m.

The mockup is obsolete, see their new video and posts above. Its more narrow now with a different tank config.


The crew compartment actually looks smaller than the original Apollo LM. Any renditions of the interior? How they will sleep? Personal hygiene? That male and female crew will have an acquaintance with each other a lot more than I'd want my wife to know another man!

The closest you'll come is the mock up video where you see three people in it, a fall protection harness, wall mounted controls.

It would look a LOT more cramped with 2 to 4(!) astronauts all trying to suit up into the new suits https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj6LYpZosRU
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 08/21/2020 02:00 pm
The Blue Moon architecture is about using existing design work as much as possible. Npt about developing new capabilities from scratch.

That's the whole problem with Artemis as a whole - its about solving problems that persist when doing things "how they've always been done" instead of solving problems that change how everything could be done. Namely refueling and/or depots.

SLS and the 3 stage lander architecture are both clumsy and expensive workarounds instead of taking on the "harder" problem of refueling.

Two of the three HLS bidders chose to take on refueling instead and their architectures are much more capable, elegant, and reusable for it. Instead Blue Origin and the National Team chose to follow this clumsy 3 stage method and the result is the most expensive, least reusable, and least accessible lunar lander that is looking more like a kludge every day.

If Jeff Bezos wanted to really open up space then they should have chosen to tackle refueling first instead of this Apollo lander redux that has apparently just been redesigned so it can fly on something other than Blue's own rocket and requires Astronauts to wear a fall protection harness to get down from.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 08/21/2020 02:26 pm
The Blue Moon architecture is about using existing design work as much as possible. Npt about developing new capabilities from scratch.

That's the whole problem with Artemis as a whole - its about solving problems that persist when doing things "how they've always been done" instead of solving problems that change how everything could be done. Namely refueling and/or depots.

SLS and the 3 stage lander architecture are both clumsy and expensive workarounds instead of taking on the "harder" problem of refueling.

Two of the three HLS bidders chose to take on refueling instead and their architectures are much more capable, elegant, and reusable for it. Instead Blue Origin and the National Team chose to follow this clumsy 3 stage method and the result is the most expensive, least reusable, and least accessible lunar lander that is looking more like a kludge every day.

If Jeff Bezos wanted to really open up space then they should have chosen to tackle refueling first instead of this Apollo lander redux that has apparently just been redesigned so it can fly on something other than Blue's own rocket and requires Astronauts to wear a fall protection harness to get down from.

Blue Origins focus isn't really cheap lunar landings. You only need to land enough equipment to do mining for raw materials. The multiplier in terms of landed mass compared to mined mass could be quite large depending on your mining equipment designs (as such, an optimized design of that is more important than the design of the lander). Everything else gets transported to their desired cislunar habitat in space (people/computers/manufacturing equipment/ etc.) and isn't transported to any surface.

And you are ignoring that their lander can be adapted to 100% reusability. It is also pretty adaptable with the TE only/TE+DE/TE+DE +AE, AE only and DE only are all configurations that can be used for various space activities with varying masses based on the mission.

As far as fall protection, how is that different than what is required for ISS EVA? At least it doesn't require a mechanical lift which is another failure point. Although, on the flipside, an incapacitated astronaut would be difficult to get up the ladder. Need some kind of crane I would think as well (for cargo transportation as well).
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 08/21/2020 03:13 pm
And you are ignoring that their lander can be adapted to 100% reusability. It is also pretty adaptable with the TE only/TE+DE/TE+DE +AE, AE only and DE only are all configurations that can be used for various space activities with varying masses based on the mission.

I am quite aware of how full reusability can be achieved with this architecture. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50892.0)  I am also aware of the limitations of this architecture when that's achieved, and that's the problem here.

Evolving to full reuse still leaves them with a lander that has a less than 5 meter payload deck, multiple hand off points to transfer cargo, and some serious limitations in transferring cargo TO the hand off point. The transfer element now looks to be around 9 or 10 meters long, not the greatest when total stack height integrated launch of payloads to Gateway is considered.

New Glenn has a 7 meter fairing and 45 tonne to LEO capacity, but that's all squandered here in the short and long term of this architecture. If one wants to take advantage of that they need to develop the next thing.

As an example, a 3 launch, LEO refueled lander and New Glenn S2 transfer stage would have been an absolute beast capable of delivering massive modules to the lunar surface while also being able to take massive modules to NHRO, and then evolved to capitalize on full ISRU. Something like ACES and XUES are examples of different architectures that rely on refueling from the get go and deliver better results short and long term with ISRU.

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TaurusLittrow on 08/21/2020 03:31 pm
This new iteration of the Descent Element certainly looks smaller than the previous version.

I tried to determine the dimensions and mass using the worker as a scaler. Assuming the worker in ~1.83 m.

The mockup is obsolete, see their new video and posts above. Its more narrow now with a different tank config.


The crew compartment actually looks smaller than the original Apollo LM. Any renditions of the interior? How they will sleep? Personal hygiene? That male and female crew will have an acquaintance with each other a lot more than I'd want my wife to know another man!

The closest you'll come is the mock up video where you see three people in it, a fall protection harness, wall mounted controls.

It would look a LOT more cramped with 2 to 4(!) astronauts all trying to suit up into the new suits https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj6LYpZosRU

Not to belabor this, but what's the basis for asserting that the mockup is out of date and the video is the latest iteration? Seems like the mockup should be the most accurate representation if you're going to let astronauts and emgineers climb all over it.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 08/21/2020 03:46 pm
Not to belabor this, but what's the basis for asserting that the mockup is out of date and the video is the latest iteration? Seems like the mockup should be the most accurate representation if you're going to let astronauts and emgineers climb all over it.

It's a fair question.

The website and older video (as in the time of the HLS awards) looks the same as the mockup. This new video (the old one was removed from YouTube) features a very different, and very detailed looking lander. Whole new leg design, new tank placement... etc.

That's a lot of new work for someone to create this new video and representation.

There's also the piece of news that BE-4 is having some continued teething problems and that they are working on Block 2 of BE-4. A logical conclusion is that they aren't confident New Glenn will fly in time and are redesigning around Vulcan.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 08/21/2020 03:54 pm
Blue Origins focus isn't really cheap lunar landings. You only need to land enough equipment to do mining for raw materials. The multiplier in terms of landed mass compared to mined mass could be quite large depending on your mining equipment designs (as such, an optimized design of that is more important than the design of the lander).

Any multiplier you get from mining raw materials is a multiple you still get from an architecture that uses refueling, but the multiplier is on top of the multiplier from refueling.  So the cost of each unit of mined material is still a multiple less expensive if you have refueling.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/22/2020 05:37 am
The crew compartment actually looks smaller than the original Apollo LM. Any renditions of the interior?

The crew compartment is huge compared to the Apollo LM, which could barely fit two astronauts.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: MATTBLAK on 08/22/2020 06:08 am
So is it going to be a two person vehicle or four? I could imagine 2x crew for 'long sortie' missions but 4x crew as a Taxi for a larger surface Habitat.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 08/22/2020 06:26 am
The crew compartment actually looks smaller than the original Apollo LM. Any renditions of the interior?

The crew compartment is huge compared to the Apollo LM, which could barely fit two astronauts.

Habitable volume of the lunar module was actually almost double the Gemini capsule that could barely fit 2 astronauts. The Apollo suits were bulkier than the Gemini suits though. To get a better idea of how this is going to work, Johnson should pull out the PXS/Z-2/X-EVA suits and get some photos with 2-4 astronauts inside the mockup. Might as well bring out the lunar gravity simulators and do ingress/egress while you are at it.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/22/2020 10:02 pm
And you are ignoring that their lander can be adapted to 100% reusability. It is also pretty adaptable with the TE only/TE+DE/TE+DE +AE, AE only and DE only are all configurations that can be used for various space activities with varying masses based on the mission.

I am quite aware of how full reusability can be achieved with this architecture. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50892.0)  I am also aware of the limitations of this architecture when that's achieved, and that's the problem here.

Evolving to full reuse still leaves them with a lander that has a less than 5 meter payload deck, multiple hand off points to transfer cargo, and some serious limitations in transferring cargo TO the hand off point. The transfer element now looks to be around 9 or 10 meters long, not the greatest when total stack height integrated launch of payloads to Gateway is considered.

New Glenn has a 7 meter fairing and 45 tonne to LEO capacity, but that's all squandered here in the short and long term of this architecture. If one wants to take advantage of that they need to develop the next thing.

As an example, a 3 launch, LEO refueled lander and New Glenn S2 transfer stage would have been an absolute beast capable of delivering massive modules to the lunar surface while also being able to take massive modules to NHRO, and then evolved to capitalize on full ISRU. Something like ACES and XUES are examples of different architectures that rely on refueling from the get go and deliver better results short and long term with ISRU.
I like your idea and hope this is where Blue head long term, but if they want go be part of Atremis they have to work with technologies they have. Eventually the DE could be refuelled on surface and in orbit from ISRU fuel, even then I expect them to keep using existing AE with its fuel being used for LAS. Without restraints of 5m fairing DE design could change so looks more Dynetics but using same flight proven systems from V1.0.

Long term storage of LH seems to be one of biggest technical hurdles to overcome as both DE and TE need to stay at gateway fully fuelled for weeks if not months while waiting for Orion.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/26/2020 04:56 pm
Long term storage of LH seems to be one of biggest technical hurdles to overcome as both DE and TE need to stay at gateway fully fuelled for weeks if not months while waiting for Orion.

True, but this is roughly similar to Altair planning back in Ares, where the large Ares V LH upperstage and LH Altair descent stage would have to wait in a LEO parking orbit for Orion to rendezvous and dock. It was much less time than the gateway model, but the entire Ares stack would have been subject to much higher thermal environment thanks to radiative heating from the Earth.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110721050902/http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/Advanced/Capabilities/PCAD/
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/26/2020 05:10 pm
Looks like Blue Moon went on a diet? [...]
 I think they HAVE to, there really doesn't appear to be much volume left in the DE tanks.
I'm not sure that's true.  The DE is stretched and the tanks are different : (sorry, I didn't find any good picture of the new design )  :



I wonder if they did that to simplify the design, by using one H2 tank instead of a second. This would reduce the total tank surface area for the H2, reducing heat loss. Plus, by removing the LoX tanks from sitting beside a LH2 tank, you further reduce heat loss as it only has a radiator/mmod protection on the LH2 wall now.

You can also simplify production at this point, as the DE H2 tank can use the same tooling as the TE H2/LOX tanks.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/01/2020 03:26 am
https://twitter.com/b0yle/status/1300606249940086784

Quote
Today, I visited @NASA_Johnson and toured an engineering mockup of a crewed lunar lander vehicle led by @blueorigin, @LockheedMartin, @northropgrumman, and @DraperLab. Excited to see progress in this important mission to return American astronauts to the Moon. #Artemis
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/08/2020 07:21 pm
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1303412196047716352

Quote
Blue Origin’s Nick Patrick and Mike Good, former @NASA astronauts, visited @NASA_Johnson to evaluate our National Team’s engineering mockup – a step in our journey to return to the #Moon. We are fortunate to have their experience to ensure astronaut compatibility.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/14/2020 03:28 pm
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1305528206003499009

Quote
Blue Origin and our HLS National Team @LockheedMartin @northropgrumman @DraperLab have completed the System Requirements Review. We’ve now passed our first major milestone in returning America to the Moon, this time to stay. bit.ly/2FkHcKN

Quote
NEWS   SEP 14, 2020
NATIONAL TEAM COMPLETES SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS REVIEW TO DEFINE ITS INTEGRATED HUMAN LANDING SYSTEM DESIGN

The Human Landing System (HLS) National Team, led by Blue Origin with partners Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Draper, has completed its System Requirements Review (SRR). SRR is the first program “gated milestone,” which marks the successful baselining of the requirements for the mission, space vehicles, and ground segment. The design proceeded to the NASA Certification Baseline Review (CBR), followed by the lower-level element SRRs, and the preliminary design phase.

The National Team also closed with NASA on the 37 NASA design and construction standards. The Blue Origin-led team had an aggregate total of 62 design and construction standards spread across the three partners that comprised the integrated lander, aiding in the rapid progress expected by NASA’s Human Landing System program. In addition, hundreds of health and human performance standards and requirements were agreed upon and closed.

The SRR followed Blue Origin program development processes and was attended by the Blue Moon Science Advisory Board. The standing review board also comprised senior leaders from all four National Team partners, plus independent experts, and NASA. Robert Lightfoot, vice president of Strategy and Business Development at Lockheed Martin, chaired the review. Lightfoot is also a former acting NASA Administrator and Director of Marshall Space Flight Center.

“Completion of this review allows the National Team to move forward in its design, much of which is evolving directly from existing systems such as Orion, and that maturity was exhibited in the review,” said Lightfoot. “The National Team has been working together seamlessly in its journey to return Americans to the Moon and the magnitude of the mission is on our minds daily.”
“Opening the Moon for exploration and business is one step closer after completion of the SRR,” said Brent Sherwood, vice president of Advanced Development Programs at Blue Origin. “Achieving major milestones is the surest way to measure progress toward our first landing.”

“A complex undertaking like human lunar landings requires paying attention to thousands of details, and thinking through every likely contingency,” said former U.S. Senator Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17 Lunar Module Pilot and lunar scientist, and a member of the Blue Moon Science Advisory Board. “I was very impressed at the depth of engineering and operational sophistication shown in the Systems Requirements Review. The National Team is working to directly apply the lessons from the Apollo experience to make America's next crewed lunar landing successful and the precursor to sustained human activity on the Moon.”

About the National Team

The Blue Origin-led National Team, comprising Blue Origin, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Draper, is developing an integrated landing system for the NASA Artemis Human Landing System Program managed at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center to return Americans to the lunar surface – this time to stay. Blue Origin is prime contractor, leads program management, systems engineering, safety and mission assurance, and mission engineering and operations; and develops the Descent Element. Lockheed Martin develops the reusable Ascent Element vehicle and leads crewed flight operations and training. Northrop Grumman develops the Transfer Element vehicle that delivers the landing system into low lunar orbit for final descent. Draper leads descent guidance and provides flight avionics.

https://www.blueorigin.com/news/national-team-completes-system-requirements-review
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Lars-J on 09/14/2020 06:05 pm
Based on this image, I don't see how a crew of 4 will be supported in such a cabin. There does not seem to be room for an airlock, and with lots of internal equipment taking up space, I just don't see how a crew of 4 could be donning EVA suits in that space.

So has the crew of 4 requirement been dropped? (if it ever was a requirement)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: AU1.52 on 09/14/2020 07:10 pm
Based on this image, I don't see how a crew of 4 will be supported in such a cabin. There does not seem to be room for an airlock, and with lots of internal equipment taking up space, I just don't see how a crew of 4 could be donning EVA suits in that space.

So has the crew of 4 requirement been dropped? (if it ever was a requirement)

Could the whole space be the airlock? Do they suit up while it is still connected to Orion?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/14/2020 07:17 pm
It's not actually that crazy to do an EVA without an airlock. The crew of some Apollo missions had all 3 astronauts in the command module don spacesuits so someone could do an EVA (for the last 3 missions, and I think Apollo 9). The Apollo command module isn't exactly spacious, either.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Lars-J on 09/14/2020 07:57 pm
Based on this image, I don't see how a crew of 4 will be supported in such a cabin. There does not seem to be room for an airlock, and with lots of internal equipment taking up space, I just don't see how a crew of 4 could be donning EVA suits in that space.

So has the crew of 4 requirement been dropped? (if it ever was a requirement)

Could the whole space be the airlock? Do they suit up while it is still connected to Orion?

Yes, my assumption is that the whole cabin will be the airlock (like the LEM, Apollo, and Orion).

It's not actually that crazy to do an EVA without an airlock. The crew of some Apollo missions had all 3 astronauts in the command module don spacesuits so someone could do an EVA (for the last 3 missions, and I think Apollo 9). The Apollo command module isn't exactly spacious, either.

True, but Apollo EVAs were done in microgravity, so there is more flexibility to use the volume more efficiently. Not so in gravity.

My point is that this will be extremely cramped for 4 astronauts, standing there in EVA suits. (and that image is taken with a wide angle lens, to make it look as big as possible) And then remember that when out of the EVA suits, the suits will still be there, bulky as they are. And this lander is for much longer duration stays than the Apollo landings.

No, I don't see how it is practical for 4 astronauts. And without a dedicated airlock, all 4 must suit up at the same time. There's a lot about this design that is not well thought out, IMO. The older design, where the cylinder was laying on its side provided a lot more usable floor area.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steve G on 09/14/2020 08:10 pm
This whole concept is just too Apollo-retro only to meet a politically-motivated deadline. We seriously need to step back and work on a (nearly) reusable system with a sustainable architecture.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/14/2020 08:48 pm
Based on this image, I don't see how a crew of 4 will be supported in such a cabin. There does not seem to be room for an airlock, and with lots of internal equipment taking up space, I just don't see how a crew of 4 could be donning EVA suits in that space.

So has the crew of 4 requirement been dropped? (if it ever was a requirement)

Could the whole space be the airlock? Do they suit up while it is still connected to Orion?

Yes, my assumption is that the whole cabin will be the airlock (like the LEM, Apollo, and Orion).

It's not actually that crazy to do an EVA without an airlock. The crew of some Apollo missions had all 3 astronauts in the command module don spacesuits so someone could do an EVA (for the last 3 missions, and I think Apollo 9). The Apollo command module isn't exactly spacious, either.

True, but Apollo EVAs were done in microgravity, so there is more flexibility to use the volume more efficiently. Not so in gravity.

My point is that this will be extremely cramped for 4 astronauts, standing there in EVA suits. (and that image is taken with a wide angle lens, to make it look as big as possible) And then remember that when out of the EVA suits, the suits will still be there, bulky as they are. And this lander is for much longer duration stays than the Apollo landings.

No, I don't see how it is practical for 4 astronauts. And without a dedicated airlock, all 4 must suit up at the same time. There's a lot about this design that is not well thought out, IMO. The older design, where the cylinder was laying on its side provided a lot more usable floor area.

The "2024" landing will be with 2 people, not 4. Later landings with 4 people may very well be able to take advantage of habitat space landed on the Moon in advance of their arrival, or the volume of the lander itself may be enlarged in a "block 2" version.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: AU1.52 on 09/14/2020 08:53 pm
Based on this image, I don't see how a crew of 4 will be supported in such a cabin. There does not seem to be room for an airlock, and with lots of internal equipment taking up space, I just don't see how a crew of 4 could be donning EVA suits in that space.

So has the crew of 4 requirement been dropped? (if it ever was a requirement)

Could the whole space be the airlock? Do they suit up while it is still connected to Orion?

Yes, my assumption is that the whole cabin will be the airlock (like the LEM, Apollo, and Orion).

It's not actually that crazy to do an EVA without an airlock. The crew of some Apollo missions had all 3 astronauts in the command module don spacesuits so someone could do an EVA (for the last 3 missions, and I think Apollo 9). The Apollo command module isn't exactly spacious, either.

True, but Apollo EVAs were done in microgravity, so there is more flexibility to use the volume more efficiently. Not so in gravity.

My point is that this will be extremely cramped for 4 astronauts, standing there in EVA suits. (and that image is taken with a wide angle lens, to make it look as big as possible) And then remember that when out of the EVA suits, the suits will still be there, bulky as they are. And this lander is for much longer duration stays than the Apollo landings.

No, I don't see how it is practical for 4 astronauts. And without a dedicated airlock, all 4 must suit up at the same time. There's a lot about this design that is not well thought out, IMO. The older design, where the cylinder was laying on its side provided a lot more usable floor area.

The "2024" landing will be with 2 people, not 4. Later landings with 4 people may very well be able to take advantage of habitat space landed on the Moon in advance of their arrival, or the volume of the lander itself may be enlarged in a "block 2" version.

So I assume 2 will need to remain in Orion then?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/14/2020 09:30 pm
Based on this image, I don't see how a crew of 4 will be supported in such a cabin. There does not seem to be room for an airlock, and with lots of internal equipment taking up space, I just don't see how a crew of 4 could be donning EVA suits in that space.

So has the crew of 4 requirement been dropped? (if it ever was a requirement)

If you look at the picture, there is a sign outside of the mockup that says:

"Crew Cabin Maximum Occupancy 4 People"

 ;)

Seriously though, compared to the Apollo LEM this thing looks spacious. BUT it would be a pain to depressurize the whole thing each time someone needs to go out OR come in. Limits operations significantly, and that becomes more of an issue with each person you add.

So could four people live in that amount of room while on the Moon? Maybe. Is it at all optimal? Likely no.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/14/2020 10:01 pm
Based on this image, I don't see how a crew of 4 will be supported in such a cabin. There does not seem to be room for an airlock, and with lots of internal equipment taking up space, I just don't see how a crew of 4 could be donning EVA suits in that space.

So has the crew of 4 requirement been dropped? (if it ever was a requirement)

Could the whole space be the airlock? Do they suit up while it is still connected to Orion?

Yes, my assumption is that the whole cabin will be the airlock (like the LEM, Apollo, and Orion).

It's not actually that crazy to do an EVA without an airlock. The crew of some Apollo missions had all 3 astronauts in the command module don spacesuits so someone could do an EVA (for the last 3 missions, and I think Apollo 9). The Apollo command module isn't exactly spacious, either.

True, but Apollo EVAs were done in microgravity, so there is more flexibility to use the volume more efficiently. Not so in gravity.

My point is that this will be extremely cramped for 4 astronauts, standing there in EVA suits. (and that image is taken with a wide angle lens, to make it look as big as possible) And then remember that when out of the EVA suits, the suits will still be there, bulky as they are. And this lander is for much longer duration stays than the Apollo landings.

No, I don't see how it is practical for 4 astronauts. And without a dedicated airlock, all 4 must suit up at the same time. There's a lot about this design that is not well thought out, IMO. The older design, where the cylinder was laying on its side provided a lot more usable floor area.

The "2024" landing will be with 2 people, not 4. Later landings with 4 people may very well be able to take advantage of habitat space landed on the Moon in advance of their arrival, or the volume of the lander itself may be enlarged in a "block 2" version.

So I assume 2 will need to remain in Orion then?

If they have a crew of more than 2, then yes, the remainder would remain in Orion, or at the Gateway, if that is already available by the time the mission flies.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/14/2020 10:45 pm
This whole concept is just too Apollo-retro only to meet a politically-motivated deadline. We seriously need to step back and work on a (nearly) reusable system with a sustainable architecture.
The DE is designed to be reuseable but this won't happen till there is ISRU fuel available  on surface. Blue are also involved in ISRU projects.

With ISRU fuel AE should stay permanently attached to DE. Still has option to use its engines in emergency.
If fuel is available at Gateway and on surface a DE with larger tanks can do round trip without need of TE.

So while design does seem clunky there is evolution path for it.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Jorge on 09/16/2020 11:19 pm
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1303412196047716352

Quote
Blue Origin’s Nick Patrick and Mike Good, former @NASA astronauts, visited @NASA_Johnson to evaluate our National Team’s engineering mockup – a step in our journey to return to the #Moon. We are fortunate to have their experience to ensure astronaut compatibility.

Interesting that Blue Origin is leveraging the Orion crew display suite. Not surprising since Lockheed Martin is also on the National team.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/17/2020 12:21 am
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1303412196047716352

Quote
Blue Origin’s Nick Patrick and Mike Good, former @NASA astronauts, visited @NASA_Johnson to evaluate our National Team’s engineering mockup – a step in our journey to return to the #Moon. We are fortunate to have their experience to ensure astronaut compatibility.

Interesting that Blue Origin is leveraging the Orion crew display suite. Not surprising since Lockheed Martin is also on the National team.
LM are building Ascent Element with Orion subsystem, in effect repackaged Orion.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JCRM on 09/17/2020 08:25 am
Based on this image, I don't see how a crew of 4 will be supported in such a cabin. There does not seem to be room for an airlock, and with lots of internal equipment taking up space, I just don't see how a crew of 4 could be donning EVA suits in that space.

So has the crew of 4 requirement been dropped? (if it ever was a requirement)

If you look at the picture, there is a sign outside of the mockup that says:

"Crew Cabin Maximum Occupancy 4 People"

 ;)

Seriously though, compared to the Apollo LEM this thing looks spacious. BUT it would be a pain to depressurize the whole thing each time someone needs to go out OR come in. Limits operations significantly, and that becomes more of an issue with each person you add.

So could four people live in that amount of room while on the Moon? Maybe. Is it at all optimal? Likely no.

Perhaps the max 4 person occupancy is for an Apollo 13esq  lifeboat situation, not normal operations?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: edzieba on 09/17/2020 12:29 pm
For that laminated sign specifically: I think that's the load capacity of the decidedly theatre-grade mockup, rather than anything to do with the actual capsule.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steve G on 09/18/2020 01:40 am
Exactly. It's a limit for the mock-up due to weight issues and possibly COVID social distancing.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/25/2020 04:17 pm
https://twitter.com/lockheedmartin/status/1309492897511878657?s=21
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: racevedo88 on 09/25/2020 04:38 pm
https://twitter.com/lockheedmartin/status/1309492897511878657?s=21
  Thanks for showing it, however it is kind of sad that you can get a better animation of this using KSP
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JCRM on 10/04/2020 10:28 pm
Thanks for showing it, however it is kind of sad that you can get a better animation of this using KSP
The "Orion flight software" looks like it has KSP's hyper-active RCS usage too. Didn't the demo flight run out of RCS fuel?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: king1999 on 10/05/2020 04:56 am
Thanks for showing it, however it is kind of sad that you can get a better animation of this using KSP
The "Orion flight software" looks like it has KSP's hyper-active RCS usage too. Didn't the demo flight run out of RCS fuel?
Come on, give them some slack for the simulation. They have been beaten up lately.  ;D
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Pueo on 10/06/2020 08:25 pm
Thanks for showing it, however it is kind of sad that you can get a better animation of this using KSP
The "Orion flight software" looks like it has KSP's hyper-active RCS usage too. Didn't the demo flight run out of RCS fuel?

That animation has to have been sped up significantly, there's no way they would be allowed to smash into the docking port that fast. 
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: primer_black on 10/06/2020 09:34 pm
That animation has to have been sped up significantly, there's no way they would be allowed to smash into the docking port that fast.

Maybe about 2:1; the docking standard requires an axial rate of between 2 and 4 in/s (5-10 cm/s) to ensure proper engagement, so it's not exactly gentle either.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: WormPicker959 on 10/07/2020 03:24 pm
That animation has to have been sped up significantly, there's no way they would be allowed to smash into the docking port that fast.

Maybe about 2:1; the docking standard requires an axial rate of between 2 and 4 in/s (5-10 cm/s) to ensure proper engagement, so it's not exactly gentle either.

I'm not used to thinking in in/s or cm/s, so translating that to mph, m/s and kph:

2-4 in/s = .11-.22 mph
5-10 cm/s = .05-.1 m/s = 0.18-0.36 kph

For reference, walking speed is ~3mph, ~1.4 m/s, ~5 kph. So about 14-28x or so slower than walking.

Obviously this is just my opinion, but that still seems pretty damn gentle, even if it's lots of mass coming at that rate.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: primer_black on 10/10/2020 05:55 pm
It's all perspective I suppose. When you have two bodies potentially weighing more than 10T each colliding in free fall at the speed of a supermarket checkout belt, be thankful the docking system has been designed with compliance and damping.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/10/2020 09:30 pm
That animation has to have been sped up significantly, there's no way they would be allowed to smash into the docking port that fast.

Maybe about 2:1; the docking standard requires an axial rate of between 2 and 4 in/s (5-10 cm/s) to ensure proper engagement, so it's not exactly gentle either.

I'm not used to thinking in in/s or cm/s, so translating that to mph, m/s and kph:

2-4 in/s = .11-.22 mph
5-10 cm/s = .05-.1 m/s = 0.18-0.36 kph

For reference, walking speed is ~3mph, ~1.4 m/s, ~5 kph. So about 14-28x or so slower than walking.

Obviously this is just my opinion, but that still seems pretty damn gentle, even if it's lots of mass coming at that rate.

On the other hand, that is 350-700x as fast as the average walking speed..

....of a caterpillar.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/13/2020 03:45 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1316042149360816128

Quote
Blue Origin founder @JeffBezos posted a side-by-side clip of the NS-13 booster landing compared to an animation of the company’s planned Blue Moon lunar lander:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CGSYrNcH3AK/?igshid=bvwewk77f7rv
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: bombyx on 10/30/2020 04:06 pm
Some new high quality renders from Blue Origin's website.
You can see the cargo version of Blue Moon in the background of the third picture.

(source: https://www.blueorigin.com/latest/ )

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: clongton on 10/30/2020 05:26 pm
That's a long way up, especially if one of the crew was injured on the surface.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Eric Hedman on 10/30/2020 07:07 pm
That's a long way up, especially if one of the crew was injured on the surface.
True.  But in that low gravity it won't be that difficult to hoist someone up.  They will probably have a hoist for rock samples anyways.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steve G on 10/30/2020 07:23 pm
They would have to use safety restraints (tethers) whenever using the ladder.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Frogstar_Robot on 10/30/2020 07:27 pm
That's a long way up, especially if one of the crew was injured on the surface.

For example, by falling off a ladder... ?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/30/2020 08:08 pm
That's a long way up, especially if one of the crew was injured on the surface.
True.  But in that low gravity it won't be that difficult to hoist someone up.  They will probably have a hoist for rock samples anyways.
The hoist could be first choice for lowering or raising crew. Have them hold onto ladder hand rails, if there is hoist failure they use ladder.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: lrk on 11/03/2020 04:39 pm
They would have to use safety restraints (tethers) whenever using the ladder.

Due to the lower gravity, wouldn't a fall on the moon be equivalent to a fall from 1/7th as high on earth? 
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Frogstar_Robot on 11/03/2020 04:53 pm
They would have to use safety restraints (tethers) whenever using the ladder.

Due to the lower gravity, wouldn't a fall on the moon be equivalent to a fall from 1/7th as high on earth?

Ok, so take the lowest height which you are willing to fall head first on Earth, and multiply by 7.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/04/2020 05:29 am
Lunar Gravity is about 1/6 that of Earth or 1.62 m/s˛. In falling from zero initial velocity, it would thus take six times longer in both time and distance to reach the same velocity on the Moon compared to Earth.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: edzieba on 11/04/2020 04:38 pm
The fall may be slower, but you're also wearing 100-odd kg of spacesuit and life-support hardware, and have several orientations where landing on them would be fatal.

An elevated exit hatch is not a showstopper for the National team (or SpaceX for that matter), but it sure makes personnel and cargo operations a real pain for everyone involved!
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/04/2020 05:03 pm
The fall may be slower, but you're also wearing 100-odd kg of spacesuit and life-support hardware, and have several orientations where landing on them would be fatal.
...
Fall from a standing position can be fatal in certain orientations on Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDDYW2b3HSs
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/04/2020 05:05 pm
The fall may be slower, but you're also wearing 100-odd kg of spacesuit and life-support hardware, and have several orientations where landing on them would be fatal.

An elevated exit hatch is not a showstopper for the National team (or SpaceX for that matter), but it sure makes personnel and cargo operations a real pain for everyone involved!
SpaceX's elevator will also need backup system. Don't want to be shut out of your lander due to faulty elevator. Backup can be simple block and tackle that astronauts can haul themselves up.

National team have ladder as backup to any electric winch.
Dynetics have it sorted with few simple steps, no backup require.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 11/06/2020 10:19 pm
Chris G with a sweet new article on the Transfer Element that also has a couple good nuggets on the lander:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/11/northrop-grumman-updates-transfer-element/


Quote
So NASA has a 90-day requirement for us to hang out in NRHO.  And so we provide that extended cryo, fluid management for that three-month period.
...
and with our liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen cryo propellant experience… it made the most sense that we would utilize our experiences there for the Transfer Element.”

Implication here is that Blue is responsible for providing the Descent Element cryo management - the 90 day period isn't short by any means!



Quote
The primary maneuvers requiring a change in delta-v, change in velocity, will be performed by the BE-7 engine provided by Blue Origin.  This includes the first part of the initial descent from low lunar orbit to the Moon.

“The Transfer Element does perform part of that initial descent from low lunar orbit.  But then it is separated and the balance of the burn is done by the Descent Element,” added Sally.

I speculated this would be the case a few months back when Blue Origin released a new video of a very different lander and a Transfer element that was stretched compared to previous renderings.



Quote
“Essentially, we can simulate the free system with two elements essentially being docked together,” said Sally.  “So we did a simulation of the Descent Element docking with the Transfer Element.  Essentially, we had a mass representative simulator, roughly 7 metric tons, of the Descent Element interfacing with a double-the-mass simulator of the Transfer Element.”

7 tonnes for the Descent Element?! If that's all the DE masses that's tiny. Maybe they wanted to test this out with a larger offset between the two masses since the TE was doubled?
 If so would certainly explain why the TE needs to do part of the braking burn.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: 1 on 11/06/2020 11:35 pm
The fall may be slower, but you're also wearing 100-odd kg of spacesuit and life-support hardware, and have several orientations where landing on them would be fatal.

An elevated exit hatch is not a showstopper for the National team (or SpaceX for that matter), but it sure makes personnel and cargo operations a real pain for everyone involved!

Not that notional artwork is an indication of actual design, but I believe a lift is actually visible in the images from before. In the first image of the ship in flight, note that the bottom of the ladder, near the bottom of the descent module, has no other notable hardware.

Compare this to the images of the lander on the ground, with astronauts on the surface. A lift-thing is now at the bottom of the ladder. Again, artwork, but it looks to me like this thing is intended to slide along a rail. Furthermore, if we take a closer look at the "expended" lander in the background; there appears to be the remains of what could be a cable system hanging off the (presumed) old ladder.

From this, I would guess that astronauts will ride the lift up and down normally, clipping into one or both of the yellow handrails, and only attempt to actually climb the ladder if the lift fails.

Also, any guesses as to who these two aspiring astronauts are?

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: gemmy0I on 11/06/2020 11:40 pm
Quote
The primary maneuvers requiring a change in delta-v, change in velocity, will be performed by the BE-7 engine provided by Blue Origin.  This includes the first part of the initial descent from low lunar orbit to the Moon.

“The Transfer Element does perform part of that initial descent from low lunar orbit.  But then it is separated and the balance of the burn is done by the Descent Element,” added Sally.

I speculated this would be the case a few months back when Blue Origin released a new video of a very different lander and a Transfer element that was stretched compared to previous renderings.
Quote
“Essentially, we can simulate the free system with two elements essentially being docked together,” said Sally.  “So we did a simulation of the Descent Element docking with the Transfer Element.  Essentially, we had a mass representative simulator, roughly 7 metric tons, of the Descent Element interfacing with a double-the-mass simulator of the Transfer Element.”

7 tonnes for the Descent Element?! If that's all the DE masses that's tiny. Maybe they wanted to test this out with a larger offset between the two masses since the TE was doubled?
 If so would certainly explain why the TE needs to do part of the braking burn.
Very interesting indeed. I wonder if offloading this much of the delta-v to the TE allows them to standardize the DE between the HLS lander and the cargo-only Blue Moon being developed for CLPS?

Back when Blue first announced their plans to do a human lander by themselves (before the formation of the National Team), their plan was to first make a "half-sized" Blue Moon DE for one-way cargo delivery to the lunar surface, and then later make a bigger version with stretched tanks which would serve as the descent element of a two-stage human lander.

If offloading part of the braking burn to the TE allows them to close the HLS lander's delta-v equation with the un-stretched Blue Moon DE, that would take a substantial development step off the critical path for the 2024 goal. They could instead save the stretched version for the post-2024 "sustainable phase" of the Artemis program where all elements are required to be reusable. (Having the TE help with the braking burn means that the TE will crash on the lunar surface and thus be expended, so they'll need a bigger DE for full reusability.)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 11/06/2020 11:58 pm
Very interesting indeed. I wonder if offloading this much of the delta-v to the TE allows them to standardize the DE between the HLS lander and the cargo-only Blue Moon being developed for CLPS?

Back when Blue first announced their plans to do a human lander by themselves (before the formation of the National Team), their plan was to first make a "half-sized" Blue Moon DE for one-way cargo delivery to the lunar surface, and then later make a bigger version with stretched tanks which would serve as the descent element of a two-stage human lander.

If offloading part of the braking burn to the TE allows them to close the HLS lander's delta-v equation with the un-stretched Blue Moon DE, that would take a substantial development step off the critical path for the 2024 goal. They could instead save the stretched version for the post-2024 "sustainable phase" of the Artemis program where all elements are required to be reusable. (Having the TE help with the braking burn means that the TE will crash on the lunar surface and thus be expended, so they'll need a bigger DE for full reusability.)

Maybe. The original cargo lander was also envisioned with only 1 engine, while this is 2.  I would think a stretch would be relatively simple compared the change to two engine (plus human rated design).
But a smaller DE would more easily allow for a cargo lander to launch with ground integrated cargo. That would be a big plus.
I wouldn't be surprised if as you say they move to just using 1 design - I can't really see the difference in 1 extra BE-7 per cargo mission being worth the hassle of operating two fairly different designs.

The one problem with a stretched version though is the latest renderings show a 5 meter based lander - it'll really be tall with a further stretch.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: lrk on 11/07/2020 12:41 am
Chris G with a sweet new article on the Transfer Element that also has a couple good nuggets on the lander:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/11/northrop-grumman-updates-transfer-element/
...

There's a typo in the article: FRR (Flight Readiness Review) should be SRR (System Requirements Review).  This was probably just misheard in the interview as the two abbreviations sound quite similar.  Also this is way too early for a flight readiness review as there isn't any flight hardware built yet :)

Source is a family member, who is heading up the requirements for the docking system interfaces.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 11/07/2020 05:12 am
On Blue Moon, a pretty vapid article but a few nugs:
https://www.geekwire.com/2020/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-venture-fleshes-plans-cargo-delivery-moon-2023/

They state a "potential " 2023 landing would only put down 1000kg - but sounds like Blue is still fishing for a customer.

1 tonne seems like a lot less than they were talking about before... thought it was 3.5 tonnes?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 11/08/2020 04:52 pm
Kirk Shireman, Lockheed Martin Space discusses the National Team's Lander:

https://youtu.be/GG1hpoAsfV0
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Eric Hedman on 11/08/2020 07:51 pm
Going forward there are four scenarios that could affect the National Team Lander:

1 - Artemis Goes forward and the team wins a contract to continue development

2 - Artemis goes forward but the team doesn't win a development contract

3 - Artemis gets canceled but the Gateway continues.

4 - Artemis and the Gateway get canceled.

In scenario 2, 3 or 4 does the team keep developing the complete lander on their own?  I think most likely Blue continues at a minimum the descent stage development and tries to sell a cargo to the Moon Service.  If scenario 2 or 3 happens does NG continue developing the transfer stage on their dime hoping to eventually get business sending cargo to the Gateway?  Would Lockheed continue developing the ascent stage in any scenario other than 1?

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: lrk on 11/08/2020 11:16 pm
I think with a Biden presidency 2024 is out the window.  But I also don't see Artemis getting cancelled, as Biden hasn't indicated any real plans to shake things up at NASA.  Also the program seems to be on a fairly good track, unlike Constellation which was cancelled the last time a Democrat president took over the White House. 

What does this mean?  Maybe with less pressure to meet a 2024 deadline, perhaps the focus is shifted more towards sustainable lander development.  It would seem such a shift would be a greater factor to the National Team design than either of the competitor (SpaceX and Dynetics) designs (single stage / stage-and-a-half with drop tanks.)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/09/2020 04:49 am
With China planning a crewed Lunar landing no later than 2030, I don't think there's any chance of Artemis being cancelled. The 2024 date was always unrealistic. I believe though that funding will have to be increased in order to be on the Moon by 2028. Either of the teams should be able to do that by then.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: edzieba on 11/09/2020 11:26 am
Couldn't see it linked in the last few pages, but the Transfer Element providing some braking deltaV and then returning to orbit makes it a textbook UnCrasher stage (https://selenianboondocks.com/2013/09/centaur-uncrasher-stages-for-simplified-lunar-landings/). The unexpectedly low mass of Descent Element does seem to match with the calculated dry mass reduction advantage of the UnCrasher architecture.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: clongton on 11/09/2020 11:50 am
With China planning a crewed Lunar landing no later than 2030, I don't think there's any chance of Artemis being cancelled. The 2024 date was always unrealistic. I believe though that funding will have to be increased in order to be on the Moon by 2028. Either of the teams should be able to do that by then.

I agree with your assessment Steven. However unless there is a drastic change, I honestly expect a certain unnamed private company will beat both of them to the surface. Not speaking as a "fan boy". Just looking at the reality currently discernable and drawing conclusions from that.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/09/2020 01:28 pm
Quote
NEWS   DEC 9, 2020
NATIONAL TEAM SUBMITS MOON PROPOSAL TO NASA

The National Team submitted its Option A proposal this week to land the first woman and next man on the Moon in partnership with NASA. Blue Origin leads the Human Landing System (HLS) National Team, which includes Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Draper.
Together, these partners guided Apollo, established routine orbit cargo transfer, developed today’s only crewed lunar spaceship, and pioneered planetary precision landing with liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen vehicles. The proposed solution uses flight heritage and modularity to manage risk, move fast, and attain sustainable operations on the Moon.

During the base period alone, the National Team is completing 25 technical demonstrations, making key progress toward NASA’s mission. Watch this video to learn more about the technical demonstrations and the approach to get America back to the Moon to stay.

https://www.blueorigin.com/news/national-team-submits-moon-proposal-to-nasa

https://youtu.be/w6bTFpjeFgE
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 12/09/2020 02:15 pm
Quite the long duration in this video.

Lots of small changes in the hardware renders. Most obvious is the descent element is now covered in gold coloured mylar. The transfer element now has deployable radiator panels in place of the conformal panels last shown.

Current stack view @ 1:23

Cargo only lander @ 2:34

BE-7 thrust chamber close up @ 4:22

Ascent element 3 engine view @7:58

The 2 engine ascent element is a very substantial change and it isn't clear how it fits in. First assumption would be trimmed nozzles since they look much smaller than the 0.84m of AJ-10.

EDIT: Removed embedded video.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: edzieba on 12/09/2020 03:03 pm
Watch the aft end of the Trasnfer Element a couple of seconds after separation from the lander stack ~ 3m18s. It is given the same 'blue glow' treatment used earlier in the visualisation to indicate 'LH2 engine is active now'. Haven't had a chance to watch through with the sound on yet, but that looks like a clear hint that the Transfer Element is used to perform the initial deorbit burn to begin lander stack descent, and then re-ascends to orbit under its own power after separation (i.e. an uncrasher stage (https://selenianboondocks.com/2013/09/centaur-uncrasher-stages-for-simplified-lunar-landings/)).

GWH: You'll need to change your timestamped links to just plaintext timestamps. NSF's forum software will aggressively mangle any youtube link you try and add as a url (or even plaintext) in a quixotic desire to turn it into an embed regardless as to what you actually want to do.
Title: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Star One on 12/09/2020 03:40 pm
With China planning a crewed Lunar landing no later than 2030, I don't think there's any chance of Artemis being cancelled. The 2024 date was always unrealistic. I believe though that funding will have to be increased in order to be on the Moon by 2028. Either of the teams should be able to do that by then.

I agree with your assessment Steven. However unless there is a drastic change, I honestly expect a certain unnamed private company will beat both of them to the surface. Not speaking as a "fan boy". Just looking at the reality currently discernable and drawing conclusions from that.

Have you never heard of the term never count your chickens until they are hatched. I really think such confident statements are far too premature. Anyway this whole discussion looks OT to me.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Lars-J on 12/09/2020 04:52 pm
An infesting thing in the video... Talking about the benefits of the hatch being so far off the lunar surface. Dust mitigation.(certainly one way to frame it) ;)

But the inter-component docking system is highlighted several times in the video, and it is interesting. It has 3 long guide rods. But those disappear in other shots. Are they retracted or disposed of? It might just be a detail that is not present in all shots.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/09/2020 05:53 pm


An infesting thing in the video... Talking about the benefits of the hatch being so far off the lunar surface. Dust mitigation.(certainly one way to frame it) ;)

.
They also add height is good for crew visibility when landing. Given its going to be handled by descent stage autonomously, not much of positive. That long ladder descent is one of big negatives.

Size of radiators on TE suggests it has cryocooler which explains 6 month loiter time. I think TE is one of more interesting elements with lot of potential. High performance OTV with long loiter time wil be very useful for Cislunar transport, Whether it is cargo or humans.
Remove cryocooler, trim mass and NGIS has high performance EDS for deep space missions.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/09/2020 06:27 pm
Twitter has an abridged version of the video...

https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1336678826076680192

It includes something that wasn't in the longer video. Sort of fun to try to describe what each image represents. Some are easy. The lower right has what appears to be a fully integrated descent stage...

...probably just a higher fidelity mockup.

edit: looks like it is in the original video.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: John Santos on 12/09/2020 06:54 pm
An infesting thing in the video... Talking about the benefits of the hatch being so far off the lunar surface. Dust mitigation.(certainly one way to frame it) ;)

But the inter-component docking system is highlighted several times in the video, and it is interesting. It has 3 long guide rods. But those disappear in other shots. Are they retracted or disposed of? It might just be a detail that is not present in all shots.

That's hat I thought they were at first, but might they actually be laser beams used for alignment?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: primer_black on 12/09/2020 10:57 pm
An infesting thing in the video... Talking about the benefits of the hatch being so far off the lunar surface. Dust mitigation.(certainly one way to frame it) ;)

But the inter-component docking system is highlighted several times in the video, and it is interesting. It has 3 long guide rods. But those disappear in other shots. Are they retracted or disposed of? It might just be a detail that is not present in all shots.

That's hat I thought they were at first, but might they actually be laser beams used for alignment?

If you look through the full length video with an eye toward docking system clips, there is strong telegraphing that they are implementing a beefed-up version of the system used for MEV (I can see previous MEV marketing clips as well as footage from the recent HLS-specific testing). So, long lances that ride retracted for most of the trip (shown alongside the TE service module), extend to capture the DE, and retract again to cinch the two elements together.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 12/10/2020 02:27 am
The lower right has what appears to be a fully integrated descent stage...

...probably just a higher fidelity mockup.

Good eye, looks like they installed it to the same mockup stack as they had before. You can see it below the ascent element in the same building as the original mock up on the lower left corner.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: spacenut on 12/10/2020 04:21 am
The height of the hatch is no more than what will be on Starship which will also be high off the surface of either the moon or Mars.  Starship will probably have a crane or side mount elevator for crew and supplies to be lowered. 
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/10/2020 09:43 am
Screen grabs. Number of main engines:

Transfer Element: 1
Descent Element: 2
Ascent Element: 3

They also push the safety of having a separate ascent element. (Hint, Hint, our competitors do not).
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/10/2020 09:45 am
Screen grabs continued.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Star One on 12/10/2020 04:55 pm
With China planning a crewed Lunar landing no later than 2030, I don't think there's any chance of Artemis being cancelled. The 2024 date was always unrealistic. I believe though that funding will have to be increased in order to be on the Moon by 2028. Either of the teams should be able to do that by then.

I agree with your assessment Steven. However unless there is a drastic change, I honestly expect a certain unnamed private company will beat both of them to the surface. Not speaking as a "fan boy". Just looking at the reality currently discernable and drawing conclusions from that.

Have you never heard of the term never count your chickens until they are hatched. I really think such confident statements are far too premature. Anyway this whole discussion looks OT to me.
Well after last night I will have to reappraise this post.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ugordan on 12/10/2020 05:43 pm
With China planning a crewed Lunar landing no later than 2030, I don't think there's any chance of Artemis being cancelled. The 2024 date was always unrealistic. I believe though that funding will have to be increased in order to be on the Moon by 2028. Either of the teams should be able to do that by then.

I agree with your assessment Steven. However unless there is a drastic change, I honestly expect a certain unnamed private company will beat both of them to the surface. Not speaking as a "fan boy". Just looking at the reality currently discernable and drawing conclusions from that.

Have you never heard of the term never count your chickens until they are hatched. I really think such confident statements are far too premature. Anyway this whole discussion looks OT to me.
Well after last night I will have to reappraise this post.

But... the chickens haven't hatched yet?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: the_other_Doug on 12/10/2020 08:04 pm
With China planning a crewed Lunar landing no later than 2030, I don't think there's any chance of Artemis being cancelled. The 2024 date was always unrealistic. I believe though that funding will have to be increased in order to be on the Moon by 2028. Either of the teams should be able to do that by then.

I agree with your assessment Steven. However unless there is a drastic change, I honestly expect a certain unnamed private company will beat both of them to the surface. Not speaking as a "fan boy". Just looking at the reality currently discernable and drawing conclusions from that.

Have you never heard of the term never count your chickens until they are hatched. I really think such confident statements are far too premature. Anyway this whole discussion looks OT to me.
Well after last night I will have to reappraise this post.

But... the chickens haven't hatched yet?

No, but the eggshell cracked... :D
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ugordan on 12/10/2020 08:08 pm
With China planning a crewed Lunar landing no later than 2030, I don't think there's any chance of Artemis being cancelled. The 2024 date was always unrealistic. I believe though that funding will have to be increased in order to be on the Moon by 2028. Either of the teams should be able to do that by then.

I agree with your assessment Steven. However unless there is a drastic change, I honestly expect a certain unnamed private company will beat both of them to the surface. Not speaking as a "fan boy". Just looking at the reality currently discernable and drawing conclusions from that.

Have you never heard of the term never count your chickens until they are hatched. I really think such confident statements are far too premature. Anyway this whole discussion looks OT to me.
Well after last night I will have to reappraise this post.

But... the chickens haven't hatched yet?

No, but the eggshell cracked... :D

Oh dear. That changes everything.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: punder on 12/10/2020 08:29 pm
Sure hope they plan on using a safety lanyard every time an astronaut goes up or down that ladder.

And a powered winch seems needed in case an astronaut is incapacitated on the surface and needs to be hauled up to the cabin.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 12/21/2020 07:39 pm
See below Eric Berger's comment below:

Quote from: Eric Berger
My understanding is that the National Team has been told, essentially, to never again submit a ludicrously high bid in comparison to its HLS competitors.

Quote from: Eric Berger
My understanding is that the National Team has been told, essentially, to never again submit a ludicrously high bid in comparison to its HLS competitors.

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1341114067126239233
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DreamyPickle on 12/21/2020 10:04 pm
I've seen several claims that the reasoning behind bringing so many old-space contractors into the "National Team" was to hit the 2024 date even if cost is higher. Is this more than idle speculation?

The 2024 target went away with Trump's loss and the funding seems to be quite low, could we see BO modify the plan and do it alone?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 12/21/2020 10:19 pm
I've seen several claims that the reasoning behind bringing so many old-space contractors into the "National Team" was to hit the 2024 date even if cost is higher. Is this more than idle speculation?

The 2024 target went away with Trump's loss and the funding seems to be quite low, could we see BO modify the plan and do it alone?

It's not really speculation, the source selection statement sort of implies that Blue is the most likely to meet the 2024 deadline.

As far as Blue doing it alone, I doubt it. The proposals for Option A were due a couple of weeks ago and according to Blue's updated video, LM and NG are still very much part of the National Team.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: vaporcobra on 12/22/2020 12:41 am
I've seen several claims that the reasoning behind bringing so many old-space contractors into the "National Team" was to hit the 2024 date even if cost is higher. Is this more than idle speculation?

That's definitely the way Blue and the National Team want their plan to be viewed. But given how insanely expensive one could guess a brand new low-boiloff hydrolox upper stage from Northrop Grumman, a custom LockMart Orion-based crew-rated hypergol rocket and spacecraft, and a lander likely heavier than New Shepard from a company that's never been more than ~25% of the way to orbit might be, it's more reasonable to assume that the National Team is courting the SLS/Orion entourage and trying to curry political support more than NASA's own technical or fiscal approval. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, those in Congress that ardently support SLS/Orion aren't exactly worried about cost efficiency or on-time delivery.

Plus, both the Orion program and Blue Origin have established track records of not delivering on time and Northrop Grumman/Orbital ATK have practically zero experience building or operating cryogenic upper stages, let alone a low-boiloff hydrolox tug designed to use an unflown engine.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: NekMech on 12/22/2020 04:18 pm
I've seen several claims that the reasoning behind bringing so many old-space contractors into the "National Team" was to hit the 2024 date even if cost is higher. Is this more than idle speculation?


Bringing in the old-space contractors is the tried-and-true way to meet schedule deadlines.  :P

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: cpushack on 12/24/2020 06:11 pm
I've seen several claims that the reasoning behind bringing so many old-space contractors into the "National Team" was to hit the 2024 date even if cost is higher. Is this more than idle speculation?


Bringing in the old-space contractors is the tried-and-true way to meet schedule deadlines.  :P

Spending Schedules yes
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 01/22/2021 12:33 pm
Lockheed Martin IQ Webinar: From Apollo to Human Landing System (HLS):

https://youtu.be/afPqADkvLx0

https://twitter.com/garynapier/status/1352422065584934913
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/22/2021 06:54 pm
National Team Completes Astronaut Day-in-the-Life Testing for Human Landing System (HLS)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdP4QFi26Do

Some nice renders of Orion docking with ascent element.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 01/23/2021 12:41 pm
The video posted above shows very well the practical volume available for two astronauts in suits to gear up for an excursion once all the additional stowage is factored in.

I have a very hard time picturing how this would be feasible in later Artemis missions when 4 astronauts all need to suit up simultaneously to depressurize the cabin.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: kevinof on 01/23/2021 01:01 pm
Yes. Picture 4 astronauts moving around that space - it will be very cramped and I just can't see any more than 2 ever flying on this.  Where will the suits be stored, what about food/water and everything else that they need to bring along.

The video posted above shows very well the practical volume available for two astronauts in suits to gear up for an excursion once all the additional stowage is factored in.

I have a very hard time picturing how this would be feasible in later Artemis missions when 4 astronauts all need to suit up simultaneously to depressurize the cabin.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/24/2021 01:57 am
I have a very hard time picturing how this would be feasible in later Artemis missions when 4 astronauts all need to suit up simultaneously to depressurize the cabin.

I don't see a problem and it should be easily able to fit four astronauts in their suits. The cabin is HUGE! Compare that to what the Apollo astronauts had.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/09/2021 02:40 pm
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1359164975042936838

Quote
At our Huntsville, Alabama factory, we built a full-scale pathfinder of our #HLS Descent Element lander in preparation for our demonstration mission. Take a look at some recent progress and how we are advancing America’s return to the Moon.

Edit to add:

https://youtu.be/KeqJ0zlMgLg
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 02/10/2021 05:52 am
Image of the mockup. Those legs look long and spindly!
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steve G on 02/10/2021 02:14 pm
It's an unmanned demo. I guess they want a lot of forgiveness for landing on a slope.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: kfsorensen on 02/10/2021 06:28 pm
Their strategies for unloading cargo off that upper deck look...poorly thought-out.  This configuration of lander is precisely the design that Ben Donahue and his colleagues were warning against in their 1993 AIAA paper on the subject.  They have been proven to be prophetic.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DreamyPickle on 02/10/2021 06:38 pm
This looks a lot different compared to the earlier mockups that Jeff Bezos presented.

It seems to be much taller and less wide, did they seek to reduce the required fairing diameter?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: PM3 on 02/10/2021 07:02 pm
This looks a lot different compared to the earlier mockups that Jeff Bezos presented.

It seems to be much taller and less wide, did they seek to reduce the required fairing diameter?

There are two different Blue Moon landers - one for cargo and one for crew.

https://www.blueorigin.com/blue-moon/
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 02/10/2021 07:06 pm
Their strategies for unloading cargo off that upper deck look...poorly thought-out.  This configuration of lander is precisely the design that Ben Donahue and his colleagues were warning against in their 1993 AIAA paper on the subject.  They have been proven to be prophetic.

The crane shown is by NASA Langley that they pitched to Blue Origin.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205006977

But I agree, much more complicated than other solutions.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 02/10/2021 07:08 pm
There are two different Blue Moon landers - one for cargo and one for crew.

https://www.blueorigin.com/blue-moon/

I don't think its a given that the cargo variant as pictured is still in development. A single engine version of the HLS lander pictured abovr is more likely IMO.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DreamyPickle on 02/16/2021 01:55 pm
I didn't notice that there were two different landers, but design changes seem more likely because it would be extremely wierd to develop two distinct lander modules. Looking again it seems that some renders show different shapes of lander but I assume that the mockup is the more current design.

They're already developing New Glenn as an in-house launcher with a 7 meter fairing but as far as I can tell their lander components are designed to also fit in a smaller fairing? This seems like a big mistake, they should be bundling the launcher in their HLS proposal.

Maybe I'm wrong but there are renders that show the ascent portion docking with Orion and it seems to have the same diameter.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DylanSemrau on 02/17/2021 12:43 am
They're already developing New Glenn as an in-house launcher with a 7 meter fairing but as far as I can tell their lander components are designed to also fit in a smaller fairing? This seems like a big mistake, they should be bundling the launcher in their HLS proposal.

NASA would probably prefer the ability to launch on a smaller vehicle like Vulcan, as well as being able to launch on New Glenn. Adds redundancy and flexibility, should better ensure they can get the job done. The original Blue Moon lander would have needed to launch on New Glenn, but at some point they made it slimmer and taller to fit in a smaller fairing.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Redclaws on 02/17/2021 01:14 am
Quote
This seems like a big mistake, they should be bundling the launcher in their HLS proposal.

Mistake in what sense?  Maintaining launcher flexibility seems like a really smart idea and something that NASA would consider a positive in selection.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DreamyPickle on 02/17/2021 09:11 pm
Mistake in the sense that supporting a 5 meter fairing implies tradeoffs that in no way benefits Blue Origin the business.

SpaceX is proposing to launch their lander option themselves, since this is clearly an option Blue Origin should do the same. They should bundle the New Glenn launches into their HLS offer.

The only positive aspect would be if NASA picks the BO proposal specifically because it allows for multiple launchers but this might not even count. What would NASA gain from this? They're already getting dissimilar redundancy from two landers.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: gaballard on 02/18/2021 05:37 pm
I'd wager they're not bundling New Glenn because they know it won't be ready before the moon landing. For a notoriously tight-lipped company, we've already seen full-size mockups of their lander design(s). We've seen nothing of New Glenn.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Eric Hedman on 02/18/2021 05:50 pm
I'd wager they're not bundling New Glenn because they know it won't be ready before the moon landing. For a notoriously tight-lipped company, we've already seen full-size mockups of their lander design(s). We've seen nothing of New Glenn.
They needed the lander mock-up for the HLS contract to show NASA.  They have no such requirement to show New Glenn.  Still, you would have expected to see something of New Glenn by now.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DistantTemple on 02/19/2021 12:06 pm
I'd wager they're not bundling New Glenn because they know it won't be ready before the moon landing. For a notoriously tight-lipped company, we've already seen full-size mockups of their lander design(s). We've seen nothing of New Glenn.
They needed the lander mock-up for the HLS contract to show NASA.  They have no such requirement to show New Glenn.  Still, you would have expected to see something of New Glenn by now.
Every year that Artemis gets kicked down the road, due to low funding or other reasons, gives BO a chance to revisit this. (Same for SX.)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DreamyPickle on 02/27/2021 08:05 am
The recently announced delay for New Glenn makes it more plausible that the reason Blue Origin is designing for a 5 meter fairing is because they don't have confidence their own launcher will be ready in time. Q4 2022 is uncomfortably close to 2024 and internally even 2022 might be considered too optimistic.

This is quite sad, especially considering 2024 is not going to happen anyway.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/27/2021 12:29 pm
The recently announced delay for New Glenn makes it more plausible that the reason Blue Origin is designing for a 5 meter fairing is because they don't have confidence their own launcher will be ready in time. Q4 2022 is uncomfortably close to 2024 and internally even 2022 might be considered too optimistic.

This is quite sad, especially considering 2024 is not going to happen anyway.
Blue switched to design that supported use of 5m fairing LVs once they entered HLS competition.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Nathan2go on 03/05/2021 03:54 am
Mistake in the sense that supporting a 5 meter fairing implies tradeoffs that in no way benefits Blue Origin the business.
...

Don't forget that Lockheed is a partner in ULA.  So Vulcan compatibility might have been part of the deal to get Lockheed on-board National Team.

But I suppose they could achieve the same thing by having Blue Origin build a 7 m fairing for Vulcan.  Blue makes their S1 engines anyway, and probably building the production line for the fairing is a much bigger deal than tweaking the fairing for one rocket or another.  Having another rocket with the big fairing would also help to increase market acceptance of that size.

So I wonder if there was another reason for the change; maybe this arrangement is lighter, and it allows a single stage to do a round trip between the Gateway and the surface?
 
Maybe this offers more propellant volume, for bigger payloads (with LEO rendezvous of an additional rocket) or more H2 boil-off margin, for longer delays between launch and landing.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 03/05/2021 12:52 pm
Quote from: A.C. Charania
“What @blueorigin has in store for its demo on the moon” quick take by @jacqklimas of @politico space

https://twitter.com/ac_charania/status/1367831326280343553
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DreamyPickle on 03/06/2021 08:55 am
From the politico article:

Quote
‘ARTEMIS BASE CAMP’: Blue Origin, which assembled a national team to compete for NASA’s lunar lander, is one of three companies selected last year to begin designing and building vehicles to bring astronauts to the moon. But it plans to do more than prove its concept on the demo mission ahead of delivering astronauts, Brent Sherwood, vice president of Advanced Development Programs at Blue Origin, tells us, by laying the cornerstone for a lunar outpost.

The Demonstration Cargo Landing mission, which will land less than 100 meters from where NASA intends to land crew, will carry a ton of cargo, allowing the space agency to preposition supplies for subsequent missions. And the lander itself is being designed to act as a node for power, Wi-Fi and other communications, Sherwood said.

“Our approach is to commission Artemis base camp on that very first demonstration mission,” said Sherwood, a long-time veteran of the space industry who also worked at Boeing and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab. “That enables the first crew a year later to be landing at the beginnings of a base.”

Blue has teamed with Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Draper. SpaceX and Dynetics also both won design contracts for the program.

The company is also aiming for more than just NASA missions. Because the lander will have built-in power, computers and telecommunications, it’s well-suited for potential commercial customers who want to work on the moon’s surface, Sherwood said.

“We will know commercial success — something NASA and all of us want — when dollars flow into missions and objectives from outside the NASA budget,” he said. “What that requires is two things: NASA to blaze the trail, and then customers with needs that can only be met by things happening on the moon for their business, whatever their business is.”
The fact that Blue Origin wants to establish a permanent presence on the Moon by themselves is new to me.

Is a location even picked for this?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: AU1.52 on 03/06/2021 06:34 pm
What would happen if NASA down selected to just SpaceX and Dynetics? Would BO continue to develop Blue Moon? Would if only become a cargo lander?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: sdsds on 03/06/2021 06:44 pm
What would happen if NASA down selected to just SpaceX and Dynetics? Would BO continue to develop Blue Moon? Would if only become a cargo lander?

I think the vision for Blue Origin includes industrialization of the lunar surface. Without the NASA HLS contract Blue might (quite sensibly) attempt that initially with robotic rather than human operations on the Moon. The term "cargo" doesn't exactly capture the notion of building out an industrial infrastructure....
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: AU1.52 on 03/06/2021 06:51 pm
What would happen if NASA down selected to just SpaceX and Dynetics? Would BO continue to develop Blue Moon? Would if only become a cargo lander?

I think the vision for Blue Origin includes industrialization of the lunar surface. Without the NASA HLS contract Blue might (quite sensibly) attempt that initially with robotic rather than human operations on the Moon. The term "cargo" doesn't exactly capture the notion of building out an industrial infrastructure....


Yes, Robotic vs Cargo would have been a better term to use!
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/06/2021 07:13 pm
From the politico article:

Quote
‘ARTEMIS BASE CAMP’: Blue Origin, which assembled a national team to compete for NASA’s lunar lander, is one of three companies selected last year to begin designing and building vehicles to bring astronauts to the moon. But it plans to do more than prove its concept on the demo mission ahead of delivering astronauts, Brent Sherwood, vice president of Advanced Development Programs at Blue Origin, tells us, by laying the cornerstone for a lunar outpost.

The Demonstration Cargo Landing mission, which will land less than 100 meters from where NASA intends to land crew, will carry a ton of cargo, allowing the space agency to preposition supplies for subsequent missions. And the lander itself is being designed to act as a node for power, Wi-Fi and other communications, Sherwood said.

“Our approach is to commission Artemis base camp on that very first demonstration mission,” said Sherwood, a long-time veteran of the space industry who also worked at Boeing and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab. “That enables the first crew a year later to be landing at the beginnings of a base.”

Blue has teamed with Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Draper. SpaceX and Dynetics also both won design contracts for the program.

The company is also aiming for more than just NASA missions. Because the lander will have built-in power, computers and telecommunications, it’s well-suited for potential commercial customers who want to work on the moon’s surface, Sherwood said.

“We will know commercial success — something NASA and all of us want — when dollars flow into missions and objectives from outside the NASA budget,” he said. “What that requires is two things: NASA to blaze the trail, and then customers with needs that can only be met by things happening on the moon for their business, whatever their business is.”
The fact that Blue Origin wants to establish a permanent presence on the Moon by themselves is new to me.

Is a location even picked for this?
Permanent lunar presence was always in Blue's plan. Atremis program just speed up human lander side of things and probably sidetrack them from robotic base.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: su27k on 03/07/2021 02:08 am
From the politico article:

Quote
‘ARTEMIS BASE CAMP’: Blue Origin, which assembled a national team to compete for NASA’s lunar lander, is one of three companies selected last year to begin designing and building vehicles to bring astronauts to the moon. But it plans to do more than prove its concept on the demo mission ahead of delivering astronauts, Brent Sherwood, vice president of Advanced Development Programs at Blue Origin, tells us, by laying the cornerstone for a lunar outpost.

The Demonstration Cargo Landing mission, which will land less than 100 meters from where NASA intends to land crew, will carry a ton of cargo, allowing the space agency to preposition supplies for subsequent missions. And the lander itself is being designed to act as a node for power, Wi-Fi and other communications, Sherwood said.

“Our approach is to commission Artemis base camp on that very first demonstration mission,” said Sherwood, a long-time veteran of the space industry who also worked at Boeing and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab. “That enables the first crew a year later to be landing at the beginnings of a base.”
The fact that Blue Origin wants to establish a permanent presence on the Moon by themselves is new to me.

Is a location even picked for this?

Seems to me this is just to put a spin on the fact that they'll have a unmanned demo before first human landing, and their lander is expandable so it will be left on the surface. So yeah, if you do a demo and leave the lander on the Moon, it is sort of a permanent presence, but is it really a camp? Who knows. But all the other HLS providers can do this too, this is hardly anything unique to Blue.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: lykos on 03/07/2021 03:43 pm
In fact they can't, because they both have another concept!
Only BO-lander leaves a starting-platform back on the moon, like Apollo.
A full test of the crewed LunarLander includes a backstart to earth!

I find it a brilliant idea of BO ! And I think they believe it will help them to be selected!
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ThatOldJanxSpirit on 03/08/2021 07:27 am
In fact they can't, because they both have another concept!
Only BO-lander leaves a starting-platform back on the moon, like Apollo.
A full test of the crewed LunarLander includes a backstart to earth!

I find it a brilliant idea of BO ! And I think they believe it will help them to be selected!

A few tonnes of pre positioned supplies and a wiring hub does not make a lunar base. Along with the assertion that the ladder is a great way of removing dust, this looks to be Blue trying to put a positive slant on a design negative.  If NASA wants early base capability they may be inclined to go for another entrant.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: su27k on 03/09/2021 02:55 am
May or may not mean anything:

https://twitter.com/tonyhotsoup/status/1369080159282753536

Quote
@blueorigin Just sent everyone working on their NASA Human Landing team some awesome glasses! It’s great working as part of the @LockheedMartin, @northropgrumman, @DraperLab team!
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 03/11/2021 06:21 pm
See below:

ULA's role in the National Team's lander:

https://twitter.com/ExploreSpace_ML/status/1370074835397804035/photo/1
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/11/2021 10:19 pm
See below:

ULA's role in the Blue Moon lander:

https://twitter.com/ExploreSpace_ML/status/1370074835397804035/photo/1
This doesn't show how Vulcan delivers HLS components only Astrobotics cargo lander.  In wrong thread.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 03/12/2021 12:45 am
If you look at the image, it seems to be showing National Teams Lander. One of the interesting thing is that it shows the ascent element going back to Gateway. Tory Burno has mentionned in a prior tweet that ULA is involved with the National Team's Lander.  He didn't say exactly what role they had (which is perhaps why it's not shown on the slide). 

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1265696167440105473
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 03/12/2021 02:41 am
Tory Burno has mentionned in a prior tweet that ULA is involved with the National Team's Lander.  He didn't say exactly what role they had (which is perhaps why it's not shown on the slide). 

Launch,  Blue has said before (can't find the source) that it will launch on Vulcan and New Glenn. Though I suspect there is a lot more Vulcan than New Glenn given the NG delays and reported TLI performance.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 03/13/2021 04:22 pm
The video posted above shows very well the practical volume available for two astronauts in suits to gear up for an excursion once all the additional stowage is factored in.

I have a very hard time picturing how this would be feasible in later Artemis missions when 4 astronauts all need to suit up simultaneously to depressurize the cabin.

In a recent Houston we have a podcast, the people working on HLS seemed to have indicated that the 4 astronaut thing is only really envisioned for transportation to and from a base or habitat (rather than medium duration sortie missions in just the lander). In that regard, they really don't need much more volume than what is offered for 4 astronaut commercial crew flights (nominal up/down travel times are similar).

see: ~11:30 mark
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/audio/ep185_returning_the_first_martians.mp3
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 03/13/2021 04:29 pm
Any excursion to a habitat will still require all 4 astronauts to be suited up at once, as I wrote above.  ::)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: su27k on 03/15/2021 03:19 am
Inside the Alabama stop on Blue Origin’s journey to the moon (https://www.al.com/news/2021/03/inside-the-alabama-stop-on-blue-origins-journey-to-the-moon.html)

Quote
Blue Origin’s rocket engine plant in Huntsville, Ala., is the size of three city blocks. Objects on one side can be larger – much larger - than they appear from the other side.

On a recent visit to the year-old plant in Cummings Research Park, Blue Origin moon landing team leader John Couluris pointed across the white factory interior to a gold box on legs. This was what we had come to see.

Walking closer, the box grew bigger until standing beside it means looking up at something the size of a farm harvester. This is the “pathfinder” model of a Lunar Descent Element the company is building for America’s return to the moon.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: sunworshipper on 03/15/2021 12:52 pm
Inside the Alabama stop on Blue Origin’s journey to the moon (https://www.al.com/news/2021/03/inside-the-alabama-stop-on-blue-origins-journey-to-the-moon.html)

Quote
Blue Origin’s rocket engine plant in Huntsville, Ala., is the size of three city blocks. Objects on one side can be larger – much larger - than they appear from the other side.

On a recent visit to the year-old plant in Cummings Research Park, Blue Origin moon landing team leader John Couluris pointed across the white factory interior to a gold box on legs. This was what we had come to see.

Walking closer, the box grew bigger until standing beside it means looking up at something the size of a farm harvester. This is the “pathfinder” model of a Lunar Descent Element the company is building for America’s return to the moon.
Quote
Nearby are other potential parts of its landing system: a big crane and a large shelf with hinges. Both are ideas being tested as possible cargo unloaders that could stay on the moon between missions.
Interesting idea to land cargo unloader earlier.

Large shelf?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: b0objunior on 03/15/2021 01:42 pm
Inside the Alabama stop on Blue Origin’s journey to the moon (https://www.al.com/news/2021/03/inside-the-alabama-stop-on-blue-origins-journey-to-the-moon.html)

Quote
Blue Origin’s rocket engine plant in Huntsville, Ala., is the size of three city blocks. Objects on one side can be larger – much larger - than they appear from the other side.

On a recent visit to the year-old plant in Cummings Research Park, Blue Origin moon landing team leader John Couluris pointed across the white factory interior to a gold box on legs. This was what we had come to see.

Walking closer, the box grew bigger until standing beside it means looking up at something the size of a farm harvester. This is the “pathfinder” model of a Lunar Descent Element the company is building for America’s return to the moon.
Quote
Nearby are other potential parts of its landing system: a big crane and a large shelf with hinges. Both are ideas being tested as possible cargo unloaders that could stay on the moon between missions.
Interesting idea to land cargo unloader earlier.

Large shelf?
https://youtu.be/KeqJ0zlMgLg?t=75
This I think.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: matthewkantar on 03/15/2021 06:41 pm
They keep saying 'pathfinder," looks like a mockup to me.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: sdsds on 03/15/2021 06:51 pm

Quote
a large shelf with hinges.
Large shelf?
This I think.

That would be a davit? "NASA’s Langley Research Center has already provided a crane for the pathfinder tests, and Sqyures said Honeybee Robotics is developing a payload-lowering davit system." From https://www.geekwire.com/2021/blue-origin-shows-off-ground-test-version-cargo-lunar-lander/
Attached screen-grab from the video.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: trimeta on 03/15/2021 06:57 pm
Inside the Alabama stop on Blue Origin’s journey to the moon (https://www.al.com/news/2021/03/inside-the-alabama-stop-on-blue-origins-journey-to-the-moon.html)

Quote
Blue Origin’s rocket engine plant in Huntsville, Ala., is the size of three city blocks. Objects on one side can be larger – much larger - than they appear from the other side.

On a recent visit to the year-old plant in Cummings Research Park, Blue Origin moon landing team leader John Couluris pointed across the white factory interior to a gold box on legs. This was what we had come to see.

Walking closer, the box grew bigger until standing beside it means looking up at something the size of a farm harvester. This is the “pathfinder” model of a Lunar Descent Element the company is building for America’s return to the moon.

Somehow, "Blue Origin has a factory the size of three city blocks, but it's so empty inside that you can easily see objects all the way on the other side of the factory, without any equipment or in-progress hardware in the way to block your view" seems very on-brand.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/15/2021 10:54 pm
Inside the Alabama stop on Blue Origin’s journey to the moon (https://www.al.com/news/2021/03/inside-the-alabama-stop-on-blue-origins-journey-to-the-moon.html)

Quote
Blue Origin’s rocket engine plant in Huntsville, Ala., is the size of three city blocks. Objects on one side can be larger – much larger - than they appear from the other side.

On a recent visit to the year-old plant in Cummings Research Park, Blue Origin moon landing team leader John Couluris pointed across the white factory interior to a gold box on legs. This was what we had come to see.

Walking closer, the box grew bigger until standing beside it means looking up at something the size of a farm harvester. This is the “pathfinder” model of a Lunar Descent Element the company is building for America’s return to the moon.

Somehow, "Blue Origin has a factory the size of three city blocks, but it's so empty inside that you can easily see objects all the way on the other side of the factory, without any equipment or in-progress hardware in the way to block your view" seems very on-brand.
You could've said same thing of SpaceX factory in early days, took them few years to use up all their floor space.


Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: trimeta on 03/15/2021 11:56 pm
Inside the Alabama stop on Blue Origin’s journey to the moon (https://www.al.com/news/2021/03/inside-the-alabama-stop-on-blue-origins-journey-to-the-moon.html)

Quote
Blue Origin’s rocket engine plant in Huntsville, Ala., is the size of three city blocks. Objects on one side can be larger – much larger - than they appear from the other side.

On a recent visit to the year-old plant in Cummings Research Park, Blue Origin moon landing team leader John Couluris pointed across the white factory interior to a gold box on legs. This was what we had come to see.

Walking closer, the box grew bigger until standing beside it means looking up at something the size of a farm harvester. This is the “pathfinder” model of a Lunar Descent Element the company is building for America’s return to the moon.

Somehow, "Blue Origin has a factory the size of three city blocks, but it's so empty inside that you can easily see objects all the way on the other side of the factory, without any equipment or in-progress hardware in the way to block your view" seems very on-brand.
You could've said same thing of SpaceX factory in early days, took them few years to use up all their floor space.

The impression I got from Liftoff was that it took them a while to fully fill up their site at El Segundo, but they were sprawling pretty widely by the time the COTS contract enabled them to move to Hawthorne. Blue Origin has had quite a few years of operation. Have they ever come close to filling up one factory before building the next?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/16/2021 01:18 am
Inside the Alabama stop on Blue Origin’s journey to the moon (https://www.al.com/news/2021/03/inside-the-alabama-stop-on-blue-origins-journey-to-the-moon.html)

Quote
Blue Origin’s rocket engine plant in Huntsville, Ala., is the size of three city blocks. Objects on one side can be larger – much larger - than they appear from the other side.

On a recent visit to the year-old plant in Cummings Research Park, Blue Origin moon landing team leader John Couluris pointed across the white factory interior to a gold box on legs. This was what we had come to see.

Walking closer, the box grew bigger until standing beside it means looking up at something the size of a farm harvester. This is the “pathfinder” model of a Lunar Descent Element the company is building for America’s return to the moon.

Somehow, "Blue Origin has a factory the size of three city blocks, but it's so empty inside that you can easily see objects all the way on the other side of the factory, without any equipment or in-progress hardware in the way to block your view" seems very on-brand.
You could've said same thing of SpaceX factory in early days, took them few years to use up all their floor space.

The impression I got from Liftoff was that it took them a while to fully fill up their site at El Segundo, but they were sprawling pretty widely by the time the COTS contract enabled them to move to Hawthorne. Blue Origin has had quite a few years of operation. Have they ever come close to filling up one factory before building the next?
Alabama factory was opened in Feb2020 to build BE4 which is in final phase of testing. Should start mass production of BE4 later this year. Not sure where they plan to build lander?

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 04/17/2021 12:03 am
NASA's source selection statement provides some insight into the National Team lander:

Quote
    But despite these and other strengths of Blue Origin’s technical design, I find that it suffers from a number of weaknesses, including two significant weaknesses with which I agree. The first of these is that Blue Origin’s propulsion systems for all three of its main HLS elements (Ascent, Descent, and Transfer) create significant development and schedule risks, many of which are inadequately addressed in Blue Origin’s proposal. These propulsion systems consist of complex major subsystems that have low Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) and are immature for Blue Origin’s current phase of development. Additionally, Blue Origin’s proposal evidences that its Ascent Element’s engine preliminary design reviews and integrated engine testing occur well after its lander element critical design reviews, indicating a substantial lag in development behind its integrated system in which the engine will operate. This increases the likelihood that functional or performance issues found during engine development testing may impact other, more mature Ascent Element subsystems, causing additional schedule delays.

    Further compounding these issues is significant uncertainty within the supplier section of Blue Origin’s proposal concerning multiple key propulsion system components for the engine proposed for its Descent and Transfer Elements. The proposal identifies certain components as long lead procurements and identifies them in a list of items tied to significant risks in Blue Origin’s schedule. Yet despite acknowledging that the procurement of these components introduces these risks, Blue Origin’s proposal also states that these components will be purchased from a third party supplier, which suggests that little progress has been made to address or mitigate this risk. At Blue Origin’s current maturity level, component level suppliers for all critical hardware should be established to inform schedule and Verification, Validation, and Certification approaches, and major subsystems should be on track to support the scheduled element critical design review later this year. Nevertheless, these attributes are largely absent from Blue Origin’s technical approach.

    Finally, numerous mission-critical integrated propulsion systems will not be flight tested until Blue Origin’s scheduled 2024 crewed mission. Waiting until the crewed mission to flight test these systems for the first time is dangerous, and creates a high risk of unsuccessful contract performance and loss of mission if any one of these untested systems does not operate as planned. In summary, I concur with the SEP that the current TRL levels of these major subsystems, combined with their proposed development approach and test schedule, creates serious doubt as to the realism of Blue Origin’s proposed development schedule and appreciably increases its risk of unsuccessful contract performance.


This sounds an awful lot like the end scene of The Martian:

Quote
In particular, the proposed mission profile requires a jettison EVA to reduce the Ascent Element mass prior to liftoff, but the series of activities required to perform this jettison EVA extend the duration of crew operations for ascent day. Therefore, both descent and ascent days will require the crew to work more hours than are typically scheduled. I share the SEP’s concern that this is likely to be very taxing on the crew, which could increase safety risks.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 04/17/2021 12:08 am
There had been a lot of questions of people wondering how Blue gets to a sustainable architecture - with great difficulty apparently!


Quote
Finally, within Technical Area of Focus 6, Sustainability, the SEP again found that various aspects of Blue Origin’s proposal effectively provided a counterbalance when weighed against one another. I agree with this assessment. Here, although the design of Blue Origin’s sustainable architecture represents a strength within its proposal, I am particularly concerned with the offsetting weakness for Blue’s plan to evolve its initial lander into this sustainable design. While the solicitation does not require sustainable features for the offeror’s initial approach, it did require the offeror to propose a clear, well-reasoned, and cost-effective approach to achieving a sustainable capability. Blue Origin proposed a notional plan to do so, but this plan requires considerable re-engineering and recertifying of each element, which calls into question the plan’s feasibility, practicality, and cost-effectiveness. Blue Origin’s two architectures are substantially different from one another. For example, the changes required for evolving Blue’s Ascent Element include resizing the cabin structure to accommodate four crew, thermal control system upgrades, bigger fans, and propellant refueling interfaces. And to accommodate the additional mass of the Ascent Element and to reach non-polar locations, Blue Origin’s Descent Element requires a complete structural redesign, larger tanks using a new manufacturing technique, a refueling interface, radiator upgrades, and a performance enhancement to its main engine. The SEP observed that this “from the ground-up” plan is likely to require additional time, considerable effort, and significant additional cost to design and develop new technologies and capabilities, and to undertake re-engineering and re-certification efforts for Blue Origin’s sustainable lander elements utilizing new heavier lift launch vehicles and modified operations. I share this concern. When viewed cumulatively, the breadth and depth of the effort that will be required of Blue Origin over its proposed three-year period calls into question Blue’s ability to realistically execute on its evolution plan and to do so in a cost-effective manner.

I know I've posted about how the cabin would be tiny for four people and there it is. It would need to be completely redone.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: AstroWare on 04/17/2021 12:13 am
I wasn't aware of the change to a (3) engine Ascent Element. I thought previously it was a single engine like the one used on Orion. The engine out capability seems like it was a good addition.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 04/17/2021 12:26 am
I wasn't aware of the change to a (3) engine Ascent Element. I thought previously it was a single engine like the one used on Orion. The engine out capability seems like it was a good addition.

Yeah that info snuck out in some updated renderings without any real information. What is notable about that is they only have 1 engine out tolerance, so at some point the AE went from requiring 1 to 2 engines, then they just thew in a 3rd for good measure.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: matthewkantar on 04/17/2021 12:37 am
Bezos is going to go through the roof when he finds out he lost three billion dollars to some yahoos blowing up oversized kitchen appliances on the Mexican border.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Eric Hedman on 04/17/2021 12:55 am
Bezos is going to go through the roof when he finds out he lost three billion dollars to some yahoos blowing up oversized kitchen appliances on the Mexican boarder.
Probably true.  The big question is what does Blue and everyone else do next to try to compete with SpaceX.  Do they keep developing something on their own dime?  Do they learn the lesson that the old traditional ideas are not good enough anymore?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DreamyPickle on 04/17/2021 01:10 am
I wonder if the National Team will get disbanded now, the main rationale of teaming up was so that they can meet the 2024 target which is no longer in play.

I'm hoping they go back to a 7-meter lander launching on new glenn. This kind of vehicle might still win contracts in a world where Starship exists.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Eric Hedman on 04/17/2021 01:22 am
What I would like to see Blue Origin do if they have enough money given to them by Bezos is to redesign their lander a bit.  Make it so it uses the 7 meter fairing on New Glenn and a cheap crasher stage to get almost to the surface  with a lander that can take at least four people from the beginning.  Then when ISRU propellant production is ready you have a completely reusable lander that can descend on its own, refuel and return to the Gateway.  Then do incremental improvements from there.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: meekGee on 04/17/2021 02:14 am
Per source selection document, Blue Origin requested two advanced payments at the outset of Option A within their proposal that rendered them ineligible for contract award. NASA never discussed/negotiated with BO due to this.

I am not sure if I have all the context - is this as outlandish as it seems at first read?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DigitalMan on 04/17/2021 02:19 am
Per source selection document, Blue Origin requested two advanced payments at the outset of Option A within their proposal that rendered them ineligible for contract award. NASA never discussed/negotiated with BO due to this.

I am not sure if I have all the context - is this as outlandish as it seems at first read?

I think it is an interesting statement by itself, but coupled with the statement that Blue's proposal did not offer sufficient value to the government, plus the statement that SpaceX did not lower its price when it rearranged its proposal, could mean:

1) There was no budget for another proposal
2) There was no motivation to pursue a contract with Blue based on insufficient value
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/17/2021 02:23 am
Per source selection document, Blue Origin requested two advanced payments at the outset of Option A within their proposal that rendered them ineligible for contract award. NASA never discussed/negotiated with BO due to this.

I am not sure if I have all the context - is this as outlandish as it seems at first read?

Yes.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 04/17/2021 02:31 am
I'm hoping they go back to a 7-meter lander launching on new glenn. This kind of vehicle might still win contracts in a world where Starship exists.

Not without in orbit refuelling.  That's always been the limitation.  Anyone that doesn't adress that first is just playing themselves.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/17/2021 02:51 am
What I would like to see Blue Origin do if they have enough money given to them by Bezos is to redesign their lander a bit.  Make it so it uses the 7 meter fairing on New Glenn and a cheap crasher stage to get almost to the surface  with a lander that can take at least four people from the beginning.  Then when ISRU propellant production is ready you have a completely reusable lander that can descend on its own, refuel and return to the Gateway.  Then do incremental improvements from there.
Use it for robotic missions to setup ISRU production. Once that is in place they could   convert it human lander with ISRU fuel available at Gateway and Lunar base. I think this was original plan, NASA HLS program forced them down National Team path.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Scintillant on 04/17/2021 03:31 am
Per source selection document, Blue Origin requested two advanced payments at the outset of Option A within their proposal that rendered them ineligible for contract award. NASA never discussed/negotiated with BO due to this.

I am not sure if I have all the context - is this as outlandish as it seems at first read?

Yes.
Honestly, of all the things that Blue has been doing to demonstrate its lack of Ferociter, this is the most damning in my opinion. They bill themselves as a serious company that intends to do serious space things, and yet they can't even read the instructions on a contract? Given all their lobbying power, you'd think they'd at least avoid basic mistakes like this.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: thirtyone on 04/17/2021 03:33 am
Per source selection document, Blue Origin requested two advanced payments at the outset of Option A within their proposal that rendered them ineligible for contract award. NASA never discussed/negotiated with BO due to this.

I am not sure if I have all the context - is this as outlandish as it seems at first read?

Anyone with more government contract background here? It kind of sounds like some level of inexperience with writing up proposals for grants. I'd bet it's a slip-up with dotting Is and crossing Ts. To some extent I wonder if Blue was rushed and just didn't spend the time to go through the details NASA expected in parts of the proposal.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: matthewkantar on 04/17/2021 03:35 am
Per source selection document, Blue Origin requested two advanced payments at the outset of Option A within their proposal that rendered them ineligible for contract award. NASA never discussed/negotiated with BO due to this.

I am not sure if I have all the context - is this as outlandish as it seems at first read?

Anyone with more government contract background here? It kind of sounds like some level of inexperience with writing up proposals for grants. I'd bet it's a slip-up with dotting Is and crossing Ts. To some extent I wonder if Blue was rushed and just didn't spend the time to go through the details NASA expected in parts of the proposal.

I guaran-damn-tee you the problem was not B.O. suddenly deciding something needed to be rushed.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: trimeta on 04/17/2021 03:37 am
Per source selection document, Blue Origin requested two advanced payments at the outset of Option A within their proposal that rendered them ineligible for contract award. NASA never discussed/negotiated with BO due to this.

I am not sure if I have all the context - is this as outlandish as it seems at first read?

Anyone with more government contract background here? It kind of sounds like some level of inexperience with writing up proposals for grants. I'd bet it's a slip-up with dotting Is and crossing Ts. To some extent I wonder if Blue was rushed and just didn't spend the time to go through the details NASA expected in parts of the proposal.

It certainly seems like the kind of thing which they could have fixed if they'd gone through the same contract revision process SpaceX did, but SpaceX's proposal overall was stronger, and there wasn't enough money to fund both, so no reason to have Blue revise their proposal only to say "too bad, we had no money to give to you anyway."
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: niwax on 04/17/2021 10:05 am
Per source selection document, Blue Origin requested two advanced payments at the outset of Option A within their proposal that rendered them ineligible for contract award. NASA never discussed/negotiated with BO due to this.

I am not sure if I have all the context - is this as outlandish as it seems at first read?

Anyone with more government contract background here? It kind of sounds like some level of inexperience with writing up proposals for grants. I'd bet it's a slip-up with dotting Is and crossing Ts. To some extent I wonder if Blue was rushed and just didn't spend the time to go through the details NASA expected in parts of the proposal.

It has a whiff of the recent rejected Boeing proposal where they basically offered a cost-plus model in a fixed price solicitation and got slapped down hard. Some of these companies still seem to think that if they're brazen enough they can get away with it - and it just stopped working recently, even in commercial crew they still managed to get an extra $400 million out of NASA with enough whining.

I would not be surprised if this proposal was put together in a boardroom between Blue and a bunch of actual old space people all congratulating themselves on being the safe and reliable choice and well worth what they are demanding. We already got a feeling for that when they first wanted more than $10 billion and then were suddenly able to cut the price more than in half without reducing their project scope. I would bet there was not a single penny in private capital in the original plan.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: high road on 04/17/2021 03:50 pm
What I would like to see Blue Origin do if they have enough money given to them by Bezos is to redesign their lander a bit.  Make it so it uses the 7 meter fairing on New Glenn and a cheap crasher stage to get almost to the surface  with a lander that can take at least four people from the beginning.  Then when ISRU propellant production is ready you have a completely reusable lander that can descend on its own, refuel and return to the Gateway.  Then do incremental improvements from there.
Use it for robotic missions to setup ISRU production. Once that is in place they could   convert it human lander with ISRU fuel available at Gateway and Lunar base. I think this was original plan, NASA HLS program forced them down National Team path.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

I think that is what will happen. Continue to work on the lander.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Craftyatom on 04/17/2021 06:21 pm
Per source selection document, Blue Origin requested two advanced payments at the outset of Option A within their proposal that rendered them ineligible for contract award. NASA never discussed/negotiated with BO due to this.

I am not sure if I have all the context - is this as outlandish as it seems at first read?
It is worth noting a related footnote a few pages further on:
Quote
While it is also the case that Blue Origin’s proposal is not awardable as-is in light of its aforementioned advance payments, this is an issue I would endeavor to allow Blue to correct through negotiations or discussions if I otherwise concluded that its proposal presents a good value to the Government. This, however, is not my conclusion.
NASA would be willing to negotiate with Blue to fix the errors in its proposal if its proposal were more attractive/competitive, given the realities of the associated funding.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 04/17/2021 11:29 pm
Per source selection document, Blue Origin requested two advanced payments at the outset of Option A within their proposal that rendered them ineligible for contract award. NASA never discussed/negotiated with BO due to this.

I am not sure if I have all the context - is this as outlandish as it seems at first read?

For commercial crew (at least in the earlier rounds), there was milestones payments for kickoff meetings. It wasn't a huge amount but it was usually one of the first milestones payment. 
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Lemurion on 04/18/2021 04:27 am
To me, the real show-stopper with the National Team's design is that they weren't planning to test mission-critical propulsion systems until the first crewed mission. Reading between the lines I think the issue has to do with that last EVA to jettison mass before liftoff. Basically it sounds like it can't take off without someone doing an EVA first and that scares the hell out of me.

I mean the payments issue can be fixed with a rebid--and I presume they can also redesign the communications links, but this sounds like a design choice nobody should have ever made.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: trimeta on 04/18/2021 05:02 am
To me, the real show-stopper with the National Team's design is that they weren't planning to test mission-critical propulsion systems until the first crewed mission. Reading between the lines I think the issue has to do with that last EVA to jettison mass before liftoff. Basically it sounds like it can't take off without someone doing an EVA first and that scares the hell out of me.

I mean the payments issue can be fixed with a rebid--and I presume they can also redesign the communications links, but this sounds like a design choice nobody should have ever made.

That's a really good point, I'd noted that both SpaceX and Blue Origin got dinged for propulsion systems having development and schedule risk, but for SpaceX that was merely a Weakness, while for Blue Origin it was a Significant Weakness. I think you've captured a big part of the difference. Other factors include SpaceX providing a thorough approach to developing their engines, while Blue Origin apparently hasn't even decided on third-party suppliers for long-lead-time components, and is planning on designing the Ascent Engine only after the rest of the Ascent Module is supposed to be complete (so any changes to the Ascent Engine might require rework on the Ascent Module).
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Toast on 04/18/2021 05:13 am
Per source selection document, Blue Origin requested two advanced payments at the outset of Option A within their proposal that rendered them ineligible for contract award. NASA never discussed/negotiated with BO due to this.

I am not sure if I have all the context - is this as outlandish as it seems at first read?
It is worth noting a related footnote a few pages further on:
Quote
While it is also the case that Blue Origin’s proposal is not awardable as-is in light of its aforementioned advance payments, this is an issue I would endeavor to allow Blue to correct through negotiations or discussions if I otherwise concluded that its proposal presents a good value to the Government. This, however, is not my conclusion.
NASA would be willing to negotiate with Blue to fix the errors in its proposal if its proposal were more attractive/competitive, given the realities of the associated funding.
Yeah, this is some very important context. National Team was disqualified because their bid violated the terms of the contract restricting advanced payments, but if that was the only issue NASA would have given them an opportunity to fix it. The real underlying issue was that the system was too expensive and offered too few benefits, so even if they fixed the payment issue their bid still would have been rejected anyway. Still, serious and inexcusable oversight on Blue's part. Especially since they made a point of hiring a lot of old-guard talent from traditional space companies that were supposed to be helping with exactly this sort of government bid process.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: trimeta on 04/18/2021 05:32 am
Yeah, this is some very important context. National Team was disqualified because their bid violated the terms of the contract restricting advanced payments, but if that was the only issue NASA would have given them an opportunity to fix it. The real underlying issue was that the system was too expensive and offered too few benefits, so even if they fixed the payment issue their bid still would have been rejected anyway. Still, serious and inexcusable oversight on Blue's part. Especially since they made a point of hiring a lot of old-guard talent from traditional space companies that were supposed to be helping with exactly this sort of government bid process.

I think hiring a lot of old-guard talent may be why they thought they could include this "mistake." They may not have expected it to pass muster, but they knew that NASA would roll their eyes and make Blue Origin fix it without imperiling the rest of the proposal. And maybe by giving NASA something where they could say "we successfully got Blue Origin to relent on this issue," NASA would scrutinize other areas less. Basically, the classic gambit of "if you know your boss isn't going to be happy with your report until they've found some error to correct, insert an obvious but easily-fixed error, so they can feel satisfied and you can still submit the report you wanted to originally."

On a related note, Blue Origin's "mistake" with not wanting to release certain datasets to NASA under a Government Purpose Rights (GPR) license (and also being insufficiently specific about why they couldn't release the datasets with GPR licenses) may be another intentional action encouraged by their old-guard talent. They may not have expected to get away with the full extent of data rights they outlined in their proposal, but it gives them a more favorable starting point in negotiations, rather than just saying up front that they're going to give NASA all the data permissions they want. Perhaps NASA would accept fewer permissions than they otherwise would, if it looks good in comparison with the original unreasonable proposal.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Lars-J on 04/18/2021 06:31 am
Reading between the lines I think the issue has to do with that last EVA to jettison mass before liftoff. Basically it sounds like it can't take off without someone doing an EVA first and that scares the hell out of me.
Someone made the analogy of the EVA to jettison mass being equivalent of a boat crew throwing stuff overboard to save the boat from sinking. Quite amusing. :)

Although not a critical defect, it sounded like the design not being able to grow into a 4 person lander without a major redesign of pretty much anything was another mail in the coffin.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: dfp21 on 04/18/2021 06:38 am
Maybe Blue Origin & Dynetics & Spacex didn't really want to get in bed with NASA on this. Dealing with the US Gov is nightmarish. It's only worth it if you get paid A Lot for the frustration. (Lockheed & Northrop have learned this well over the years)

Spacex happens to already be building a vehicle that NASA is willing to pay to modify/improve. So maybe an OK deal for Spacex. But I fear Spacex may come to regret this award. (The US Gov is your enemy if you're a private-sector company.)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: kevinof on 04/18/2021 06:49 am
Maybe Blue Origin &amp; Dynetics &amp; Spacex didn't really want to get in bed with NASA on this. Dealing with the US Gov is nightmarish. It's only worth it if you get paid A Lot for the frustration. (Lockheed &amp; Northrop have learned this well over the years)

Spacex happens to already be building a vehicle that NASA is willing to pay to modify/improve. So maybe an OK deal for Spacex. But I fear Spacex may come to regret this award. (The US Gov is your enemy if you're a private-sector company.)
SpaceX are already dealing with NASA oversight and certification with the crewed Dragon and CRS contract. It’s already a known quantity to them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: trimeta on 04/18/2021 07:13 am
SpaceX are already dealing with NASA oversight and certification with the crewed Dragon and CRS contract. It’s already a known quantity to them.

And conversely, NASA has been dealing with SpaceX for a few years, and SpaceX is now a known quantity to them. One underappreciated part of this award is that SpaceX and only SpaceX received an "Outstanding" rating in their Management Approach. NASA apparently really likes SpaceX's approach to "test early and test often," and feels that they've been very transparent and comprehensive in explaining their plans to NASA.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Lemurion on 04/18/2021 08:06 am
Reading between the lines I think the issue has to do with that last EVA to jettison mass before liftoff. Basically it sounds like it can't take off without someone doing an EVA first and that scares the hell out of me.
Someone made the analogy of the EVA to jettison mass being equivalent of a boat crew throwing stuff overboard to save the boat from sinking. Quite amusing. :)

Although not a critical defect, it sounded like the design not being able to grow into a 4 person lander without a major redesign of pretty much anything was another mail in the coffin.

Personally, I do think it may well be a critical defect—not because they need to jettison mass—but for the reason that if that need to do an EVA to jettison mass is indeed the reason they can’t test it on an uncrewed mission then that requirement has to go.

As far as I’m concerned, the inability to do a complete all-up mission test without crew is not only a critical defect—it’s an absolute show-stopper.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/18/2021 08:06 am
Reading between the lines I think the issue has to do with that last EVA to jettison mass before liftoff. Basically it sounds like it can't take off without someone doing an EVA first and that scares the hell out of me.

NASA did this every time for the Apollo Lunar missions, where the backpacks and other rubbish were thrown out the cabin. I personally don't think its a big deal.

https://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/how-did-the-apollo-astronauts-toss-their-spacesuits-overboard-15214768/
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/18/2021 08:13 am
SpaceX are already dealing with NASA oversight and certification with the crewed Dragon and CRS contract. It’s already a known quantity to them.

And conversely, NASA has been dealing with SpaceX for a few years, and SpaceX is now a known quantity to them. One underappreciated part of this award is that SpaceX and only SpaceX received an "Outstanding" rating in their Management Approach. NASA apparently really likes SpaceX's approach to "test early and test often," and feels that they've been very transparent and comprehensive in explaining their plans to NASA.
More case of NASA has been working long enough with SpaceX to trust them. SpaceX should know by now what NASA expects.




Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: trimeta on 04/18/2021 08:18 am
Reading between the lines I think the issue has to do with that last EVA to jettison mass before liftoff. Basically it sounds like it can't take off without someone doing an EVA first and that scares the hell out of me.

NASA did this every time for the Apollo Lunar missions, where the backpacks and other rubbish were thrown out the cabin. I personally don't think its a big deal.

https://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/how-did-the-apollo-astronauts-toss-their-spacesuits-overboard-15214768/

Lemurion made the connection between Blue Origin needing the astronauts to toss out extra junk to enable the Ascent Element to lift off the surface, and Blue Origin being unable to test the Ascent Element's ability to lift off the surface without crew aboard (presumably, to toss out extra junk). If so, it's a show-stopper in terms of being able to perform the uncrewed test flight (which I don't believe the Apollo program had).

Assuming the uncrewed test flight requires "and then lifting back off and getting back to NRHO," of course. Which I've yet to actually see confirmed anywhere.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: electricdawn on 04/18/2021 08:23 am
Reading between the lines I think the issue has to do with that last EVA to jettison mass before liftoff. Basically it sounds like it can't take off without someone doing an EVA first and that scares the hell out of me.

NASA did this every time for the Apollo Lunar missions, where the backpacks and other rubbish were thrown out the cabin. I personally don't think its a big deal.

https://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/how-did-the-apollo-astronauts-toss-their-spacesuits-overboard-15214768/

Well, that was fifty(!) years ago. If we would've wanted to continue on this path, nobody would even talk to SpaceX. Obviously we can (and should aspire to) do much better in the 21st century.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 04/18/2021 02:08 pm
Reading between the lines I think the issue has to do with that last EVA to jettison mass before liftoff. Basically it sounds like it can't take off without someone doing an EVA first and that scares the hell out of me.
Someone made the analogy of the EVA to jettison mass being equivalent of a boat crew throwing stuff overboard to save the boat from sinking. Quite amusing. :)

Although not a critical defect, it sounded like the design not being able to grow into a 4 person lander without a major redesign of pretty much anything was another mail in the coffin.

Personally, I do think it may well be a critical defect—not because they need to jettison mass—but for the reason that if that need to do an EVA to jettison mass is indeed the reason they can’t test it on an uncrewed mission then that requirement has to go.

As far as I’m concerned, the inability to do a complete all-up mission test without crew is not only a critical defect—it’s an absolute show-stopper.

I don't disagree with you. But at the press conference Lisa Watson-Morgan said that ascent on the uncrewed flight wasn't a requirement. It hasn't yet been determined if lunar Starship will ascend on its uncrewed flight, she said that NASA needs to discuss this with SpaceX.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Nomadd on 04/18/2021 02:11 pm
Reading between the lines I think the issue has to do with that last EVA to jettison mass before liftoff. Basically it sounds like it can't take off without someone doing an EVA first and that scares the hell out of me.

NASA did this every time for the Apollo Lunar missions, where the backpacks and other rubbish were thrown out the cabin. I personally don't think its a big deal.

https://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/how-did-the-apollo-astronauts-toss-their-spacesuits-overboard-15214768/

Lemurion made the connection between Blue Origin needing the astronauts to toss out extra junk to enable the Ascent Element to lift off the surface, and Blue Origin being unable to test the Ascent Element's ability to lift off the surface without crew aboard (presumably, to toss out extra junk). If so, it's a show-stopper in terms of being able to perform the uncrewed test flight (which I don't believe the Apollo program had).

Assuming the uncrewed test flight requires "and then lifting back off and getting back to NRHO," of course. Which I've yet to actually see confirmed anywhere.
Why would the need to get rid of excess weight prevent an uncrewed test? They've already jettisoned the astronauts and all the associated consumables and gear, which will probably more than make up the difference.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 04/18/2021 02:13 pm
Reading between the lines I think the issue has to do with that last EVA to jettison mass before liftoff. Basically it sounds like it can't take off without someone doing an EVA first and that scares the hell out of me.

NASA did this every time for the Apollo Lunar missions, where the backpacks and other rubbish were thrown out the cabin. I personally don't think its a big deal.

https://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/how-did-the-apollo-astronauts-toss-their-spacesuits-overboard-15214768/

Lemurion made the connection between Blue Origin needing the astronauts to toss out extra junk to enable the Ascent Element to lift off the surface, and Blue Origin being unable to test the Ascent Element's ability to lift off the surface without crew aboard (presumably, to toss out extra junk). If so, it's a show-stopper in terms of being able to perform the uncrewed test flight (which I don't believe the Apollo program had).

Assuming the uncrewed test flight requires "and then lifting back off and getting back to NRHO," of course. Which I've yet to actually see confirmed anywhere.
Why would the need to get rid of excess weight prevent an uncrewed test? They've already jettisoned the astronauts and all the associated consumables and gear, which will probably more than make up the difference.

I think that it has more to with the ascent module not being ready before 2024.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: su27k on 04/18/2021 02:15 pm
Reading between the lines I think the issue has to do with that last EVA to jettison mass before liftoff. Basically it sounds like it can't take off without someone doing an EVA first and that scares the hell out of me.

NASA did this every time for the Apollo Lunar missions, where the backpacks and other rubbish were thrown out the cabin. I personally don't think its a big deal.

https://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/how-did-the-apollo-astronauts-toss-their-spacesuits-overboard-15214768/

Lemurion made the connection between Blue Origin needing the astronauts to toss out extra junk to enable the Ascent Element to lift off the surface, and Blue Origin being unable to test the Ascent Element's ability to lift off the surface without crew aboard (presumably, to toss out extra junk). If so, it's a show-stopper in terms of being able to perform the uncrewed test flight (which I don't believe the Apollo program had).

Assuming the uncrewed test flight requires "and then lifting back off and getting back to NRHO," of course. Which I've yet to actually see confirmed anywhere.
Why would the need to get rid of excess weight prevent an uncrewed test? They've already jettisoned the astronauts and all the associated consumables and gear, which will probably more than make up the difference.

I think that it has more to with the ascent module not being ready for 2024.

Or they don't want to fork the money for an ascent module test vehicle...
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Nomadd on 04/18/2021 02:29 pm
 I don't know if willingness to risk your own dime was an official part of the selection criteria, but it sounds like it was a real part. I'm getting the feeling that Blue treating stuff like this as an old style money machine isn't going over well.
  I wonder how much will be R&D funding and how much is C.O.D.

 The last few years and the next few are going to make a great book.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/18/2021 02:57 pm
I don't know if willingness to risk your own dime was an official part of the selection criteria, but it sounds like it was a real part. I'm getting the feeling that Blue treating stuff like this as an old style money machine isn't going over well.

We have to remember though that Blue Origin was the prime contractor for the "National Team", which included Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. So despite what Jeff Bezos may have wanted, those two "Old Space" partners would not have been likely to offer up any of their own money to risk.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: trimeta on 04/18/2021 03:21 pm
I don't know if willingness to risk your own dime was an official part of the selection criteria, but it sounds like it was a real part. I'm getting the feeling that Blue treating stuff like this as an old style money machine isn't going over well.

It also seems like NASA wasn't just interested in willingness to fork over your own money, but demonstrating that your HLS proposal was part of a larger long-term project such that you'd have continued motivation to fork over your own money independent of merely achieving the HLS goals. I can't help but wonder if this is a reaction to Boeing bailing on the XS1 contract: they want reason to believe that this contract matters to your own plans, so you won't abandon it if things get rough.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/18/2021 05:25 pm
Reading between the lines I think the issue has to do with that last EVA to jettison mass before liftoff. Basically it sounds like it can't take off without someone doing an EVA first and that scares the hell out of me.

NASA did this every time for the Apollo Lunar missions, where the backpacks and other rubbish were thrown out the cabin. I personally don't think its a big deal.

https://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/how-did-the-apollo-astronauts-toss-their-spacesuits-overboard-15214768/

Lemurion made the connection between Blue Origin needing the astronauts to toss out extra junk to enable the Ascent Element to lift off the surface, and Blue Origin being unable to test the Ascent Element's ability to lift off the surface without crew aboard (presumably, to toss out extra junk). If so, it's a show-stopper in terms of being able to perform the uncrewed test flight (which I don't believe the Apollo program had).

Assuming the uncrewed test flight requires "and then lifting back off and getting back to NRHO," of course. Which I've yet to actually see confirmed anywhere.
Why would the need to get rid of excess weight prevent an uncrewed test? They've already jettisoned the astronauts and all the associated consumables and gear, which will probably more than make up the difference.
Reading between the lines I think the issue has to do with that last EVA to jettison mass before liftoff. Basically it sounds like it can't take off without someone doing an EVA first and that scares the hell out of me.
Someone made the analogy of the EVA to jettison mass being equivalent of a boat crew throwing stuff overboard to save the boat from sinking. Quite amusing. :)

Although not a critical defect, it sounded like the design not being able to grow into a 4 person lander without a major redesign of pretty much anything was another mail in the coffin.

Personally, I do think it may well be a critical defect—not because they need to jettison mass—but for the reason that if that need to do an EVA to jettison mass is indeed the reason they can’t test it on an uncrewed mission then that requirement has to go.

As far as I’m concerned, the inability to do a complete all-up mission test without crew is not only a critical defect—it’s an absolute show-stopper.

I don't disagree with you. But at the press conference Lisa Watson-Morgan said that ascent on the uncrewed flight wasn't a requirement. It hasn't yet been determined if lunar Starship will ascend on its uncrewed flight, she said that NASA needs to discuss this with SpaceX.
Better to leave it on surface as basis of lunar base or relocate to crater rim so it could be used to beam power to rovers in future.

 

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: butters on 04/18/2021 05:51 pm
Reading between the lines I think the issue has to do with that last EVA to jettison mass before liftoff. Basically it sounds like it can't take off without someone doing an EVA first and that scares the hell out of me.

NASA did this every time for the Apollo Lunar missions, where the backpacks and other rubbish were thrown out the cabin. I personally don't think its a big deal.

https://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/how-did-the-apollo-astronauts-toss-their-spacesuits-overboard-15214768/
The jettison EVA is an inconvenience that mission planners could probably work around to mitigate the concerns about fatigue and safety cited in the source selection statement.

The bigger deal is that they were so tight on performance margin this early in the development schedule. A jettison EVA is an option you put in your hip pocket in case your vehicle comes out a little overweight after you've dotted the i's and closed the inadequate communications links.

It also shows limited potential for expanded mission capabilities, especially for sample return and other upmass requirements. NASA complained that they would need to redesign almost everything to grow from two to four astronauts. They didn't have negative payload capacity like Dynetics, but they had a system that wasn't going to do much beyond NASA's minimum requirements if they hit their mass and performance targets.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Lars-J on 04/18/2021 07:00 pm
Reading between the lines I think the issue has to do with that last EVA to jettison mass before liftoff. Basically it sounds like it can't take off without someone doing an EVA first and that scares the hell out of me.

NASA did this every time for the Apollo Lunar missions, where the backpacks and other rubbish were thrown out the cabin. I personally don't think its a big deal.

https://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/how-did-the-apollo-astronauts-toss-their-spacesuits-overboard-15214768/

You may be right, but my impression was that the EVA was for external equipment. But that may be an erroneous assumption on my part since an EVA would also be required for disposing internal equipment.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Vonbraun on 04/18/2021 07:20 pm
And conversely, NASA has been dealing with SpaceX for a few years, and SpaceX is now a known quantity to them. One underappreciated part of this award is that SpaceX and only SpaceX received an "Outstanding" rating in their Management Approach. NASA apparently really likes SpaceX's approach to "test early and test often," and feels that they've been very transparent and comprehensive in explaining their plans to NASA.

I think the Crew Dragons parachute certification process illustrates how Spacex can operate under external pressures, but that one was probably quagmire for both parties. I still chuckle at the missing pin from Boeing parachutes...
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: kevinof on 04/18/2021 07:21 pm
So that was my first thought - are they really that tight on performance? I know it was done with Apollo but that was in the 70s and yet here we have a 2 person lander that still needs to shed weight in order to take off from the moon. Would have expected less restrictions on a modern vehicle.


Reading between the lines I think the issue has to do with that last EVA to jettison mass before liftoff. Basically it sounds like it can't take off without someone doing an EVA first and that scares the hell out of me.

NASA did this every time for the Apollo Lunar missions, where the backpacks and other rubbish were thrown out the cabin. I personally don't think its a big deal.

https://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/how-did-the-apollo-astronauts-toss-their-spacesuits-overboard-15214768/
The jettison EVA is an inconvenience that mission planners could probably work around to mitigate the concerns about fatigue and safety cited in the source selection statement.

The bigger deal is that they were so tight on performance margin this early in the development schedule. A jettison EVA is an option you put in your hip pocket in case your vehicle comes out a little overweight after you've dotted the i's and closed the inadequate communications links.

It also shows limited potential for expanded mission capabilities, especially for sample return and other upmass requirements. NASA complained that they would need to redesign almost everything to grow from two to four astronauts. They didn't have negative payload capacity like Dynetics, but they had a system that wasn't going to do much beyond NASA's minimum requirements if they hit their mass and performance targets.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Lemurion on 04/18/2021 07:21 pm
Reading between the lines I think the issue has to do with that last EVA to jettison mass before liftoff. Basically it sounds like it can't take off without someone doing an EVA first and that scares the hell out of me.
Someone made the analogy of the EVA to jettison mass being equivalent of a boat crew throwing stuff overboard to save the boat from sinking. Quite amusing. :)

Although not a critical defect, it sounded like the design not being able to grow into a 4 person lander without a major redesign of pretty much anything was another mail in the coffin.

Personally, I do think it may well be a critical defect—not because they need to jettison mass—but for the reason that if that need to do an EVA to jettison mass is indeed the reason they can’t test it on an uncrewed mission then that requirement has to go.

As far as I’m concerned, the inability to do a complete all-up mission test without crew is not only a critical defect—it’s an absolute show-stopper.

I don't disagree with you. But at the press conference Lisa Watson-Morgan said that ascent on the uncrewed flight wasn't a requirement. It hasn't yet been determined if lunar Starship will ascend on its uncrewed flight, she said that NASA needs to discuss this with SpaceX.

That definitely concerns me. As far as I'm concerned lunar descent and ascent are the two most important things to test. Losing a crew because they never tested ascent would be a nightmare.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: rpapo on 04/18/2021 07:26 pm
That definitely concerns me. As far as I'm concerned lunar descent and ascent are the two most important things to test. Losing a crew because they never tested ascent would be a nightmare.
Hey, as much as they tended to shoot from the hip (Apollo 8 ), even the Apollo project tested the ascent engines, in both the Apollo 9 and 10 missions.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: briantipton on 04/18/2021 07:49 pm
This sounds like Blue's lander has even less performance margin than Apollo's. Given that the LM could abort to orbit immediately after touchdown, discarding the backpacks etc. was not necessary to achieve orbit. I think they did this to offset the mass of the collected samples, and maybe increase margins as well as just "good housekeeping" to free up space.
So that was my first thought - are they really that tight on performance? I know it was done with Apollo but that was in the 70s and yet here we have a 2 person lander that still needs to shed weight in order to take off from the moon. Would have expected less restrictions on a modern vehicle.


Reading between the lines I think the issue has to do with that last EVA to jettison mass before liftoff. Basically it sounds like it can't take off without someone doing an EVA first and that scares the hell out of me.

NASA did this every time for the Apollo Lunar missions, where the backpacks and other rubbish were thrown out the cabin. I personally don't think its a big deal.

https://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/how-did-the-apollo-astronauts-toss-their-spacesuits-overboard-15214768/
The jettison EVA is an inconvenience that mission planners could probably work around to mitigate the concerns about fatigue and safety cited in the source selection statement.

The bigger deal is that they were so tight on performance margin this early in the development schedule. A jettison EVA is an option you put in your hip pocket in case your vehicle comes out a little overweight after you've dotted the i's and closed the inadequate communications links.

It also shows limited potential for expanded mission capabilities, especially for sample return and other upmass requirements. NASA complained that they would need to redesign almost everything to grow from two to four astronauts. They didn't have negative payload capacity like Dynetics, but they had a system that wasn't going to do much beyond NASA's minimum requirements if they hit their mass and performance targets.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Nomadd on 04/18/2021 07:54 pm

I think the Crew Dragons parachute certification process illustrates how Spacex can operate under external pressures, but that one was probably quagmire for both parties. I still chuckle at the missing pin from Boeing parachutes...
The pin wasn't missing. It just missed it's target when they installed it.
 I guess you could say it was missing from where it needed to be.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Lemurion on 04/18/2021 08:50 pm
This sounds like Blue's lander has even less performance margin than Apollo's. Given that the LM could abort to orbit immediately after touchdown, discarding the backpacks etc. was not necessary to achieve orbit. I think they did this to offset the mass of the collected samples, and maybe increase margins as well as just "good housekeeping" to free up space.
So that was my first thought - are they really that tight on performance? I know it was done with Apollo but that was in the 70s and yet here we have a 2 person lander that still needs to shed weight in order to take off from the moon. Would have expected less restrictions on a modern vehicle.


Reading between the lines I think the issue has to do with that last EVA to jettison mass before liftoff. Basically it sounds like it can't take off without someone doing an EVA first and that scares the hell out of me.

NASA did this every time for the Apollo Lunar missions, where the backpacks and other rubbish were thrown out the cabin. I personally don't think its a big deal.

https://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/how-did-the-apollo-astronauts-toss-their-spacesuits-overboard-15214768/
The jettison EVA is an inconvenience that mission planners could probably work around to mitigate the concerns about fatigue and safety cited in the source selection statement.

The bigger deal is that they were so tight on performance margin this early in the development schedule. A jettison EVA is an option you put in your hip pocket in case your vehicle comes out a little overweight after you've dotted the i's and closed the inadequate communications links.

It also shows limited potential for expanded mission capabilities, especially for sample return and other upmass requirements. NASA complained that they would need to redesign almost everything to grow from two to four astronauts. They didn't have negative payload capacity like Dynetics, but they had a system that wasn't going to do much beyond NASA's minimum requirements if they hit their mass and performance targets.

This whole architecture is due to the fact that SLS/Orion has less performance margin than Saturn/Apollo.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: racevedo88 on 04/19/2021 06:06 pm
Per source selection document, Blue Origin requested two advanced payments at the outset of Option A within their proposal that rendered them ineligible for contract award. NASA never discussed/negotiated with BO due to this.


It is extremely important while you might legally contest or protest the award of an request for proposal or request for bid ( two different animals in federal procurement) on either technical merits or price. It is almost impossible to do if your own actions caused you to be ineligible for award ( it was part of the instructions or requirements for award, you have no leg to Stand on, it is just like trying to submit a bid past the submission date and then attempting to contest results), indeed they were lucky that NASA went out of their way to evaluate their proposal further. So legally you cannot contest the award. On the flip side dynetics and space x lawyers would have had a field day if the award had gone to national team in spite of this, all they had to say is their bid is ineligible for award as per section ### of the rfp/rfi. This would have immediately caused the award to go to the best of the two remaining proposals.


Apologies having issues trying to post outside quoted material :-\  :-[
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 04/28/2021 01:36 am
https://twitter.com/brickmack/status/1387147876854243328

This is really interesting indeed, and finally explains why the AE suddenly had 3 engines instead of 1. 

The XLR-132 has an ISP of 340 seconds, compared to the original plan with using a single AJ-10 like Orion which is 319 seconds ISP. The change to pump fed instead of pressure fed should have reduced dry mass by quite a bit.

AJR's lunar lander studies pretty much threw out the AJ-10 (OME) Ascent Element 3 stage lander in their study due to the much higher performance with XLR-132: http://fiso.spiritastro.net/telecon/Kokan_1-29-20/Kokan_1-29-20.pdf

A Boeing paper reaches the same conclusions, the pressure fed AE had very poor launch mass margins: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340628805_Crewed_Lunar_Missions_and_Architectures_Enabled_by_the_NASA_Space_Launch_System

What I find most interesting here is that in the past year National Team redesigned their whole system greatly improving the Ascent Element performance, and yet they still had quite limited performance overall. Without this change to AE propulsion they may have ended up where Dynetics ended up at: negative mass margins.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: hoku on 04/28/2021 08:42 am
I'm surprised that BO's protest uses inconsistencies in their own HLS proposal as an argument for why NASA's rating of the Technical proposal should have been "Very Good" rather than "Acceptable":

"The TE [Transfer Element] is tracked all the way to lunar impact to ensure successful disposal. The DDL [Deorbit, Descent, and Landing] trajectory is designed so TE impacts > 20 km up-range from the landing site  ..."

"After separating from the CLV, the TE will follow a ballistic trajectory until it reaches its end-of-life point on the surface of the moon. For the Site 2 Malapert [this is one of the reference landing sites NASA provided] trajectory, this is currently uptrack by 15.7 km from the target landing site..."
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: hoku on 04/28/2021 09:00 am
Another example:

Requirement: "The HLS Option A requirement HLS-R-0108 mandates that each offeror’s HLS must be capable of manual control by the crew and requirement HLS-R-0004 states that each offeror’s system must have single fault tolerance ..."

NASA assessment: " ... is not compliant with HLS-R-0004, which requires that the offeror’s approach to manual control must have single fault tolerance.”

BO protest: " ... the Agency erred when it also stated there would be an increased risk of loss of crew. The system architecture does not require the use of manual controls to prevent a catastrophic hazard, because the automated control system prevents catastrophic hazard by requirement, including after a single failure."
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: hoku on 04/28/2021 10:14 am
"The finding that “the proposed mission profile requires a jettison EVA to reduce Ascent Element mass prior to liftoff” is inaccurate. As described in Blue Origin’s HLS Option Proposal Attachment 38 (Document MLRE-15908), a jettison EVA is not required for nominal ascent (Section 6.7.1.2) or early mission termination (Section 6.7.2.2).53 The jettison EVA is only required for combinations of off-nominal scenarios, such as worst-case early mission termination with an engine-out ascent (Section 6.7.1.4)."

BO proposed sequence for early mission termination:
1) predict the future: is an engine-out going to happen during ascent?
2a) if answer is yes, then additional time is required for jettison EVA
2b) if answer is no, skip jettison EVA
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: hoku on 04/28/2021 10:48 am
"Overall Rating – Blue Origin Should Have Received an Outstanding for Factor 3 Management"

"Blue Origin acknowledges Management weaknesses assessed for (1) Incomplete Project Management Plan, (2) Inadequate Approach to Schedule Management, and (3) Payment Milestones Missing from IMS (...)"

IMS: Integrated Master Schedule
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: primer_black on 04/28/2021 12:53 pm
Another example:

Requirement: "The HLS Option A requirement HLS-R-0108 mandates that each offeror’s HLS must be capable of manual control by the crew and requirement HLS-R-0004 states that each offeror’s system must have single fault tolerance ..."

NASA assessment: " ... is not compliant with HLS-R-0004, which requires that the offeror’s approach to manual control must have single fault tolerance.”

BO protest: " ... the Agency erred when it also stated there would be an increased risk of loss of crew. The system architecture does not require the use of manual controls to prevent a catastrophic hazard, because the automated control system prevents catastrophic hazard by requirement, including after a single failure."

You left out a few key sections related to the manual control design, as well as prior NASA feedback. The point Blue is trying to make is: (1) Loss of manual control does not increase risk to Crew, only mission, and (2) NASA thoroughly reviewed the design less than a week before proposal submission and judged it fully compliant with HLS requirements, so why the different eval by the SEP?

Quote
First, the hand controllers themselves are internally redundant, so multiple hand controllers are not required to achieve substantive fault tolerance. Fault tolerance is achieved through this internal redundancy, so a single failure within the hand controller does not lead to mission failure.

Further, even if Blue Origin’s design did not have these built-in redundancies, the Agency erred when it also stated there would be an increased risk of loss of crew. The system architecture does not require the use of manual controls to prevent a catastrophic hazard, because the automated control system prevents catastrophic hazard by requirement, including after a single failure. Thus the need for fault tolerance in manual control is to prevent loss of mission, not loss of crew.

Second, Blue Origin’s single controller architecture was explicitly reviewed as part of the CBR for compliance with NASA certification requirements, including HLS-R-0004, and thus the Agency’s statement that “[t]his aspect of the offeror’s proposal fails to meet an important mission-related requirement” is incorrect and inconsistent with NASA’s own evaluation. Specifically, NASA evaluated and approved the architecture against success criteria SC10.

In addition to the CBR review, Blue Origin engaged with the NASA team in a series of manual control Technical Interchange Meetings (TIMs) to address Request for Action (RFA) 127 – which incorporates manual control through all phases of crewed flight. Specifically, the Concept of Operations (CONOPS) and design were reviewed and approved as part of RFA-127 closure.
 
As discussed previously, the Agency’s assignment of a weakness to a proposed approach which had previously been approved, is arbitrary and unreasonable, particularly where the Agency failed to provide and document a reasonable explanation for the disparity.

And before anyone chimes in with it, 'single fault tolerance' requirements are met all the time by implementing internal redundancy within a device/box. This type of fault tolerance requirement is not meant to be resilient to 'the unit suddenly goes missing'.

A recurring theme of the protest is that extensive feedback received from NASA during the Base Period regarding the technical design is completely at odds with what is stated in the SEP. At the very least, I'm sure Blue wants NASA to 'show their work' for these cases.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JEF_300 on 04/28/2021 04:58 pm
A recurring theme of the protest is that extensive feedback received from NASA during the Base Period regarding the technical design is completely at odds with what is stated in the SEP. At the very least, I'm sure Blue wants NASA to 'show their work' for these cases.

With that being the case, it seems likely that large swathes of this protest could be chalked up to miscommunication. Here is an oversimplified example of the sort of thing that might have happened:

Blue Origin points out a part of their proposal to NASA, and asks, "Is that good enough?" NASA looks at it and says, "It's acceptable, but not ideal." Blue Origin takes this to mean that they won't be penalized for it, but NASA actually just meant that they won't be outright disqualified for it.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: su27k on 04/28/2021 05:07 pm
Or it's just different part of NASA interprets the requirement differently. I assume they probably don't have CBR people on the SEP to avoid conflict of interest.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Redclaws on 04/28/2021 05:18 pm
A recurring theme of the protest is that extensive feedback received from NASA during the Base Period regarding the technical design is completely at odds with what is stated in the SEP. At the very least, I'm sure Blue wants NASA to 'show their work' for these cases.

With that being the case, it seems likely that large swathes of this protest could be chalked up to miscommunication. Here is an oversimplified example of the sort of thing that might have happened: Blue Origin points out a part of their proposal to NASA, and asks, "Is that good enough?" NASA looks at it and says, "It's acceptable, but not ideal." Blue Origin takes this to mean that they won't be penalized for it, but NASA actually just meant that they won't be outright disqualified for it.

Also, despite hand waving towards this not being a comparison, it necessarily is.  These strengths or weaknesses are in fact of necessity partly relative to other proposals, particularly if they clear the bar of “acceptable” which frankly can be interpreted to mean “not so terrible we would refuse it outright regardless of context”.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: gaballard on 04/28/2021 07:11 pm
Here's the redacted version of Blue's protest if anyone wants to read it:

https://spacepolicyonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Blue-Origin-Protest-of-HLS-Award-Filed-April-26-2021-Redacted-Public-Version.pdf

It starts with a bunch of PR fluff and hand-waving about the future of America and all that, then gets down to the meat of their argument, which is "NASA is being mean to us".

They're complaining that NASA originally said they were going to award 2 awards, then only had the budget for one, which made price a primary selection point, and mean ol' NASA didn't give Blue and Dynetics enough time to compensate for the new focus on price.

Yeah. I'm sure a heads up would have allowed Blue to close that ~$7B gap between them and SpaceX  ::)

Can you imagine if you turned in a math test in school, didn't show your work everywhere as asked, flunked half the material on it, and then complained to the dean that you didn't know the parts you failed would be graded as highly as the other parts, and that you should be allowed to go back and update your test?

How about, you were told what was on the test and you still blew it? Every minute and dollar they spend on protesting this award is a minute and dollar they could be spending doing a better job in the first place.

Blue is like a rich guy who wants to learn guitar, so instead of buying a cheap guitar to learn on, they go out and buy a brand new top-of-the-line Les Paul and a big high-wattage amp stack, jam on it for a while, and then a few months later decide they want to play bass, so they go out and buy a brand new top-of-the-line bass, and so on... with the end result being they never really learn to play any instrument well (but love to complain when people won't let them join their band).
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Mariusuiram on 04/29/2021 02:49 am
I think the protest makes some sense to signal they are ready and willing to come in cheaper. Which may have the desired effect. And they were definitely a clear 2nd place ahead of Dynetics.

But the SEP has very clear flow of decision / logic. They dont say, we changed our criteria and will select on price so had to pick Spacex. Thats people taking the story out of order. They say SpaceX had the best combined bid and was clearly the highest ranked team under the original intention. They state that unequivocally before they discuss the payment issues.

Then having "selected" SpaceX as 1st place, they requested a BAFO to get their payment schedule to work. They didnt enter negotiations from the sounds of it. They literally had a procurement person send a letter saying your technical bid and management is held constant, can you tweak these milestone payments and reduce your fee. Spacex tweaked milestones but didnt reduce their fee.

They then made the decision that they could barely afford a SpaceX, they couldnt afford to award a second. And chose not to. There was no room in the process to haggle over deliverables. How low could BO have gone on a BAFO without changing any technical or management specs?

The SEP also clearly says that the violations around payments terms are violations but could have been cleared up had they progressed to an award otherwise. So it didnt disqualify them it just didnt help them overall.

So forcing them to select 2 "because they promised" seems counterproductive. NASA cant be forced to fund something they cant fund. Whcih means their only argument is really that they should have scored equal or better to spaceX (really better given the price difference). Thats a much taller order as its such a subjective thing and GAO isnt a technical expert. They will evaluate process.

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: matthewkantar on 04/29/2021 03:25 am
No sensible person would pick B.O.'s six billion dollar one-use dead end lander over SpaceX's gigantic reuseable Swiss army knife of a lander for a half of the price IF they believe SpaceX's lander has a chance of working.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: gaballard on 04/29/2021 05:52 pm
Another example:

Requirement: "The HLS Option A requirement HLS-R-0108 mandates that each offeror’s HLS must be capable of manual control by the crew and requirement HLS-R-0004 states that each offeror’s system must have single fault tolerance ..."

NASA assessment: " ... is not compliant with HLS-R-0004, which requires that the offeror’s approach to manual control must have single fault tolerance.”

BO protest: " ... the Agency erred when it also stated there would be an increased risk of loss of crew. The system architecture does not require the use of manual controls to prevent a catastrophic hazard, because the automated control system prevents catastrophic hazard by requirement, including after a single failure."

I loved that part.

They have one physical control stick with multiple "internal" redundancies. And if someone drops a piece of equipment and damages/breaks off the one physical control stick... ?

And their justification for that was "well, even if it does break it'll only result in an abort instead of killing everyone aboard, so it's cool".

I'm sure NASA was reassured that their lander wouldn't result in Loss of Crew because they didn't put a second stick in there.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: matthewkantar on 04/29/2021 05:58 pm
Another example:

Requirement: "The HLS Option A requirement HLS-R-0108 mandates that each offeror’s HLS must be capable of manual control by the crew and requirement HLS-R-0004 states that each offeror’s system must have single fault tolerance ..."

NASA assessment: " ... is not compliant with HLS-R-0004, which requires that the offeror’s approach to manual control must have single fault tolerance.”

BO protest: " ... the Agency erred when it also stated there would be an increased risk of loss of crew. The system architecture does not require the use of manual controls to prevent a catastrophic hazard, because the automated control system prevents catastrophic hazard by requirement, including after a single failure."

I loved that part.

They have one physical control stick with multiple "internal" redundancies. And if someone drops a piece of equipment and damages/breaks off the one physical control stick... ?

And their justification for that was "well, even if it does break it'll only result in an abort instead of killing everyone aboard, so it's cool".

I'm sure NASA was reassured that their lander wouldn't result in Loss of Crew because they didn't put a second stick in there.

A lot of the info coming out, like:

-being stingy with the joysticks
-asking for money up front
-charging twice as much

feel like the behavior of a shoestring operation, not the doings of the world's richest man throwing billions of dollars at dream project. Why is this?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Eric Hedman on 04/29/2021 08:23 pm
Another example:

Requirement: "The HLS Option A requirement HLS-R-0108 mandates that each offeror’s HLS must be capable of manual control by the crew and requirement HLS-R-0004 states that each offeror’s system must have single fault tolerance ..."

NASA assessment: " ... is not compliant with HLS-R-0004, which requires that the offeror’s approach to manual control must have single fault tolerance.”

BO protest: " ... the Agency erred when it also stated there would be an increased risk of loss of crew. The system architecture does not require the use of manual controls to prevent a catastrophic hazard, because the automated control system prevents catastrophic hazard by requirement, including after a single failure."

I loved that part.

They have one physical control stick with multiple "internal" redundancies. And if someone drops a piece of equipment and damages/breaks off the one physical control stick... ?

And their justification for that was "well, even if it does break it'll only result in an abort instead of killing everyone aboard, so it's cool".

I'm sure NASA was reassured that their lander wouldn't result in Loss of Crew because they didn't put a second stick in there.

A lot of the info coming out, like:

-being stingy with the joysticks
-asking for money up front
-charging twice as much

feel like the behavior of a shoestring operation, not the doings of the world's richest man throwing billions of dollars at dream project. Why is this?
He's running this company like Amazon is being run, a very lean operation.  Two joysticks are wasteful in this scenario.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: AU1.52 on 04/29/2021 08:57 pm
Except if your amazon joystick breaks you can just order a new one and wait. If your HLS one breaks better hope all the safe guards work or else. Also with space you always want redundancy. NASA would also much prefer to pay extra for 2 joysticks than see the mission end early even if safely!
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: hoku on 04/29/2021 09:37 pm
Another example:

Requirement: "The HLS Option A requirement HLS-R-0108 mandates that each offeror’s HLS must be capable of manual control by the crew and requirement HLS-R-0004 states that each offeror’s system must have single fault tolerance ..."

NASA assessment: " ... is not compliant with HLS-R-0004, which requires that the offeror’s approach to manual control must have single fault tolerance.”

BO protest: " ... the Agency erred when it also stated there would be an increased risk of loss of crew. The system architecture does not require the use of manual controls to prevent a catastrophic hazard, because the automated control system prevents catastrophic hazard by requirement, including after a single failure."

I loved that part.

They have one physical control stick with multiple "internal" redundancies. And if someone drops a piece of equipment and damages/breaks off the one physical control stick... ?

And their justification for that was "well, even if it does break it'll only result in an abort instead of killing everyone aboard, so it's cool".

I'm sure NASA was reassured that their lander wouldn't result in Loss of Crew because they didn't put a second stick in there.
The Apollo Lunar Module and Orion had/have two sets of controllers for Attitude and Thrust/Translation. It would be interesting to learn National Team's rationale for removing one set of controllers (and hence give up on single fault tolerance for manual control) from the Ascent Element (volume constraints, weight, cost, ...?).
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DigitalMan on 04/29/2021 10:24 pm
Except if your amazon joystick breaks you can just order a new one and wait. If your HLS one breaks better hope all the safe guards work or else. Also with space you always want redundancy. NASA would also much prefer to pay extra for 2 joysticks than see the mission end early even if safely!

There is the interesting story Buzz told about the engine arm circuit-breaker that could be something to think about when considering NASA requirements.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: butters on 04/29/2021 11:24 pm
A lot of the info coming out, like:

-being stingy with the joysticks
-asking for money up front
-charging twice as much

feel like the behavior of a shoestring operation, not the doings of the world's richest man throwing billions of dollars at dream project. Why is this?
Being forced to scale down the descent element (and consequently the ascent element) when it became clear that "Commercial SLS" was non-viable and that New Glenn would be too late for Option A?

To be fair to the Blue Moon team, the descent element proposed for the second round of HLS was not the the Blue Moon they've been developing for multiple years. It's the best they could do at an EELV scale. Removing New Glenn from the critical path must have created a lot of work that needed to be done in a short amount of time to come up with something that would meet the minimum requirements for Option A on a much more limited mass budget than they'd planned on having.

Dynetics was confronted with the same conundrum as Blue, and in all respects, they were less successful at coming up with a plausible solution. You have Atlas and probably Vulcan, sharing a single pad on the Eastern Range that's never done any better than a 42-day turnaround in the modern era. Design a mission architecture that can deliver a human-rated spacecraft to NRHO, lunar surface, and back to NRHO -- over 9km/s delta-v from LEO. Good luck.

The lack of New Glenn or SLS hobbled every HLS bidder except SpaceX. There's only one launch provider that can sustain a launch cadence for a robust HLS solution based on medium launch vehicles, and it's not ULA. Alternatives to Starship for a worthy HLS would require launching a significant amount of the propellant on Falcon 9 or Heavy. That's the best we're going to do for dissimilar redundancy until New Glenn is flying routinely.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 04/30/2021 12:09 am
To be fair to the Blue Moon team, the descent element proposed for the second round of HLS was not the the Blue Moon they've been developing for multiple years. It's the best they could do at an EELV scale. Removing New Glenn from the critical path must have created a lot of work that needed to be done in a short amount of time to come up with something that would meet the minimum requirements for Option A on a much more limited mass budget than they'd planned on having.
...
The lack of New Glenn or SLS hobbled every HLS bidder except SpaceX.
...

According to LSP New Glenn wouldn't have been much help except for diameter. LSP shows New Glenn has much worse performance to TLI than Vulcan, so unless they had another trick up their sleeves I don't think it was a factor.

A 3 stage New Glenn sure, but that can was kicked down the road (possibly when they tried to get in on NSSL).
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Nathan2go on 05/04/2021 02:40 am
Continuing a Blue Moon specific discuss from an HLS thread:
...

Now that NASA has committed to SpaceX, Blue should update their architecture accordingly.  NASA should get a second HLS provider; and they should update their expectations as well: they should plan for an eventual replacement of SLS and Gateway.   For a sustainable architecture, the first stage should definitely be common to the commercial market and be reused; for the Lunar lander, reuse is much less compelling.  The target should be for each landing to use 3-6 New Glenns, with an option to fly one New Glenn and 1-2 Starships instead.

I like the idea of continuing to fly Orion, but on a New Glenn.  I also like the idea of integrating Orion (about 11 tons) with an enlarged Blue Moon lander (eliminating the service module), so that Orion can do a direct return to Earth.  Maybe the fueled lander and Orion together mass 70 tons (the mass ratio for the Lunar orbit insertion, landing, ascent burns, and TEI is 2.9; that leaves 13t for the empty lander).  The touch-down mass is 41t, so maybe the lander needs 4 BE-7s to have engine-out capability.  The lander propellant load is 46t (6.6t H2, 39.4t O2).

Moving the rendezvous down to LEO for all launches can allow the NG to launch Orion integrated with the (unfueled) lander, eliminate the need for transfer stages, and allow low-cost refueling from Starships.  If the normal NG twin-BE-3u 2nd stage is used as the Earth departure stage, the TLI mass is 87t, so the departure propellant is also 87t.  So the total LEO propellant needed from tanker launchers is 87+46= 133t.

So this would require: (1 NG + 1 SS + single-use depot) or 4 NG for launch (plus reusable depot).  Also, the depot will need good insulation and maybe cryo-cooling that can hold the whole 133t; it needs to be sturdy enough to hold all the H2 during an SS launch, but the O2 can be transfer from the main tanks on orbit.  All the NGs need rendezvous&docking kits.  Also, the lander needs cryo-coolers.

For initial missions, it would be nice if SLS could send Orion and a mostly empty lander to NRHO to meet up with the pre-loaded depot there.  But that brings back the need for the NG Transfer stage to fuel the depot.  So maybe if SLS wants to help at all, it should just carry Orion and propellant.

I don't see a strong incentive to make the lander re-usable.  This architecture allows NG 2nd stage can be evolved to be reusable, and Orion is refurbishable.


There is one small fault with this concept. Each Orion costs about $1B minus the enlarged Blue Moon lander/service module to carry a crew of 4. It is too expensive per flight to be sustainable for very long if the Starship is operational even if the Orion's procurement cost is halved.

Great point.  NASA also criticized the National Team because their solution did not feed into any follow-on commercial programs.

To address both issues, Blue should build a 30 m^3 capsule (triple the volume of Dragon II, and 50% greater than Orion), and scale up Blue Moon to carry that on and off the Moon, and allow a return directly from the Lunar surface to Earth surface. (An initial Gateway-based variant could skip the heatshield & parachute, and use flimsy seats to save mass).

Blue could then subsequently develop a LEO variant that can carry up to 20 passengers at under $20M each for the commercial market.   They would need to add the heatshield and launch escape system (LES), preferably a Dragon_II style integral pusher, for the sake of re-usability).

The Lunar version (w/o an LES) could have accommodations for 6 crew, and might mass 20t.  If the empty lander is also 20t, then the fueled gross mass would be 116t (Mr=2.9).  The 40t of capsule and empty lander would launch on New Glenn, which would refuel on LEO with 209t from a hydrolox depot (133t for NG S2 and 76t for Blue Moon).  At TLI, all the propellant is in NG-S2's tanks, which reduces structural mass for the lander and NG-S2 (the capsule and lander masses might need to scale down somewhat, since NG-S2 probably only carries 160t or so of propellant).

At Lunar touch-down, the mass would be 68t, so it would need about 23t thrust, 5-6 BE-7 engines.

So the whole mission fits on 1 New Glenn for the capsule/lander and (6 NG tankers or 2 Starship tankers).  If Blue can convince NASA that each NG can launch for say $100M, then it is a reasonable compliment to the Starship-only system, as well as providing a clear path to SLS retirement.

The LET program (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53708.0) could be the last chance for a long while for Blue to get NASA funding to help develop a passenger capsule and crew-rating for NG.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Nathan2go on 05/08/2021 09:06 pm
Ok, so coming at this from another angle: the goal is for Blue Origin to offer NASA an affordable alternative to a SpaceX-only Lunar program (using Gateway, rather than direct return).

The solution I suggest is to combine the three National Team elements into a single generic stage3 (that has two variants: a tanker and a unit with landing legs), that gets built in larger volume.  (For high-tech/low-volume stuff like HSF, development cost is more important than unit cost.)  It would be powered by a few BE-7 engines.  It would use tanker-docking w/ in-space fuel transfer instead of dry-docking specialized elements.

Because of the choice of hydrolox and the boil-off issue, LEO is the wrong place for most mission consolidation.  Because reaching NRHO is a stretch for a two-stage rocket and because this mission needs long endurance and docking, a third stage with these features makes sense.  The stage and crew cabin would be sized to be the largest that NG could throw to NRHO (arriving with empty tanks).

One thing that Blue has not talked about is that I think Blue Moon was intended to help with the TLI burn. Because the empty NG S2 is more massive than the TLI payload, dropping S2 before or partway through the TLI burns ends up boosting the TLI payload by 50% or so (from 7t to 11-13t), at the expense of making Blue Moon (and the Transfer stage) larger.  Hence the S3 should gross around 20-45t.

So for the NG-only mission variant, S3 with legs and crew cabin would be launched on a single NG, and arrive empty in NRHO.  Combined, they would mass around 16t (including 9t for crew capsule, cargo, and legs), and would need to be re-loaded with 30t of propellant for landing (46t gross).  The tanks for 30t of hydrolox, with 20% empty ullage, occupy a volume equivalent to a sphere 5.8m in diameter (nested spheres is good for fitting in a payload fairing and minimizing crew ladder height).  The propellant would be carried by three more 3-stage NG tanker launches.

For the SpaceX assisted alternative, a SpaceX Starship tanker launches first carrying only LOX, with enough margin for a few weeks of boil-off.  The NG with lander and extra LH2 launches next; after a fast rendezvous and LEO refueling it departs with a mass of 132t (46t filled lander, 20t S2 dry, and 66t S2 propellant).  Of the 66+30t of LEO propellant it will have, 13.7t will be LH2 which was brought to orbit along with the lander by NG-S2 (it will need a substantial tank stretch to hold this; S2 normally only carries around 23t of LH2; it also needs Starship-compatible rendezvous and propellant transfer capability).  The remaining 82t of propellant is the LOX transferred from the Starship tanker.

[not part of the lander proposal, but for a future extension: the S3 tanker variant described could also be used to assist a 2nd NG in sending Orion to NRHO.  The first tanker can loiter in LEO for several weeks, as it mainly serves to store LOX.  The Orion capsule launches on a stretched NG, so that it has extra LH2; it also has the rendezvous and propellant transfer capability.]

This Blue Moon Tanker/Lander simplification will reduce development cost; it is probably the plan Blue had before its expensive National Team was formed.  This plan cuts Lockheed and Northrop out of the picture (saving more cost); that could make it politically weaker, but the National Team politics failed before.  After the substantial height of the integrated lander from the National Team proposal, a single stage Blue Moon with a stacked common-dome tank will seem like an improvement for ladder height, as well as saving dry mass.

The (room-temp) storable propellant in the original National Team Ascent vehicle was a good choice for warmer equatorial locations.  But it was an expensive feature, that I don't think is worth it (given that multi-layer insulation and cryocoolers work fine).  The Northrop transfer stage is little more than a simplified legless Blue Moon.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Toast on 05/10/2021 03:58 pm
I don't see any way that NASA would launch Orion on New Glenn. I mean, the rocket isn't even flying yet and you're proposing a modified variant that would have to be developed and certified for crew--the expenses and time required to do so would make Blue's bid worse, not better. NASA will insist on launching crew on SLS+Orion. And a three-launch refueling in lunar orbit also sounds risky to me. Blue has already made the mistake of trying to run before they could walk by jumping straight to New Glenn from New Shepard, they shouldn't make the same mistake by committing to that kind of rapid cadence when they haven't even built (let alone flown) a single New Glenn--or any orbital rocket, for that matter. The technical risks in this plan just look huge to me, and I don't see any obvious ways that it will reduce cost.


The Orion capsule launches on a stretched NG, so that it has extra LH2; it also has the rendezvous and propellant transfer capability.
...
This plan cuts Lockheed and NG out of the picture (saving more cost)
Just a heads up, but abbreviating both New Glenn and Northrop Grumman as NG in the same post could be a bit confusing.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Nathan2go on 05/11/2021 04:45 am
I don't see any way that NASA would launch Orion on New Glenn. ...

And a three-launch refueling in lunar orbit also sounds risky to me. ...

I don't see any obvious ways that it will reduce cost.
...

Just a heads up, but abbreviating both New Glenn and Northrop Grumman as NG in the same post could be a bit confusing.

Thanks.  I have edited the post to indicate the Orion launch option is a consideration for future development, not part of the lander proposal.  Also, I have spelled-out Northrop.

Regarding three-launches and lunar refueling: I'm sure the National team partners made that same argument.  However, NASA's choice of SpaceX involves, what, 6-12 refuelings, and in the warm LEO environment?  This is a clear reduction in risk because the number of tankers is reduced and the environment is cold so there is little time pressure.

My guess is that the parts of the Integrated lander development cost breaks out like this:

crew cabin - 25%  (leveraging Orion)
ascender stage - 25%
lander stage - 30%
transfer stage - 20%
 = 100%

And the simplified proposal (relative to the original proposal):

crew cabin - 35%  (from scratch)
lander/ascender stage - 30%
tanker derivative - 5%
 = 70%

Ok, so it's still a lot of money, but I think that's the path to take if money is tight.

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: trimeta on 05/11/2021 03:01 pm
I don't see any way that NASA would launch Orion on New Glenn. ...

And a three-launch refueling in lunar orbit also sounds risky to me. ...

I don't see any obvious ways that it will reduce cost.
...

Just a heads up, but abbreviating both New Glenn and Northrop Grumman as NG in the same post could be a bit confusing.

Thanks.  I have edited the post to indicate the Orion launch option is a consideration for future development, not part of the lander proposal.  Also, I have spelled-out Northrop.

Regarding three-launches and lunar refueling: I'm sure the National team partners made that same argument.  However, NASA's choice of SpaceX involves, what, 6-12 refuelings, and in the warm LEO environment?  This is a clear reduction in risk because the number of tankers is reduced and the environment is cold so there is little time pressure.

My guess is that the parts of the Integrated lander development cost breaks out like this:

crew cabin - 25%  (leveraging Orion)
ascender stage - 25%
lander stage - 30%
transfer stage - 20%
 = 100%

And the simplified proposal (relative to the original proposal):

crew cabin - 35%  (from scratch)
lander/ascender stage - 30%
tanker derivative - 5%
 = 70%

Ok, so it's still a lot of money, but I think that's the path to take if money is tight.

Based on the Source Selection Statement, NASA explicitly called out refuelings in LEO to be substantially lower-risk than refueling in NRHO, even if the latter is colder and therefore there's theoretically less time pressure.

Another feature NASA liked about SpaceX's architecture was that the refueling flights are all basically identical: you need N of them to work, but you can plan to launch N+2, and if any N succeed, you're good. This reduces the risk of having a higher N, since you're not really depending on any one flight working. Your architecture has an N of 3-4, but all launches need to work. That may work out to higher risk.

This isn't to speak against your architecture as a concept: ultimately space architecture will need a multi-launch approach with actual assembly in space, not just refueling. But I think NASA would consider this a higher-risk architecture than what SpaceX offered, not a "clear reduction in risk."
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: omelet1978 on 07/03/2021 12:46 pm
Just out of curiousity, since the Blue Moon lander can potentially be re-fueled on the moon by melting water ice and turning it into rocket fuel, what would be the level of effort required to do that?

Could you land a Blue Moon cargo lander with the equipment and then on Artemis 1 (assuming Blue Origin gets funding either via the GAO protest or from Congress for their lander) & have the astronauts set it up or would it take a significant amount of equipment and be years away from being accomplished?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Thunderscreech on 07/03/2021 01:05 pm
Could you land a Blue Moon cargo lander with the equipment and then on Artemis 1 (assuming Blue Origin gets funding either via the GAO protest or from Congress for their lander) & have the astronauts set it up or would it take a significant amount of equipment and be years away from being accomplished?
Too many unknowns right now to answer with a good basis.  Is the ice in those shadows in the form of big ice walls?  Or is it mixed in with regolith?  Are there kilograms of the stuff in a light frost or megatons of it just sitting there?

Even if the ice is sitting just out of the sun in big cubes with mysterious forklift holes in the side waiting to be carried to a fuel factory, that's a whole set of challenges too.  Will your electrolysis plant run on solar that needs to be mounted to masts high enough up to get full-time coverage or does the ice need to be carried many kilometers?  Or do you have nuclear reactors, and if so, how long does it take to develop those and how much money?

Now we'll have to figure out how to tanker rockets on the moon, what does THAT engineering challenge look like?  Are there flexible hoses and couplings that can survive months or years in those conditions with regolith contamination and wild temperature changes?  Do you develop robots to carry them or will we need to learn how to have astronauts safely manage the infrastructure?

Both the knowns and the unknowns each come with potentially years of investment and science and engineering.  The payoff is potentially huge, but we don't even know what we don't know yet so a timeline that fits into any existing Artemis mission concept is a heck of a challenge right now.  Once there's some rovers and landers on the ground there, maybe....  MAYBE....  the scope of the challenge will start to gel, but until then it's like the Drake Equation; we're making up all the numbers for our 'what if scenarios' so a hundred teams will give you a hundred different answers and that's a hell of a way to run a lunar refueling railroad.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: omelet1978 on 07/03/2021 02:47 pm
Could you land a Blue Moon cargo lander with the equipment and then on Artemis 1 (assuming Blue Origin gets funding either via the GAO protest or from Congress for their lander) & have the astronauts set it up or would it take a significant amount of equipment and be years away from being accomplished?
Too many unknowns right now to answer with a good basis.  Is the ice in those shadows in the form of big ice walls?  Or is it mixed in with regolith?  Are there kilograms of the stuff in a light frost or megatons of it just sitting there?

Even if the ice is sitting just out of the sun in big cubes with mysterious forklift holes in the side waiting to be carried to a fuel factory, that's a whole set of challenges too.  Will your electrolysis plant run on solar that needs to be mounted to masts high enough up to get full-time coverage or does the ice need to be carried many kilometers?  Or do you have nuclear reactors, and if so, how long does it take to develop those and how much money?

Now we'll have to figure out how to tanker rockets on the moon, what does THAT engineering challenge look like?  Are there flexible hoses and couplings that can survive months or years in those conditions with regolith contamination and wild temperature changes?  Do you develop robots to carry them or will we need to learn how to have astronauts safely manage the infrastructure?

Both the knowns and the unknowns each come with potentially years of investment and science and engineering.  The payoff is potentially huge, but we don't even know what we don't know yet so a timeline that fits into any existing Artemis mission concept is a heck of a challenge right now.  Once there's some rovers and landers on the ground there, maybe....  MAYBE....  the scope of the challenge will start to gel, but until then it's like the Drake Equation; we're making up all the numbers for our 'what if scenarios' so a hundred teams will give you a hundred different answers and that's a hell of a way to run a lunar refueling railroad.


Thank you for the info. Honestly I wish this could be a major part of the mission. Figuring out in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) on the moon before going to Mars.

We can't even land humans there now so this is a decade or two in the future but I keep hearing that if you could do in-situ resource utilization and make fuel on the moon it opens up a lot of possibilities bc of the lower lunar gravity. I'm not sure whether that would be a space tug or just transporting the fuel to LEO though.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DreamyPickle on 07/03/2021 03:58 pm
Thank you for the info. Honestly I wish this could be a major part of the mission. Figuring out in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) on the moon before going to Mars.

The VIPER rover (https://www.nasa.gov/viper) is aimed at determining the feasibility of ISRU on the moon. There's also a thread on NSF (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51174.0) for it. Water detection at the moon's south pole so far comes orbiters, not actual sampling.

This business seems very speculative, it's likely to be very difficult and slow to extract and the total quantities available might be small. Definitely not something that you can do with a single Blue Moon lander.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Ludus on 07/26/2021 05:06 pm
 https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/26/bezos-offers-to-cover-2-billion-in-exchange-for-nasa-contract.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/26/bezos-offers-to-cover-2-billion-in-exchange-for-nasa-contract.html)

Bezos offers to waive $2B to get a share of the Artemis Lander contract.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: matthewkantar on 07/26/2021 05:33 pm
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/26/bezos-offers-to-cover-2-billion-in-exchange-for-nasa-contract.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/26/bezos-offers-to-cover-2-billion-in-exchange-for-nasa-contract.html)

Bezos offers to waive $2B to get a share of the Artemis Lander contract.

Is this like buying a building on campus to get your kid into a college they are not qualified for?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: AU1.52 on 07/26/2021 06:12 pm
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/26/bezos-offers-to-cover-2-billion-in-exchange-for-nasa-contract.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/26/bezos-offers-to-cover-2-billion-in-exchange-for-nasa-contract.html)

Bezos offers to waive $2B to get a share of the Artemis Lander contract.

Is this like buying a building on campus to get your kid into a college they are not qualified for?


It does feel like a offering a gift to a government employee to gain a service - if the letter had not been public - illegal. and GAO report is not even done yet on Blues complaint!
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DreamyPickle on 07/26/2021 06:18 pm
It does feel like a offering a gift to a government employee to gain a service.
This is an offer for NASA, not for the private gain of any particular government employee.

I really don't understand why people are objecting to negotiations.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: dlapine on 07/26/2021 06:32 pm
It does feel like a offering a gift to a government employee to gain a service.
This is an offer for NASA, not for the private gain of any particular government employee.

I really don't understand why people are objecting to negotiations.

Because there was a technical competition, which Blue Origin's team lost and then sued, and that suit is still under consideration? That there's no "negotiations" with NASA at this point, but maybe at the congressional level?

At the best, it can be perceived as an attempt to "bend the rules" ; at worst, a violation of ethics regulations.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: matthewkantar on 07/26/2021 06:33 pm
It does feel like a offering a gift to a government employee to gain a service.
This is an offer for NASA, not for the private gain of any particular government employee.

I really don't understand why people are objecting to negotiations.

Elements of the letter are counterfactual or outright speculation. B.O. lost the the competition and are trying to force their way back in. It is at very least bad sportsmanship. It also feels weird for them to have fought for two billion dollars and to now decide, oh, never mind, the tax payers can keep the money.

It's desperate, I believe unprecedented, sketchy, etc. They had all the money in the world and lost, now everyone is supposed to be okay with them buying their way in?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/26/2021 06:37 pm

At the best, it can be perceived as an attempt to "bend the rules" ; at worst, a violation of ethics regulations.

Don't be ridiculous. It is an unsolicited bid, which other companies routinely do, including SpaceX.

Quote
Months before the U.S. Defense Department disclosed plans to award a sole-source contract to United Launch Alliance for a block of national security satellite launches, the Air Force turned down an unsolicited bid from Space Exploration Technologies Corp. to launch the service’s GPS 3 navigation satellites for $79.9 million each, according to new filings in federal court.
https://spacenews.com/40904usaf-rejected-spacex-offer-to-launch-gps-3-satellites-for-80m-each/

In fact, NASA publishes guidelines for unsolicited proposals...

Quote
Guidance for the Preparation and Submission of Unsolicited Proposals
https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/pub/pub_library/unSol-Prop.html
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: vaporcobra on 07/26/2021 07:03 pm

At the best, it can be perceived as an attempt to "bend the rules" ; at worst, a violation of ethics regulations.

Don't be ridiculous. It is an unsolicited bid, which other companies routinely do, including SpaceX.

Quote
Months before the U.S. Defense Department disclosed plans to award a sole-source contract to United Launch Alliance for a block of national security satellite launches, the Air Force turned down an unsolicited bid from Space Exploration Technologies Corp. to launch the service’s GPS 3 navigation satellites for $79.9 million each, according to new filings in federal court.
https://spacenews.com/40904usaf-rejected-spacex-offer-to-launch-gps-3-satellites-for-80m-each/

SpaceX doesn't publish public letters to agency heads effectively begging for a seat at the table after losing a fair competition. ULA's sole-source contract was awarded without competition. Blue Origin purporting to send an open letter to the NASA administrator effectively asking him to violate all kinds of rules and laws to invalidate a fair competition BEFORE Blue's own GAO protest has been completed is a mockery of the concept of a good-faith unsolicited bid. The only possible way this letter could change things is if Congress sees it and tries to go over NASA's head again and force them to include Blue Origin.

And I'll also add that a public letter full of dubious claims and no objective data is nowhere to be found in NASA's guide for submitting unsolicited proposals through the correct, established channels :) https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/pub/pub_library/unSol-Prop.html#IIISubmission
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/26/2021 07:18 pm

At the best, it can be perceived as an attempt to "bend the rules" ; at worst, a violation of ethics regulations.

Don't be ridiculous. It is an unsolicited bid, which other companies routinely do, including SpaceX.

Quote
Months before the U.S. Defense Department disclosed plans to award a sole-source contract to United Launch Alliance for a block of national security satellite launches, the Air Force turned down an unsolicited bid from Space Exploration Technologies Corp. to launch the service’s GPS 3 navigation satellites for $79.9 million each, according to new filings in federal court.
https://spacenews.com/40904usaf-rejected-spacex-offer-to-launch-gps-3-satellites-for-80m-each/

SpaceX doesn't publish public letters to agency heads effectively begging for a seat at the table after losing a fair competition. ULA's sole-source contract was awarded without competition. Blue Origin purporting to send an open letter to the NASA administrator effectively asking him to violate all kinds of rules and laws to invalidate a fair competition BEFORE Blue's own GAO protest has been completed is a mockery of the concept of a good-faith unsolicited bid. The only possible way this letter could change things is if Congress sees it and tries to go over NASA's head again and force them to include Blue Origin.

And I'll also add that a public letter full of dubious claims and no objective data is nowhere to be found in NASA's guide for submitting unsolicited proposals through the correct, established channels :) https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/pub/pub_library/unSol-Prop.html#IIISubmission

Well, that page wouldn't really apply to this case, sorry about the confusion (this wouldn't be a grant). This was just an example to show unsolicited proposals are not unusual or discouraged in a wide range of areas. Actual regulations regarding unsolicited proposals for contracts are covered under FAR subpart 15.6.

Specifically..

Quote
    (a) Preliminary contact with agency technical or other appropriate personnel before preparing a detailed unsolicited proposal or submitting proprietary information to the Government may save considerable time and effort for both parties (see 15.201). Agencies must make available to potential offerors of unsolicited proposals at least the following information:

           (1) Definition (see 2.101) and content (see 15.605) of an unsolicited proposal acceptable for formal evaluation.

           (2) Requirements concerning responsible prospective contractors (see subpart  9.1), and organizational conflicts of interest (see subpart  9.5).

           (3) Guidance on preferred methods for submitting ideas/concepts to the Government, such as any agency: upcoming solicitations; Broad Agency Announcements; Small Business Innovation Research programs; Small Business Technology Transfer Research programs; Program Research and Development Announcements; or grant programs.

           (4) Agency points of contact for information regarding advertising, contributions, and other types of transactions similar to unsolicited proposals.

           (5) Information sources on agency objectives and areas of potential interest.

           (6) Procedures for submission and evaluation of unsolicited proposals.

           (7) Instructions for identifying and marking proprietary information so that it is protected and restrictive legends conform to 15.609.

      (b) Only the cognizant contracting officer has the authority to bind the Government regarding unsolicited proposals.
https://www.acquisition.gov/far/15.604

Quote
SpaceX doesn't publish public letters to agency heads effectively begging for a seat at the table after losing a fair competition.


They just did it behind closed doors with the Secretary of Defense? This is supposed to be superior?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Wudizzle on 07/26/2021 07:22 pm
I know nothing about the ins and outs of government contracting, but it sure seems to me like Blue Origin had the opportunity to bid on this contract for $2bn less than they did, and decided not to.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: deadman1204 on 07/26/2021 07:38 pm
Aside from being full of outright lies much less exaggeration, the letter wasn't really to NASA. IF it was, they wouldn't have published it. The letter is to congress because appropriations committees will be voting the budget amendments this week.

This is simply another try by Blue to reverse the decision that it lost. Its more sour grapes. Bezos will still be stealing billions of dollars from NASA that can't go on to be used for other things.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: matthewkantar on 07/26/2021 07:56 pm
Still chewing on this gristly bit. Bezos has publicized spending a billion dollars a year on B.O. He is going to spend that money in any case. Who does he think he is fooling? Did he not run this by a PR professional or his mom or an intern?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: trimeta on 07/26/2021 08:00 pm
There's nothing wrong with Blue Origin wanting to develop a lunar lander using their own money, and telling Congress "hey, we're going to be halfway through developing a lander when the LETS contract decision is made, it would be really great if you funded that to the level where NASA could pick up the rest of the tab at that point." This is exactly what the LETS contract is for, in fact. But acting like NASA should go back and undo a previously-signed contract because now Blue Origin wants to retroactively change its bid...I don't necessarily think there's anything overtly unethical about that (lies and exaggerations in the letter itself aside), but NASA would be fully in their rights to laugh in Blue's face.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Jim on 07/26/2021 08:20 pm
Aside from being full of outright lies much less exaggeration, the letter wasn't really to NASA. IF it was, they wouldn't have published it. The letter is to congress because appropriations committees will be voting the budget amendments this week.

This is simply another try by Blue to reverse the decision that it lost. Its more sour grapes. Bezos will still be stealing billions of dollars from NASA that can't go on to be used for other things.

Wrong and wrong.  Once again, you are accusing somebody of lying without proof and spreading lies yourself
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Redclaws on 07/26/2021 08:46 pm
Still chewing on this gristly bit. Bezos has publicized spending a billion dollars a year on B.O. He is going to spend that money in any case. Who does he think he is fooling? Did he not run this by a PR professional or his mom or an intern?

What on earth?  What is this interpretation?

You’re just … asserting that this is all money he was going to spend anyway (don’t see why that would be since this is a significant expansion of what they’re doing) AND you’re talking about that like it’s a problem…?  SpaceX is offering their bid as low as it is because they’re already planning to spend a lot of their own money on starship for their own reasons.  That’s generally considered a *good* thing.

Yes, this is a bit weird, but if Bezos wants to pour extra money in to this then why should we complain?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Redclaws on 07/26/2021 08:49 pm
There's nothing wrong with Blue Origin wanting to develop a lunar lander using their own money, and telling Congress "hey, we're going to be halfway through developing a lander when the LETS contract decision is made, it would be really great if you funded that to the level where NASA could pick up the rest of the tab at that point." This is exactly what the LETS contract is for, in fact. But acting like NASA should go back and undo a previously-signed contract because now Blue Origin wants to retroactively change its bid...I don't necessarily think there's anything overtly unethical about that (lies and exaggerations in the letter itself aside), but NASA would be fully in their rights to laugh in Blue's face.

It’s a really weird way to get there, but honestly it’s a lot like what SpaceX is doing.  No one is suggesting - not even Elon - that SpaceX can develop the complete system for what they’re charging.  They’re saying it’s *enough* to make it worth their while to adapt it for the moon.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: trimeta on 07/26/2021 09:07 pm
There's nothing wrong with Blue Origin wanting to develop a lunar lander using their own money, and telling Congress "hey, we're going to be halfway through developing a lander when the LETS contract decision is made, it would be really great if you funded that to the level where NASA could pick up the rest of the tab at that point." This is exactly what the LETS contract is for, in fact. But acting like NASA should go back and undo a previously-signed contract because now Blue Origin wants to retroactively change its bid...I don't necessarily think there's anything overtly unethical about that (lies and exaggerations in the letter itself aside), but NASA would be fully in their rights to laugh in Blue's face.

It’s a really weird way to get there, but honestly it’s a lot like what SpaceX is doing.  No one is suggesting - not even Elon - that SpaceX can develop the complete system for what they’re charging.  They’re saying it’s *enough* to make it worth their while to adapt it for the moon.

Although this does highlight one of the major differences between Lunar Starship and the National Team Lander. Lunar Starship is a modification of an existing system that SpaceX is building anyway, a system they think will be profitable on its own. So that's their internal justification for putting their own money towards Starship: they expect a return on investment. The money for Lunar Starship, as you say, is just adapting it for the Moon.

There's no parallel for the National Team Lander: carrying passengers from NRHO to the lunar surface and back is all it can do. There may be some commercial applications of adapting the Transfer Element as a general-purpose in-space tug, but the rest is just for lunar missions. So if Blue Origin is investing money into this lander concept, how do they foresee making money, other than "NASA pays us for lunar landings"? It calls into question their plans to self-invest, because what technology are they actually investing in, that will bring future returns for the company?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JayWee on 07/26/2021 09:18 pm
There's nothing wrong with Blue Origin wanting to develop a lunar lander using their own money, and telling Congress "hey, we're going to be halfway through developing a lander when the LETS contract decision is made, it would be really great if you funded that to the level where NASA could pick up the rest of the tab at that point." This is exactly what the LETS contract is for, in fact. But acting like NASA should go back and undo a previously-signed contract because now Blue Origin wants to retroactively change its bid...I don't necessarily think there's anything overtly unethical about that (lies and exaggerations in the letter itself aside), but NASA would be fully in their rights to laugh in Blue's face.

It’s a really weird way to get there, but honestly it’s a lot like what SpaceX is doing.  No one is suggesting - not even Elon - that SpaceX can develop the complete system for what they’re charging.  They’re saying it’s *enough* to make it worth their while to adapt it for the moon.
The difference is that SpaceX has *very clear* use of Spaceship outside of HLS contract and therefore it makes sense for them to spend $6B on it and ask just for $3B - Starlink will pay for it handsomely.
But Blue Origin? There's no other use of the BO lander than Artemis. So the only way to recoup the investment is to charge NASA way more for individual missions...

On to of that - the proposed lander has to be massively redesigned for 4 crew capability (the sustainable phase) - ie, money just thrown away
From the HLS selection:
Quote
While the solicitation does not require sustainable features for the offeror’s initial approach, it did require the offeror to propose a clear, well-reasoned, and cost-effective approach to achieving a sustainable capability. Blue Origin proposed a notional plan to do so, but this plan requires considerable reengineering and recertifying of each element, which calls into question the plan’s feasibility, practicality, and cost-effectiveness. Blue Origin’s two architectures are substantially different from one another.
...
The SEP observed that this “from the ground-up” plan is likely to require additional time, considerable effort, and significant additional cost to design and develop new technologies and capabilities, and to undertake re-engineering and re-certification efforts for Blue Origin’s sustainable lander elements utilizing new heavier lift launch vehicles and modified operations.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: clongton on 07/26/2021 09:57 pm
This incident has made clear something a lot of us here have suspected - Jeff Bezos has been outclassed by Elon Musk. The proof is that he has been reduced to trying to buy a contract that he was not capable of winning.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Ludus on 07/26/2021 10:08 pm
There's nothing wrong with Blue Origin wanting to develop a lunar lander using their own money, and telling Congress "hey, we're going to be halfway through developing a lander when the LETS contract decision is made, it would be really great if you funded that to the level where NASA could pick up the rest of the tab at that point." This is exactly what the LETS contract is for, in fact. But acting like NASA should go back and undo a previously-signed contract because now Blue Origin wants to retroactively change its bid...I don't necessarily think there's anything overtly unethical about that (lies and exaggerations in the letter itself aside), but NASA would be fully in their rights to laugh in Blue's face.

It’s a really weird way to get there, but honestly it’s a lot like what SpaceX is doing.  No one is suggesting - not even Elon - that SpaceX can develop the complete system for what they’re charging.  They’re saying it’s *enough* to make it worth their while to adapt it for the moon.

Although this does highlight one of the major differences between Lunar Starship and the National Team Lander. Lunar Starship is a modification of an existing system that SpaceX is building anyway, a system they think will be profitable on its own. So that's their internal justification for putting their own money towards Starship: they expect a return on investment. The money for Lunar Starship, as you say, is just adapting it for the Moon.

There's no parallel for the National Team Lander: carrying passengers from NRHO to the lunar surface and back is all it can do. There may be some commercial applications of adapting the Transfer Element as a general-purpose in-space tug, but the rest is just for lunar missions. So if Blue Origin is investing money into this lander concept, how do they foresee making money, other than "NASA pays us for lunar landings"? It calls into question their plans to self-invest, because what technology are they actually investing in, that will bring future returns for the company?

 https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/bezos-says-he-is-now-willing-to-invest-in-a-moon-lander-heres-why/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/bezos-says-he-is-now-willing-to-invest-in-a-moon-lander-heres-why/)

Much like Arstechnica’s take. Seriously reworking the proposal to complement Starship rather than compete with it might make sense. They have strong points that the BE-7 deep throttle Hydrolox engine is better suited to a small lunar lander and exploration ship that uses ISRU propellant. Starship provides an instant Lunar base and gateway and can land 100 tons at a time of ISRU gear. The Blue Lander shouldn’t be a multipart reworking of an Apollo LEM. It should be highly reusable and flexible, single stage, able to dock with Starship, able to serve many future purposes. That’s what would justify subsidizing it. It would be Blue’s lunar lander spacecraft, not NASA’s.

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/26/2021 10:09 pm
This incident has made clear something a lot of us here have suspected - Jeff Bezos has been outclassed by Elon Musk. The proof is that he has been reduced to trying to buy a contract that he was not capable of winning.

Ooh, harsh!

But it is accurate to say that they were not capable of winning the initial HLS contract, regardless whether SpaceX was competing or not, because they had a deficient design and bad negotiation skills.

So yes, this is Jeff Bezos using the power of his wealth to buy Blue Origin back into the HLS program.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Oersted on 07/26/2021 10:52 pm
At this stage, Bezos should just say, "Hell, we go for it alone", move on and build his rocket, moon lander, re-entry capsule, spacesuits and life support systems, nav and comms systems, etc, etc, etc. And beat NASA and SpaceX to the Moon to show how it's done. Should be feasible within his expected lifetime.   
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/27/2021 01:42 am
I can see Bezos covering Blues costs but who is covering NGIS and LM costs. These companies don't self funds projects like this, they expect NASA to.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JohnM on 07/27/2021 01:54 am
I can see Bezos covering Blues costs but who is covering NGIS and LM costs. These companies don't self funds projects like this, they expect NASA to.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Wouldn't you think that Bezos is putting in his own money and BO is getting practically nothing from the $4B from NASA. All of that money would go to the National Team's partners. Like you said, they don't self-fund only Bezos will.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: meekGee on 07/27/2021 02:55 am
Aside from being full of outright lies much less exaggeration, the letter wasn't really to NASA. IF it was, they wouldn't have published it. The letter is to congress because appropriations committees will be voting the budget amendments this week.

This is simply another try by Blue to reverse the decision that it lost. Its more sour grapes. Bezos will still be stealing billions of dollars from NASA that can't go on to be used for other things.
Exactly.

The whole point of a bid is that everyone puts their honest offer forward, and then the procurer selects.

You can't "trial bid" an inflated proposal, and then after seeing everyone else's bid, re-bid a lower proposal.

It keeps players honest - or at least tries to..
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 07/27/2021 04:42 am
This incident has made clear something a lot of us here have suspected - Jeff Bezos has been outclassed by Elon Musk. The proof is that he has been reduced to trying to buy a contract that he was not capable of winning.

Buying with a limited term offer. Note the wording "up to $2B for this and the next two fiscal years". This isn't 1/3 off the price unless NASA buys now, and commits to a schedule that would align progress to maximize that spending pledge.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: M.E.T. on 07/27/2021 04:53 am
At this stage, Bezos should just say, "Hell, we go for it alone", move on and build his rocket, moon lander, re-entry capsule, spacesuits and life support systems, nav and comms systems, etc, etc, etc. And beat NASA and SpaceX to the Moon to show how it's done. Should be feasible within his expected lifetime.

Wait, what? ;D
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: M.E.T. on 07/27/2021 05:01 am
It has become pretty clear that Bezos cares almost exclusively about PERCEIVED achievements. Like meaningless 5 minute hops above the Karman line to claim he is a space traveller.

Landing the Blue contraption on the lunar surface is the same thing. Not very useful, but it allows him to publicly claim he took astronauts back to the Moon.

Musk, by contrast, cares about the substance of his achievements. Not for him a meaningless race to do a personal sub-orbital hop first.

And little point for him to land an all but obsolete rehashed Apollo lander on the Moon for one time bragging rights. Nope, if he is going to the Moon, he wants to land hundreds of tons on the lunar surface, and build a permanent base there.

That’s a key difference between the two men. The pursuit of prestige vs the goal of actually moving humanity forward.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: StormtrooperJoe on 07/27/2021 05:12 am
What gets me is is that Bezos should know better. He created a massively successful high-tech company with many independently successful arms. He should be well aware of the fact that in order to displace the industry he needs to bring the startup mentality and focus on moving fast and breaking things, but here he is years later still doing what amounts to twiddling his thumbs. My hope is that given that he recently retired from Amazon, he will now devote more time to getting Blue Origin's act together, but I'm certainly not optimistic
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: M.E.T. on 07/27/2021 05:57 am
What gets me is is that Bezos should know better. He created a massively successful high-tech company with many independently successful arms. He should be well aware of the fact that in order to displace the industry he needs to bring the startup mentality and focus on moving fast and breaking things, but here he is years later still doing what amounts to twiddling his thumbs. My hope is that given that he recently retired from Amazon, he will now devote more time to getting Blue Origin's act together, but I'm certainly not optimistic

Eric Berger reported the following recently:

””In late 2019, while reporting for my book on the origins of SpaceX, Liftoff, I asked Musk why he thought Blue Origin had fallen behind. “Bezos is not great at engineering, to be frank," Musk replied””

Reference article below.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/despite-tuesdays-fight-jeff-bezos-is-running-out-of-time-to-save-blue-origin/
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: su27k on 07/27/2021 06:05 am
At this stage, Bezos should just say, "Hell, we go for it alone", move on and build his rocket, moon lander, re-entry capsule, spacesuits and life support systems, nav and comms systems, etc, etc, etc. And beat NASA and SpaceX to the Moon to show how it's done. Should be feasible within his expected lifetime.

I mean if he has the zeal to do this, he wouldn't be in this predicament in the first place...
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: clongton on 07/27/2021 08:15 am
<snip>And beat NASA and SpaceX to the Moon to show how it's done.</snip>
He certainly has the money to try this but I honestly don't think he has the stones.
Musk was willing to bet the whole farm. I doubt Bezos has that kind of courage.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: omelet1978 on 07/27/2021 11:45 pm
Just my two cents on Jeff Bezos offering to cover 2 billion of the Blue Origin Lunar Lander costs, and  if I were to place a bet Blue Origin will get a contract at the end of the day. You guys are the experts here so let me know if my logic makes sense:

1. I’m generally supportive of the National Team Lander for landing humans in that it has an abort system. If something goes wrong they can separate the top module (build by Lockheed) and abort at anytime.

2. According to the NASA report that selected SpaceX Lunar Starship the cost for the Blue Origin Lander was 6 billion rather than 10 billion. So if the contract to Blue Origin is a fixed price 4 billion contract then that could work.

3. From reviewing the NASA report that selected the SpaceX Lunar Starship NASA was most likely going to select the Blue Origin lander anyway since the Dynetics lander had “negative mass” which means that it could not land.

4. There is no mention of the Blue Origin Lunar lander’s engines being ready by 2024 which was highlighted in the NASA report. Given the BE-4 stuff, that’s not a good sign and it probably means this lander won’t be ready by 2024.

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Rebel44 on 07/28/2021 12:41 am
Just my two cents on Jeff Bezos offering to cover 2 billion of the Blue Origin Lunar Lander costs, and  if I were to place a bet Blue Origin will get a contract at the end of the day. You guys are the experts here so let me know if my logic makes sense:

1. I’m generally supportive of the National Team Lander for landing humans in that it has an abort system. If something goes wrong they can separate the top module (build by Lockheed) and abort at anytime.

2. According to the NASA report that selected SpaceX Lunar Starship the cost for the Blue Origin Lander was 6 billion rather than 10 billion. So if the contract to Blue Origin is a fixed price 4 billion contract then that could work.

3. From reviewing the NASA report that selected the SpaceX Lunar Starship NASA was most likely going to select the Blue Origin lander anyway since the Dynetics lander had “negative mass” which means that it could not land.

4. There is no mention of the Blue Origin Lunar lander’s engines being ready by 2024 which was highlighted in the NASA report. Given the BE-4 stuff, that’s not a good sign and it probably means this lander won’t be ready by 2024.

1. Unless GAO rules otherwise, HLS Option A selection is over. BO/National Team will be able to compete in LETS for later Lunar landings (for which they will have to redesign their lander since it doesn't fit "sustainable" criteria).

2. After accounting for the SpaceX HLS award + initial funding for LETS, there is practically no more $ - so NASA couldn't afford those $4B.

3. Yes, the proposal evaluation was SpaceX > National Team > Dynetics. But in LETS (new competition for later Lunar landings) everyone (including companies that were eliminated from HLS earlies and those that didn't compete) will be able to participate, so Dynetics and others will be able to improve their design.

4. There were several items in the National Teams proposal that effectively made 2024 impossible. IMO, even SpaceX with their fast development would have to be pretty lucky be ready to land people in 2024.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/28/2021 12:54 am

2. After accounting for the SpaceX HLS award + initial funding for LETS, there is practically no more $ - so NASA couldn't afford those $4B.


No, there is money for a second lander. For instance, the budget allocated so far for HLS + the house version of FY2022 is about $3 billion which matches SpaceX' bid amount for Option A. The funding over the next decade assuming a flat budget from FY2022 (adjusted for inflation, assuming the budget roughly matches the house version) is about $13-14 billion. As such, they could fund Blue Origin and SpaceX's ~$7 billion for 2 initial flights and still have $7 billion left over for task orders.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Redclaws on 07/28/2021 12:57 am

2. After accounting for the SpaceX HLS award + initial funding for LETS, there is practically no more $ - so NASA couldn't afford those $4B.


No, there is money for a second lander. For instance, the budget allocated so far for HLS + the house version of FY2022 is about $3 billion which matches SpaceX' bid amount for Option A. The funding over the next decade assuming a flat budget from FY2022 (adjusted for inflation, assuming the budget roughly matches the house version) is about $13-14 billion. As such, they could fund Blue Origin and SpaceX's ~$7 billion for 2 initial flights and still have $7 billion left over for task orders.

Is this additional funding from after the source selection statement was written?  Or is it a different way of counting?  Because the source selection statement was quite clear that there wasn’t enough money for multiple proposals.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Rebel44 on 07/28/2021 01:19 am

2. After accounting for the SpaceX HLS award + initial funding for LETS, there is practically no more $ - so NASA couldn't afford those $4B.


No, there is money for a second lander. For instance, the budget allocated so far for HLS + the house version of FY2022 is about $3 billion which matches SpaceX' bid amount for Option A. The funding over the next decade assuming a flat budget from FY2022 (adjusted for inflation, assuming the budget roughly matches the house version) is about $13-14 billion. As such, they could fund Blue Origin and SpaceX's ~$7 billion for 2 initial flights and still have $7 billion left over for task orders.

Can you please quote where exactly did you find those $3B?

Because this tweet indicates that HLS funding for 2022 (if approved) would be around $1.3B and that includes both SpaceX award and initial LETS contracts (and I am not sure if it included the cost of NASA overhead) - accounting for that, the total funding for SpaceX HLS award in those 2 budgets is likely under $2B

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1415393379513475073

So, even if you assume that the SpaceX HLS contract would be fully covered by the end of the FY23 budget and that Congress would be OK with continuing to pay $1B per year for Lunar lander development, that would put the National Teams funding into FY24-27 - and that would be for the current non-sustainable lander (according to HLS source selection, the lander would have to be redesigned to become sustainable).
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/28/2021 01:19 am

2. After accounting for the SpaceX HLS award + initial funding for LETS, there is practically no more $ - so NASA couldn't afford those $4B.


No, there is money for a second lander. For instance, the budget allocated so far for HLS + the house version of FY2022 is about $3 billion which matches SpaceX' bid amount for Option A. The funding over the next decade assuming a flat budget from FY2022 (adjusted for inflation, assuming the budget roughly matches the house version) is about $13-14 billion. As such, they could fund Blue Origin and SpaceX's ~$7 billion for 2 initial flights and still have $7 billion left over for task orders.

Is this additional funding from after the source selection statement was written?  Or is it a different way of counting?  Because the source selection statement was quite clear that there wasn’t enough money for multiple proposals.

Yes, the house bill is new. The house bill provides $1.345 billion, which is ~60% higher than the FY 2021 budget of $850 million that NASA was working under and was the constraint that allowed for only 1 award under the originally proposed milestone payment timetables. But the Blue Origin lander would have no costs from the contractor until FY24, which is close to when the SpaceX lander is supposed to be done with all its development milestones on the originally assumed time table anyway (and if they don't make the time table, there is extra money left over within fiscal years that goes unused anyway). The main problem with 2 contractors was their aggressive development timelines and milestone payment timetables (for the 2024 landing) would stack on top of each other. With the nearly doubling of funding for HLS based on the current congressional process occuring and no Blue Origin fees for 2 years that effectively staggers the development surge costs, their shouldn't be much problem with funding two providers.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: HarmonicGF2 on 07/30/2021 04:37 pm
GAO has denied Blue Origin's protest
https://www.gao.gov/press-release/statement-blue-origin-dynetics-decision
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: gaballard on 07/30/2021 04:42 pm
GAO has denied Blue Origin's protest
https://www.gao.gov/press-release/statement-blue-origin-dynetics-decision

I love the smell of schadenfreude in the morning...
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: su27k on 07/31/2021 05:02 am
Looks like Northrop Grumman is not interested in making contributions: Nelson remains hopeful Congress will provide additional lunar lander funding (https://spacenews.com/nelson-remains-hopeful-congress-will-provide-additional-lunar-lander-funding/)

Quote from: SpaceNews
Blue Origin’s HLS proposal was as the leader of its so-called “National Team” that includes Draper, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. During a July 29 earnings call, Northrop executives sidestepped a question about how Blue Origin’s proposal would affect its role in the HLS program.

“When we lead an effort, we will choose to make sizable investment to protect that program and increase our probability of win over its life because of the advantage that you have got when you are the leader, the prime-only effort. And that’s exactly what Blue Origin is doing,” Kathy Warden, president and chief executive of Northrop Grumman, said.

“In the case of Northrop Grumman, we have to do that similar business case assessment and we have come to different answers in terms of what our contribution should be to the overall program financials,” she added. “In any good partnership that you lay out the clear expectations of each party but also the benefits to be gained by each party and aligning of expectations for financial investment.”
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: NaN on 07/31/2021 07:27 am
Looks like Northrop Grumman is not interested in making contributions: Nelson remains hopeful Congress will provide additional lunar lander funding (https://spacenews.com/nelson-remains-hopeful-congress-will-provide-additional-lunar-lander-funding/)

Quote from: SpaceNews
...
“In the case of Northrop Grumman, we have to do that similar business case assessment and we have come to different answers in terms of what our contribution should be to the overall program financials,” she added. “In any good partnership that you lay out the clear expectations of each party but also the benefits to be gained by each party and aligning of expectations for financial investment.”

No reason that they should, unless they foresaw a large commercial market for their transfer element as a space tug. Even then I doubt it would have made a material difference, as Northrop Grumman would not be a big part of the National Team's price tag. N-G had the least demanding of the three elements and the one most closely related to something already operational. L-M likely commanded a sizable chunk of the team's budget.

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: omelet1978 on 08/02/2021 03:35 am
So what does the GAO ruling mean for the Blue Moon lander at this point?

Are we thinking Congress is actually going to give more money for a second lander? I like this lander bc of the abort capability, and from doing a bit of digging it appears that this would be the second choice after the Lunar Starship.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/02/2021 03:55 am
So what does the GAO ruling mean for the Blue Moon lander at this point?

It means that the HLS contract, as awarded by NASA, is allowed to continue. And that means that SpaceX has a contract, but the Blue Origin National Team, and Dynetics, don't have an award under this specific contract.

Quote
Are we thinking Congress is actually going to give more money for a second lander? I like this lander bc of the abort capability, and from doing a bit of digging it appears that this would be the second choice after the Lunar Starship.

I think most people think redundancy is a good idea. This initial contract only provides for one operational mission, so NASA still needs to award additional contracts for Artemis IV and beyond. However those were not intended to include development and testing of a lunar landing system, so Congress would have to authorize NASA to add another provider and fund them for development and testing, along with operational contracts.

We'll see if Congress does that...
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Comga on 08/02/2021 04:29 pm
So what does the GAO ruling mean for the Blue Moon lander at this point?

It means that the HLS contract, as awarded by NASA, is allowed to continue. And that means that SpaceX has a contract, but the Blue Origin National Team, and Dynetics, don't have an award under this specific contract.

Quote
Are we thinking Congress is actually going to give more money for a second lander? I like this lander bc of the abort capability, and from doing a bit of digging it appears that this would be the second choice after the Lunar Starship.

I think most people think redundancy is a good idea. This initial contract only provides for one operational mission, so NASA still needs to award additional contracts for Artemis IV and beyond. However those were not intended to include development and testing of a lunar landing system, so Congress would have to authorize NASA to add another provider and fund them for development and testing, along with operational contracts.

We'll see if Congress does that...

“Be careful what you wish for. You may get (half of) it.”

Odds are, if Congress intervenes the way it has they will mandate a second system and not fund it. Particularly if, despite a promised $2B subsidy it STILL costs more than the awarded system.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: omelet1978 on 08/03/2021 02:22 am
Just out of curiosity, could a second Blue Moon cargo lander land with it's cargo being fuel?

Basically land, have the Astronauts fuel up the lower stage of the Blue Moon human lander as well as the cargo version that just landed, the Astronauts then take off in their crew module, and then fly them both unmanned back to the Lunar Gateway?

I'm guessing that probably wouldn't work, but it just seems a shame to only have the ascent portion of the Blue Moon lander be reusable.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Joseph Peterson on 08/03/2021 09:21 am
Just out of curiosity, could a second Blue Moon cargo lander land with it's cargo being fuel?

Basically land, have the Astronauts fuel up the lower stage of the Blue Moon human lander as well as the cargo version that just landed, the Astronauts then take off in their crew module, and then fly them both unmanned back to the Lunar Gateway?

I'm guessing that probably wouldn't work, but it just seems a shame to only have the ascent portion of the Blue Moon lander be reusable.

In theory yes.

In practice why not avoid the LOC and LOM risks associated with a staging event and propellant transfer and design a single stage lander that fulfills the roles of both descent and ascent stages in a single package?

The only non-political practical reason that jumps out at me is avoiding the voluminous requirement that is fitting a reusable hydrolox single stage lander inside a Vulcan fairing.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/03/2021 10:23 am
Just out of curiosity, could a second Blue Moon cargo lander land with it's cargo being fuel?

Basically land, have the Astronauts fuel up the lower stage of the Blue Moon human lander as well as the cargo version that just landed, the Astronauts then take off in their crew module, and then fly them both unmanned back to the Lunar Gateway?

I'm guessing that probably wouldn't work, but it just seems a shame to only have the ascent portion of the Blue Moon lander be reusable.

In theory yes.

In practice why not avoid the LOC and LOM risks associated with a staging event and propellant transfer and design a single stage lander that fulfills the roles of both descent and ascent stages in a single package?

The only non-political practical reason that jumps out at me is avoiding the voluminous requirement that is fitting a reusable hydrolox single stage lander inside a Vulcan fairing.
25t of Hydrolox would allow 10t lander to do round trip from Gateway to surface. Doesn't allow for boil off. 10t is generous for lander dry mass plus crew, payload and habitat. Could probably do it for less.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: clongton on 08/03/2021 01:20 pm
In practice why not avoid the LOC and LOM risks associated with a staging event and propellant transfer and design a single stage lander that fulfills the roles of both descent and ascent stages in a single package?

The answer is to use drop tanks. All the descent propellant is in the drop tanks which are discarded on the surface after landing. What's left is a lander with full propellant tanks for the return trip.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: omelet1978 on 08/03/2021 01:31 pm
In practice why not avoid the LOC and LOM risks associated with a staging event and propellant transfer and design a single stage lander that fulfills the roles of both descent and ascent stages in a single package?

The answer is to use drop tanks. All the descent propellant is in the drop tanks which are discarded on the surface after landing. What's left is a lander with full propellant tanks for the return trip.

That's a good idea. Would the drop tanks have to be discarded after landing? I'm not sure how heavy empty drop tanks would be.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Joseph Peterson on 08/03/2021 01:38 pm
Just out of curiosity, could a second Blue Moon cargo lander land with it's cargo being fuel?

Basically land, have the Astronauts fuel up the lower stage of the Blue Moon human lander as well as the cargo version that just landed, the Astronauts then take off in their crew module, and then fly them both unmanned back to the Lunar Gateway?

I'm guessing that probably wouldn't work, but it just seems a shame to only have the ascent portion of the Blue Moon lander be reusable.

In theory yes.

In practice why not avoid the LOC and LOM risks associated with a staging event and propellant transfer and design a single stage lander that fulfills the roles of both descent and ascent stages in a single package?

The only non-political practical reason that jumps out at me is avoiding the voluminous requirement that is fitting a reusable hydrolox single stage lander inside a Vulcan fairing.
25t of Hydrolox would allow 10t lander to do round trip from Gateway to surface. Doesn't allow for boil off. 10t is generous for lander dry mass plus crew, payload and habitat. Could probably do it for less.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

This armchair rocket engineer might be confused.

Can you please explain to me how the LH2 tank volume isn't dramatically larger than the volume required for LCH4?  My current understanding is that LCH4 is a much denser fuel and as such should require much smaller tanks than a low density fuel like LH2.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Joseph Peterson on 08/03/2021 01:41 pm
In practice why not avoid the LOC and LOM risks associated with a staging event and propellant transfer and design a single stage lander that fulfills the roles of both descent and ascent stages in a single package?

The answer is to use drop tanks. All the descent propellant is in the drop tanks which are discarded on the surface after landing. What's left is a lander with full propellant tanks for the return trip.

While I personally have no problem with drop tanks we're talking about an extra staging event that increases LOC and LOM.  Notable exceptions noted NASA doesn't like seeing these numbers get worse.  Therefore I prefer to avoid drop tanks if at all possible.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: clongton on 08/03/2021 01:48 pm
While I personally have no problem with drop tanks we're talking about an extra staging event that increases LOC and LOM.  Notable exceptions noted NASA doesn't like seeing these numbers get worse.  Therefore I prefer to avoid drop tanks if at all possible.

Discarding drop tanks is not a staging event. We've been doing this since the 1930s.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: rakaydos on 08/03/2021 02:39 pm
Especially if drop tanks are discarded while already on the surface. If there's a failure, an astronaut could suit up and whack it with a wrench a few times, without missing the launch window.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/03/2021 03:26 pm
Just out of curiosity, could a second Blue Moon cargo lander land with it's cargo being fuel?

Basically land, have the Astronauts fuel up the lower stage of the Blue Moon human lander as well as the cargo version that just landed, the Astronauts then take off in their crew module, and then fly them both unmanned back to the Lunar Gateway?

I'm guessing that probably wouldn't work, but it just seems a shame to only have the ascent portion of the Blue Moon lander be reusable.

In theory yes.

In practice why not avoid the LOC and LOM risks associated with a staging event and propellant transfer and design a single stage lander that fulfills the roles of both descent and ascent stages in a single package?

The only non-political practical reason that jumps out at me is avoiding the voluminous requirement that is fitting a reusable hydrolox single stage lander inside a Vulcan fairing.
25t of Hydrolox would allow 10t lander to do round trip from Gateway to surface. Doesn't allow for boil off. 10t is generous for lander dry mass plus crew, payload and habitat. Could probably do it for less.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

This armchair rocket engineer might be confused.

Can you please explain to me how the LH2 tank volume isn't dramatically larger than the volume required for LCH4?  My current understanding is that LCH4 is a much denser fuel and as such should require much smaller tanks than a low density fuel like LH2.
DV calculator. 450 ISP, 5500m/s.
https://strout.net/info/science/delta-v/

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Joseph Peterson on 08/04/2021 03:38 am
Just out of curiosity, could a second Blue Moon cargo lander land with it's cargo being fuel?

Basically land, have the Astronauts fuel up the lower stage of the Blue Moon human lander as well as the cargo version that just landed, the Astronauts then take off in their crew module, and then fly them both unmanned back to the Lunar Gateway?

I'm guessing that probably wouldn't work, but it just seems a shame to only have the ascent portion of the Blue Moon lander be reusable.

In theory yes.

In practice why not avoid the LOC and LOM risks associated with a staging event and propellant transfer and design a single stage lander that fulfills the roles of both descent and ascent stages in a single package?

The only non-political practical reason that jumps out at me is avoiding the voluminous requirement that is fitting a reusable hydrolox single stage lander inside a Vulcan fairing.
25t of Hydrolox would allow 10t lander to do round trip from Gateway to surface. Doesn't allow for boil off. 10t is generous for lander dry mass plus crew, payload and habitat. Could probably do it for less.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

This armchair rocket engineer might be confused.

Can you please explain to me how the LH2 tank volume isn't dramatically larger than the volume required for LCH4?  My current understanding is that LCH4 is a much denser fuel and as such should require much smaller tanks than a low density fuel like LH2.
DV calculator. 450 ISP, 5500m/s.
https://strout.net/info/science/delta-v/

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

The rocket equation doesn't tell me the difference in tank sizes needed for propellants with different densities.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ZachF on 08/04/2021 02:54 pm
Blue FUD poster for HLS Starship.

https://twitter.com/BCCarCounters/status/1422917348466565121

Believe me, I am a space enthusiast, and want space companies to succeed... But, Blue makes it very hard to root for them sometimes.

Blue is honestly getting to the point where it's performing net negative PR for the newspace sector as a whole.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: trimeta on 08/04/2021 03:10 pm
Blue is honestly getting to the point where it's performing net negative PR for the newspace sector as a whole.

That's because they're not part of the NewSpace sector: they're OldSpace. Same as the infamous "making noise" advertisement:

(https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/pratt2-300x404.jpg)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: gaballard on 08/04/2021 03:14 pm
Blue FUD poster for HLS Starship.

https://twitter.com/BCCarCounters/status/1422917348466565121

Believe me, I am a space enthusiast, and want space companies to succeed... But, Blue makes it very hard to root for them sometimes.

Blue is honestly getting to the point where it's performing net negative PR for the newspace sector as a whole.

Good god, they just can’t help themselves, can they? Between this and the Virgin Galactic FUD, their copies of Photoshop are more active than their rocket program…
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: equiserre on 08/04/2021 03:41 pm
Blue FUD poster for HLS Starship.

https://twitter.com/BCCarCounters/status/1422917348466565121

Believe me, I am a space enthusiast, and want space companies to succeed... But, Blue makes it very hard to root for them sometimes.

Blue is honestly getting to the point where it's performing net negative PR for the newspace sector as a whole.

Blue Origin`s extremely biased infographic is based on the pros/cons that a bid administrator would see. But the bid administrator, GAO etc are way past this and don`t give a damn, case is closed. The tweet goes straight to the public and space fans, and these don`t give a damn about those pros and cons. Actually, most of the Lunar Starship "cons" are pros in my view. Really, really weird, what is their goal here??
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: kevinof on 08/04/2021 04:08 pm
Blue FUD poster for HLS Starship.

https://twitter.com/BCCarCounters/status/1422917348466565121

Believe me, I am a space enthusiast, and want space companies to succeed... But, Blue makes it very hard to root for them sometimes.

Blue is honestly getting to the point where it's performing net negative PR for the newspace sector as a whole.

Blue Origin`s extremely biased infographic is based on the pros/cons that a bid administrator would see. But the bid administrator, GAO etc are way past this and don`t give a damn, case is closed. The tweet goes straight to the public and space fans, and these don`t give a damn about those pros and cons. Actually, most of the Lunar Starship "cons" are pros in my view. Really, really weird, what is their goal here??
GAO wouldn’t even look at this. They are not interested in the technical details just the bid and award process.  NASA make the technical decisions and this poster wouldn’t fool them for one second.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: gaballard on 08/04/2021 04:13 pm
After another FUD-filled "infographic" that attempts to throw competitors under the bus, by the company with a history of trying to throw its competitors under the bus (barge patents), all while they should be delivering on their promises?

It's official - I'm fully rooting against Blue. They don't work in good faith. They're more concerned about optics and FUD than results. They poach and monopolize talented people and do nothing with them.

They had their chance, and they didn't do a good job.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: M.E.T. on 08/04/2021 04:20 pm
After another FUD-filled "infographic" that attempts to throw competitors under the bus, by the company with a history of trying to throw its competitors under the bus (barge patents), all while they should be delivering on their promises?

It's official - I'm fully rooting against Blue. They don't work in good faith. They're more concerned about optics and FUD than results. They poach and monopolize talented people and do nothing with them.

They had their chance, and they didn't do a good job.

Welcome to the club.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/04/2021 04:26 pm
SpaceX could reply with video of showing 100+ actual orbital launches and dozens of Dragon dockings. No editing needed for Blue's inspace activities, there isn't any.

My faith in Blue is also waning.
I havn't given up on Dynetics, think there is still hope there especially with SNC in team.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: AstroDave on 08/04/2021 05:00 pm
  The most recent Blue Origin info graphic is just petty. Reading Bezos letter to Administrator Nelson is troubling. Concerned that organizational decisions like this will erode company ethos internally.

They need a new motto:
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: matthewkantar on 08/04/2021 05:02 pm
How could B.O. more fully and completely miss the entire point of NASA? That graphic is completely obsessed with things that have “never been done before.”

DUH! This isn’t an Apollo reenactment exercise. Artemis should be about doing what no one has done before. Boldly even!

The spirit of Apollo is acceptable, the nuts and bolts not so much.

“We choose to go to the Moon, We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”-JFK, 9/12/1962
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: tssp_art on 08/04/2021 06:08 pm
Blue FUD poster for HLS Starship.

https://twitter.com/BCCarCounters/status/1422917348466565121

Believe me, I am a space enthusiast, and want space companies to succeed... But, Blue makes it very hard to root for them sometimes.

Blue is honestly getting to the point where it's performing net negative PR for the newspace sector as a whole.

Blue Origin`s extremely biased infographic is based on the pros/cons that a bid administrator would see. But the bid administrator, GAO etc are way past this and don`t give a damn, case is closed. The tweet goes straight to the public and space fans, and these don`t give a damn about those pros and cons. Actually, most of the Lunar Starship "cons" are pros in my view. Really, really weird, what is their goal here??

I think their audience is Congress. Having lost at NASA and at GAO they have recourse only to the courts (harder, takes longer and less chance of success) and Congress - the most responsive body to campaign contributions and with a demonstrated readiness to preserving Old Space. Blue can find common cause with those folks.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: abaddon on 08/04/2021 06:19 pm
I think their audience is Congress. Having lost at NASA and at GAO they have recourse only to the courts (harder, takes longer and less chance of success) and Congress - the most responsive body to campaign contributions and with a demonstrated readiness to preserving Old Space. Blue can find common cause with those folks.
Agreed; and viewed in this light, the recent "warp speed" at Starbase might be looked at in relation to a directly anti-Starship campaign by Blue.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: SouthCoastOptimist on 08/04/2021 06:36 pm
Blue FUD poster for HLS Starship.

https://twitter.com/BCCarCounters/status/1422917348466565121

Believe me, I am a space enthusiast, and want space companies to succeed... But, Blue makes it very hard to root for them sometimes.

Blue is honestly getting to the point where it's performing net negative PR for the newspace sector as a whole.
Yep

and dissing NASA for both the technical and the financial evaluation of their HLS bid is problematic

If Blue Origin don't trust NASA's technical or financial expertise then why would Blue Origin want to work with NASA?

The solution is for Blue to show the world how their technical and financial understanding of lunar landings is way superior to NASA (10,000%)

Let's see Blue Origin fund and develop a lunar landing before 2024

They know better than NASA?

Simple

Prove it !

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: trimeta on 08/04/2021 07:00 pm
Yep

and dissing NASA for both the technical and the financial evaluation of their HLS bid is problematic

If Blue Origin don't trust NASA's technical or financial expertise then why would Blue Origin want to work with NASA?

The solution is for Blue to show the world how their technical and financial understanding of lunar landings is way superior to NASA (10,000%)

Let's see Blue Origin fund and develop a lunar landing before 2024

They know better than NASA?

Simple

Prove it !

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

For that matter, consider Bezos's letter to Nelson, promising to entirely self-fund the first two years of work if they could just be guaranteed an HLS contract. Here's an idea: self-fund that work anyway, then hope to win a LETS contract. And concurrently, lobby Congress to increase NASA's funding, to ensure that NASA will have enough money to award two LETS contracts (since SpaceX is definitely getting one). And if they don't get that LETS contract after all, go to the Moon without NASA -- after all, "millions of people living and working in space" surely means they envision customers other than NASA, so clearly they have a commercial use case for a lunar lander other than "get a government contract," right? Because having a lander that no one wants would invalidate the whole idea of "building a road to space," showing there's no one to take that road until Blue actually works on in-space activities.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Joris on 08/04/2021 07:19 pm
How many orbital launches did the oldspace companies have under their belt by the time they got their first contracts to work the Apollo vehicles?

Does the (lack of) launch experience matter in the decisions being made w.r.t. funding?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Tommyboy on 08/04/2021 07:28 pm
How many orbital launches did the oldspace companies have under their belt by the time they got their first contracts to work the Apollo vehicles?

Does the (lack of) launch experience matter in the decisions being made w.r.t. funding?
Considering Blue Origin is making that argument regarding the Starship Launch System, apparently so.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: clongton on 08/04/2021 09:12 pm
Blue FUD poster for HLS Starship.

https://twitter.com/BCCarCounters/status/1422917348466565121

Believe me, I am a space enthusiast, and want space companies to succeed... But, Blue makes it very hard to root for them sometimes.

Blue is honestly getting to the point where it's performing net negative PR for the newspace sector as a whole.

If BO would put HALF as much effort as they do for the negative PR into actually building, testing and flying engines, launch vehicles and spacecraft, they might actually accomplish something. This graphic is actually disgusting. It reflects very badly on BO, its owner and unfortunately the people who work for him (no fault of theirs).
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: darkenfast on 08/04/2021 09:23 pm
Perhaps a better approach for Blue BEFORE putting out any more of these documents:

1. Get those flight-worthy BE-4s to ULA. That will show everyone that you can be trusted with an expensive contract.

2. Get your New Glenn flying, even if recovery and re-use isn't ready yet. That will show everyone that you can actually launch something into orbit.

3. Show us your Lunar Lander that can actually land four astronauts and equipment on the Moon. That will show everyone that you can do something beyond a first demonstration mission.

THEN, people might give some credence to your propaganda sheets.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: punder on 08/04/2021 09:25 pm
Just posted this elsewhere, but I’ll repeat it here… given human evolutionary psychology, that graphic is going to backfire spectacularly..  :D
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: meekGee on 08/04/2021 10:20 pm
Funny that the punchline is "They really really wanted that contract".

And...  BO doesn't?

I mean, who writes this stuff.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/04/2021 10:52 pm
Just posted this elsewhere, but I’ll repeat it here… given human evolutionary psychology, that graphic is going to backfire spectacularly..  :D

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1422988988663611394

Quote
Talked to a Blue Origin source and yep, they're aghast at this. It's like when Blue Origin trashed Virgin Galactic just 36 hours before Sir Richard's flight. "The feeling is like oh no, why are we doing this again?!?"
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: trimeta on 08/04/2021 11:03 pm
Funny that the punchline is "They really really wanted that contract".

And...  BO doesn't?

I mean, who writes this stuff.

I think the "they" in the last sentence of that tweet is Blue Origin. As in "they're posting this 'infographic' because they really really wanted the contract."
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: meekGee on 08/04/2021 11:06 pm
Funny that the punchline is "They really really wanted that contract".

And...  BO doesn't?

I mean, who writes this stuff.

I think the "they" in the last sentence of that tweet is Blue Origin. As in "they're posting this 'infographic' because they really really wanted the contract."
Ah.  Yes.  I stand corrected. :)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: gaballard on 08/04/2021 11:26 pm
Just posted this elsewhere, but I’ll repeat it here… given human evolutionary psychology, that graphic is going to backfire spectacularly..  :D

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1422988988663611394

Quote
Talked to a Blue Origin source and yep, they're aghast at this. It's like when Blue Origin trashed Virgin Galactic just 36 hours before Sir Richard's flight. "The feeling is like oh no, why are we doing this again?!?"

How convenient! The rogue Photoshopper strikes again, and the rest of the poor, innocent company says "we're just as insulted as you!"

Like... how dumb do they honestly think everyone else is?

"Fool me once... can't get fooled again"


Edit: source != rep. I glanced at it, saw "yep", my brain read "rep", and it continued going downhill from there.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ugordan on 08/04/2021 11:39 pm
Just posted this elsewhere, but I’ll repeat it here… given human evolutionary psychology, that graphic is going to backfire spectacularly..  :D

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1422988988663611394

Quote
Talked to a Blue Origin source and yep, they're aghast at this. It's like when Blue Origin trashed Virgin Galactic just 36 hours before Sir Richard's flight. "The feeling is like oh no, why are we doing this again?!?"

How convenient! The rogue Photoshopper strikes again, and the rest of the poor, innocent company says "we're just as insulted as you!"

Like... how dumb do they honestly think everyone else is?

"Fool me once... can't get fooled again"

If you can't grasp the idea that the engineers in the trenches that are doing actual work can honestly be flabbergasted by actions of their higher management/PR department, you're either jaded beyond hope or have never worked in a large corporation.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: MaxTeranous on 08/04/2021 11:40 pm
Alt title: How to demoralise your staff and galvanise your competitors in 1 easy step
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: R.Simko on 08/05/2021 12:17 am
I wonder what Blue Origin's partners are saying (behind closed doors) about the way this contract has been pursued?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 08/05/2021 12:28 am
Its a comparison infographic...like the one linked below.

While there have been plenty of "trolling"(Reuters words, not mine) by SpaceX leadership of Blue Origin, these infographics comparing different systems really aren't examples of such (it helps that they both are accurate).

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Comga on 08/05/2021 12:30 am
Perhaps a better approach for Blue BEFORE putting out any more of these documents:

1. Get those flight-worthy BE-4s to ULA. That will show everyone that you can be trusted with an expensive contract.

2. Get your New Glenn flying, even if recovery and re-use isn't ready yet. That will show everyone that you can actually launch something into orbit.

3. Show us your Lunar Lander that can actually land four astronauts and equipment on the Moon. That will show everyone that you can do something beyond a first demonstration mission.

THEN, people might give some credence to your propaganda sheets.

You are wasting your time and bandwidth, but your frustration is understandable.

Almost any alternative path would be better.
Even blowing up a rocket on the launch pad.

We could chip in and buy Smith socks that day “Don’t Shoot!” on top but that would require us to think he’s worthy of help.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robert Thompson on 08/05/2021 03:02 am
Tactically, this seems like taking a high ground position to take sniper shots at and harass the enemy. The strategy behind this is to hold position and maintain pressure on the news cycle until reinforcements can arrive or seal a breach. So, to stay in the news carries a certain price of good will capital, or soul capital.

However, it is not selling one's soul to brace for the potential of an infeasibility condition of the Starship architecture. Starship's architecture strikes me (only me I'm sure) as a Drake equation, which is a product of statistical successes. 1 successful Lunar Starship cycle requires S Starships * R Raptors * P parts * H hours of diligent, absolutely un-complacent, ground preparation and maintenance * 1/D Days duration of the consumables or boil off period. I'm not a Starship un-fan. Yes, Starship has various forms of redundancy in its architecture.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: su27k on 08/05/2021 05:16 am
Its a comparison infographic...like the one linked below.

While there have been plenty of "trolling"(Reuters words, not mine) by SpaceX leadership of Blue Origin, these infographics comparing different systems really aren't examples of such (it helps that they both are accurate).

Blue's infographic is far from accurate, as pointed out here:

https://twitter.com/KenKirtland17/status/1422953331622825993

There're other less obvious inaccuracies, such as:
1. "Starship - the first ever reusable second stage": It's not, Shuttle is the first reusable second stage.
2. "this must all be done more than 10 times flawlessly": No, tanker flights don't need to be done flawlessly, losing a tanker doesn't automatically cause loss of the mission.
3. "The National Team's architecture only requires three launches and is flexible to fly on multiple existing launch vehicles": Really? Which ones? Besides FH, any launch vehicle they planned to use, be it SLS B1B or Vulcan or New Glenn, is far from being "existing", in fact Starship/SuperHeavy has a good chance of beating all of them into orbit.
4. "The National Team's architecture ... is entirely built on heritage systems": False, BE-7 has no heritage, Blue's descent stage has no heritage, Northrop Grumman has very little liquid hydrogen heritage, and it's questionable to say Orion is heritage, given it's not flying yet.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ncb1397 on 08/05/2021 05:29 am
2. "this must all be done more than 10 times flawlessly": No, tanker flights don't need to be done flawlessly, losing a tanker doesn't automatically cause loss of the mission.

I'd delete this. The reference "this" refers to the preceding reference to "And cryogenic fluid transfer - a process that has also never been done - must work to refuel up to 100 MT of propellant from Starship to Starship.."

Sure, if you lose a tanker outside of the refueling process, no big deal (unless that is the only one you have access to). But if problems occur during the refueling process on Nth refueling, yes, it very much could mean loss of mission and starting over from practically step 1. Depends what goes wrong though, not every problem would be mission ending but one problem could be.

Quote
3. "The National Team's architecture only requires three launches and is flexible to fly on multiple existing launch vehicles": Really? Which ones? Besides FH, any launch vehicle they planned to use, be it SLS B1B or Vulcan or New Glenn, is far from being "existing", in fact Starship/SuperHeavy has a good chance of beating all of them into orbit.

They said Vulcan, Delta IV Heavy, SLS or Falcon Heavy. So, 2 are existing and if they are talking 1-2 components rather than the full stack, they might be talking about SLS block 1 as well which is fully stacked (the rocket anyway) in the VAB.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: electricdawn on 08/05/2021 06:22 am
Quote
they might be talking about SLS block 1 as well which is fully stacked (the rocket anyway) in the VAB.

Which is already fully taken to lift Orion into LEO. Which can only fly once a year. Which costs 10-20(!) times as much as any other launch vehicle.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: c4fusion on 08/05/2021 07:05 am
3. "The National Team's architecture only requires three launches and is flexible to fly on multiple existing launch vehicles": Really? Which ones? Besides FH, any launch vehicle they planned to use, be it SLS B1B or Vulcan or New Glenn, is far from being "existing", in fact Starship/SuperHeavy has a good chance of beating all of them into orbit.

They said Vulcan, Delta IV Heavy, SLS or Falcon Heavy. So, 2 are existing and if they are talking 1-2 components rather than the full stack, they might be talking about SLS block 1 as well which is fully stacked (the rocket anyway) in the VAB.

I thought the there were no free slots on the SLS even if it was flying now, one of the reasons why Europa clipper is going on F9 Heavy.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/05/2021 09:07 am
Just posted this elsewhere, but I’ll repeat it here… given human evolutionary psychology, that graphic is going to backfire spectacularly..  :D

More evidence:

https://twitter.com/bocaroad/status/1423084769038856195

Quote
Currently no closures scheduled for tomorrow or Friday, but after the last couple days of watching B4 & S20 on the stream in Boca Chica, this bot account could use a cigarette.

On a side note, apparently a LOT of these shirts are being ordered to Brownsville addresses today:

“Immensely complex and high risk” is becoming an entertaining badge of honour. We should look out for them on NSF live streams

Edit to add: a SpaceXer

https://twitter.com/laure_mar/status/1422982071811600385

Quote
Relationship Status:

⚪️ Single
⚪️ Married filing jointly
⚪️ Married filing separately
🔘 Immensely complex and high risk
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: SouthCoastOptimist on 08/05/2021 10:47 am
I wonder what Blue Origin's partners are saying (behind closed doors) about the way this contract has been pursued?
The silence from the rest of the National Team is deafening

OTOH Blue Origin is the prime contractor, the other companies are subcontractors

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: SouthCoastOptimist on 08/05/2021 10:56 am
2. "this must all be done more than 10 times flawlessly": No, tanker flights don't need to be done flawlessly, losing a tanker doesn't automatically cause loss of the mission.

I'd delete this. The reference "this" refers to the preceding reference to "And cryogenic fluid transfer - a process that has also never been done - must work to refuel up to 100 MT of propellant from Starship to Starship.."

Sure, if you lose a tanker outside of the refueling process, no big deal (unless that is the only one you have access to). But if problems occur during the refueling process on Nth refueling, yes, it very much could mean loss of mission and starting over from practically step 1. Depends what goes wrong though, not every problem would be mission ending but one problem could be.

Quote
3. "The National Team's architecture only requires three launches and is flexible to fly on multiple existing launch vehicles": Really? Which ones? Besides FH, any launch vehicle they planned to use, be it SLS B1B or Vulcan or New Glenn, is far from being "existing", in fact Starship/SuperHeavy has a good chance of beating all of them into orbit.

They said Vulcan, Delta IV Heavy, SLS or Falcon Heavy. So, 2 are existing and if they are talking 1-2 components rather than the full stack, they might be talking about SLS block 1 as well which is fully stacked (the rocket anyway) in the VAB.
Last few Delta IV Heavies have customers

End of line, Delta IV Heavy will not be flying in 2024

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DreamyPickle on 08/05/2021 11:21 am
Spreading FUD against technologies developed by a rival is a new low for Blue Origin, even after the Cantwell amendment and the attacks on Virgin Galactic. Doing so in materials aimed at congress harms the development of space technology for everybody.

It is well known that ULA in particular has long claimed their willingness to develop orbital refueling but that this was suppressed by Boeing. It's sad to see Blue Origin join in on that.

Orbital refueling is extremely powerful, especially combined with cheap reusable tanker flights. I hope SpaceX demonstrates this as soon as possible.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Redclaws on 08/05/2021 12:01 pm
Its a comparison infographic...like the one linked below.

While there have been plenty of "trolling"(Reuters words, not mine) by SpaceX leadership of Blue Origin, these infographics comparing different systems really aren't examples of such (it helps that they both are accurate).

I’m going to say this really bluntly:
The only purpose of this graphic is to whine publicly about their loss and slander the winning system, and it is *as dishonest as possible* while not actually lying.  This is *exactly* how corporate FUD works.

Their cited quote for “high risk” is *high risk of operational schedule issues*.  But they use it to say high risk of mission loss.  That is lying by any normal standard.  But it meets the “just almost defensible as not lying” standard applied by producers of FUD like this.

This is not “just another infographic” and you know it.  It’s embarrassing slander from a competitor who lost by a mile, done in the classic corporate form of “just honest enough no one can say I’m lying”.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: SouthCoastOptimist on 08/05/2021 12:19 pm
Its a comparison infographic...like the one linked below.

While there have been plenty of "trolling"(Reuters words, not mine) by SpaceX leadership of Blue Origin, these infographics comparing different systems really aren't examples of such (it helps that they both are accurate).

I’m going to say this really bluntly:
The only purpose of this graphic is to whine publicly about their loss and slander the winning system, and it is *as dishonest as possible* while not actually lying.  This is *exactly* how corporate FUD works.

Their cited quote for “high risk” is *high risk of operational schedule issues*.  But they use it to say high risk of mission loss.  That is lying by any normal standard.  But it meets the “just almost defensible as not lying” standard applied by producers of FUD like this.

This is not “just another infographic” and you know it.  It’s embarrassing slander from a competitor who lost by a mile, done in the classic corporate form of “just honest enough no one can say I’m lying”.
Not just to slander the winning system but to slander NASA



Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steve G on 08/05/2021 01:33 pm
As a huge fan of Blue Origin, (And SpaceX, Rocket Lab, and others in new space) I feel gut punched at Blue's reprehensible behaviour. Yes, Richard Branson was an $#@*&^@ for upstaging Bezos into flying first, but BO's petty infographic comparing BO with VG was something you'd expect out of a child. Who's tiny-brained idea was it to make that open letter to Bill Nelson about the $2 billion offer, and then the infographic attacking SpaceX's HLS of incredible bad taste? Someone out there high up in space authority, perhaps Bill Nelson, needs to have a one on one with Jeff and spank him. Spank him good and hard. Shut the @&%# up and build your damn rockets. Then we'll talk again.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: abaddon on 08/05/2021 03:46 pm
> Yes, Richard Branson was an $#@*&^@ for upstaging Bezos into flying first

Why?  Does Bezos have some sort of “right” to go first?  Do you think Bezos wasn’t an expletive for “upstaging” Inspiration4?

(For myself, I don’t buy into any of these narratives)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Frogstar_Robot on 08/05/2021 03:57 pm
Of course, the optics are bad. And it's clear that the lobbying target is congress, in order to get more funds allocated to NASA, and maybe from there money goes to Blue Origin.

But aside from that, do these tactics have any chance of working? Bill Nelson seems more than capable of handling any sort of "end around" that private lobbyists might attempt. Sure, Bill would welcome more fund for NASA. But he doesn't seem like Blue are in any position to get strings attached to that funding. They simply do not have a track record, or much 'political' clout, Maria Cantwell not withstanding. And I'm not sure really sure Jeff Bezos is that popular in political circles to get any special treatment.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steve G on 08/05/2021 04:37 pm
> Yes, Richard Branson was an $#@*&^@ for upstaging Bezos into flying first

Why?  Does Bezos have some sort of “right” to go first?  Do you think Bezos wasn’t an expletive for “upstaging” Inspiration4?

(For myself, I don’t buy into any of these narratives)

It has nothing about who has the right to go first. It's the way Branson did it. Bezos sets the date and Branson rushes his own launch date to intentionally upend Bezos.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: matthewkantar on 08/05/2021 04:54 pm
> Yes, Richard Branson was an $#@*&^@ for upstaging Bezos into flying first

Why?  Does Bezos have some sort of “right” to go first?  Do you think Bezos wasn’t an expletive for “upstaging” Inspiration4?

(For myself, I don’t buy into any of these narratives)

It has nothing about who has the right to go first. It's the way Branson did it. Bezos sets the date and Branson rushes his own launch date to intentionally upend Bezos.

Boohoo, poor Jeff. Are you serious?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: StarshipTrooper on 08/05/2021 05:00 pm
> Yes, Richard Branson was an $#@*&^@ for upstaging Bezos into flying first

Why?  Does Bezos have some sort of “right” to go first?  Do you think Bezos wasn’t an expletive for “upstaging” Inspiration4?

(For myself, I don’t buy into any of these narratives)

It has nothing about who has the right to go first. It's the way Branson did it. Bezos sets the date and Branson rushes his own launch date to intentionally upend Bezos.

Have you ever been in a race? The idea is not to let the other guy finish first.

Have you ever been in business? The idea is to make your product #1. It also doesn't hurt if you make your sole competition look like a complete chump.

Sir Richard Branson made kind of a masterstroke if you ask me.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: gaballard on 08/05/2021 05:02 pm
Just posted this elsewhere, but I’ll repeat it here… given human evolutionary psychology, that graphic is going to backfire spectacularly..  :D

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1422988988663611394

Quote
Talked to a Blue Origin source and yep, they're aghast at this. It's like when Blue Origin trashed Virgin Galactic just 36 hours before Sir Richard's flight. "The feeling is like oh no, why are we doing this again?!?"

How convenient! The rogue Photoshopper strikes again, and the rest of the poor, innocent company says "we're just as insulted as you!"

Like... how dumb do they honestly think everyone else is?

"Fool me once... can't get fooled again"

If you can't grasp the idea that the engineers in the trenches that are doing actual work can honestly be flabbergasted by actions of their higher management/PR department, you're either jaded beyond hope or have never worked in a large corporation.

Yeah... I misread the quote. I glanced at it, saw "Blue Origin ... yep", my brain read "rep", and it continued going downhill from there. I was responding to the idea of an official Blue Origin PR person playing dumb. That's not the case, so disregard my post  :-X
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: joek on 08/05/2021 05:21 pm
Not sure this is noteworthy... Don't remember seeing this infographic on Blue's site previously. Document properties show the pdf was created 19-May and last modified 24-May. So not like they made this up yesterday. Publishing it now seems rather odd, not to mention ham-handed and tone deaf.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: NaN on 08/05/2021 07:27 pm
Of course, the optics are bad. And it's clear that the lobbying target is congress, in order to get more funds allocated to NASA, and maybe from there money goes to Blue Origin.

But aside from that, do these tactics have any chance of working? [...]

This is the baffling part, to me. All guns blazing during the GAO protest is one thing, but that should have been the end of it. I can't see a snowball's chance under a lit Raptor of this actually working, and more fundamentally I don't see how this helps position them better for the next competitions. It really does appear desperate and exceptionally out of touch. My (baseless) suspicion is that Bezos lit such a fire under upper management that they are worried about being shown the door if they don't pull out all the stops.


Not sure this is noteworthy... Don't remember seeing this infographic on Blue's site previously. Document properties show the pdf was created 19-May and last modified 24-May. So not like they made this up yesterday. Publishing it now seems rather odd, not to mention ham-handed and tone deaf.

That's a good observation - I checked wayback machine and it was published on the page sometime after July 20 and before Aug 4 (most likely was published on Aug 4). So the 'misinfographic' was apparently made a few weeks after GAO protest being filed, but they should have left it safely hidden...
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: punder on 08/06/2021 04:17 am
…Bill Nelson, needs to have a one on one with Jeff and spank him. Spank him good and hard..
MY EYES, MY EYES!!!
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Pete on 08/18/2021 02:13 pm
Guys, please cut BO some slack.

They are just reminding NASA how BO is a mature, sensible and responsible company.
This is being done to ensure that future contracts are judged on merit, not based on grudges about who sued who.

I wholeheartedly support BO's approach to this matter, it will simplify future contract negotiations immensely.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JCRM on 08/18/2021 03:34 pm
Guys, please cut BO some slack.

They are just reminding NASA how BO is a mature, sensible and responsible company.
This is being done to ensure that future contracts are judged on merit, not based on grudges about who sued who.

I wholeheartedly support BO's approach to this matter, it will simplify future contract negotiations immensely.
In just the same way the DoD will continue to judge contracts based on merit, not based on grudges about who sues who even after they got a later contract.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: gaballard on 08/18/2021 04:07 pm
Guys, please cut BO some slack.

They are just reminding NASA how BO is a mature, sensible and responsible company.
This is being done to ensure that future contracts are judged on merit, not based on grudges about who sued who.

I wholeheartedly support BO's approach to this matter, it will simplify future contract negotiations immensely.

Can't have complex contract negotiations if you don't get any contract offers. They are indeed staying ahead of the curve.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/26/2021 01:27 pm
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1430884326615310342

Quote
Lots of lunar activity at Launch Site One, including building a lunar hazard field to test LIDAR systems and other technologies. This enables us to improve systems that will help us land on the Moon.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Lemurion on 08/28/2021 06:57 am
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1430884326615310342

Quote
Lots of lunar activity at Launch Site One, including building a lunar hazard field to test LIDAR systems and other technologies. This enables us to improve systems that will help us land on the Moon.

I love that they actually seem to be doing something that isn’t lawyer-centric, but I have to ask: Are they going to test at night?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: AU1.52 on 08/29/2021 09:47 pm
But yet more infrastructure and little to no space hardware.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: joek on 08/29/2021 10:12 pm
Guys, please cut BO some slack.
...

Apologies, my sarcasm meter is out of calibration after being pegged too many times of late (definitely need to increase sensitivity and dynamic range). So I'll take your post at face value. In what ways are Blue  "...reminding NASA how BO is a mature, sensible and responsible company"?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JCRM on 09/05/2021 11:48 pm

Quote
Lots of lunar activity at Launch Site One, including building a lunar hazard field to test LIDAR systems and other technologies. This enables us to improve systems that will help us land on the Moon.
Shouldn't those monoliths be black? and they look a little thin to be 1:4:9
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: omelet1978 on 11/01/2021 10:12 pm
Any updates on the lawsuit that Blue Origin is filing against NASA? I believe there was supposed to be some news today on Nov 1st but have not seen anything.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: trimeta on 11/01/2021 10:53 pm
Any updates on the lawsuit that Blue Origin is filing against NASA? I believe there was supposed to be some news today on Nov 1st but have not seen anything.

Due to delays in document processing, that's been pushed out to November 8th:

Michael Sheetz said November 8th a while ago:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1435331978782515204
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Comga on 11/04/2021 06:54 pm
Any updates on the lawsuit that Blue Origin is filing against NASA? I believe there was supposed to be some news today on Nov 1st but have not seen anything.
Bezos' Blue Origin loses lawsuit against NASA over SpaceX lunar lander contract (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/bezos-blue-origin-loses-lawsuit-against-nasa-over-spacex-lunar-lander-contract/ar-AAQjPvt)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 11/18/2021 04:12 pm
Blue's new lander from a presentation at the most recent IAC:

https://twitter.com/ac_charania/status/1453627065794711554

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 11/18/2021 04:56 pm
Blue's new lander from a presentation at the most recent IAC:

Source or more information?

Would be quite curious as to what is being proposed or suggested here.

SLS launch?
3 stage New Glenn?
Tug stage from LEO?
Refueling?
Unicorns and Pixie dust?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Scintillant on 11/18/2021 05:10 pm
Blue's new lander from a presentation at the most recent IAC:

Source or more information?

Would be quite curious as to what is being proposed or suggested here.

SLS launch?
3 stage New Glenn?
Tug stage from LEO?
Refueling?
Unicorns and Pixie dust?

Blue tried to propose this alternative design in court, actually, arguing that they could've done better than SpaceX if only they had known that SpaceX was going to win. To quote the HLS court opinion: "Blue Origin is in the position of every disappointed bidder: Oh. That’s what the agency wanted and liked best? If we had known, we would have instead submitted a proposal that resembled the successful offer, but we could have offered a better price and snazzier features and options."

So my guess is unicorns and pixie dust.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 11/18/2021 05:17 pm
It really speaks to the complete lack of vision at Blue.

This "evolved" apparent single stage cargo lander, derived from their HLS proposal is an unwieldy tall and narrow vehicle with a habitat section that seems better suited for Ewoks than humans.  All because their original lander needed to be changed to fly within current payload fairings.

And yet they are building the a rocket with a larger diameter fairing than anything currently flying, and the 3rd largest in development. All that effort just to arrive at such an nonoptimal solution is baffling.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: anof on 11/18/2021 06:17 pm
It really speaks to the complete lack of vision at Blue.

This "evolved" apparent single stage cargo lander, derived from their HLS proposal is an unwieldy tall and narrow vehicle with a habitat section that seems better suited for Ewoks than humans.  All because their original lander needed to be changed to fly within current payload fairings.

And yet they are building the a rocket with a larger diameter fairing than anything currently flying, and the 3rd largest in development. All that effort just to arrive at such an nonoptimal solution is baffling.

I believe the early versions of Blue Moon were wider and shorter for New Glenn. Then they figured out that New Glenn would not be ready in time for HLS so they changed to the tall and skinny model to fit in a 5 meter fairing.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 11/18/2021 07:08 pm
Blue's new lander from a presentation at the most recent IAC:

Source or more information?

Would be quite curious as to what is being proposed or suggested here.

SLS launch?
3 stage New Glenn?
Tug stage from LEO?
Refueling?
Unicorns and Pixie dust?

The source is a tweet from a presentation at the IAC Congress. I added the tweet to the original post (I had to find it).
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/19/2021 06:08 am
Here's the image corrected for perspective. I assumed a 16:9 ratio for the image. The crew capsule says "National Team" so I assume that Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Draper are still involved.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: sevenperforce on 11/19/2021 02:58 pm
Blue's new lander from a presentation at the most recent IAC:
Source or more information?

Would be quite curious as to what is being proposed or suggested here.

Blue tried to propose this alternative design in court, actually, arguing that they could've done better than SpaceX if only they had known that SpaceX was going to win. To quote the HLS court opinion: "Blue Origin is in the position of every disappointed bidder: Oh. That’s what the agency wanted and liked best? If we had known, we would have instead submitted a proposal that resembled the successful offer, but we could have offered a better price and snazzier features and options."

So my guess is unicorns and pixie dust.
I agree with Steven Pietrobon that this is still a picture of the original National Team lander, just with some cosmetic glosses. However, I'm curious to know what they proposed to the court.

An excerpt from the court opinion which may shed light on this alternative proposal:

"Blue Origin asserts that it too would have proposed a single-element Integrated Lander, {redacted}. This alternative design would 'take full advantage of Blue Origin's {redacted}.' The details of Blue Origin's alternative approach are unclear, as is the precise nature of what Blue Origin would have proposed; Blue Origin has not submitted any contemporaneous documentary evidence to support its allegations of its alternative architecture."

There are very few redactions in the opinion. What, exactly are they trying to keep under wraps? It looks from the sentence structure that they are trying to keep the name of their proposed integrated lander a secret, and that the integrated lander would "take full advantage of" something they don't want to talk about. Presumably, the rest of that sentence says "take full advantage of Blue Origin's experience and progress with {some existing hardware}."

The Court's description -- "a proposal that resembled the successful offer" -- suggests that their alternative proposal is a knockoff of Lunar Starship, a single-element single-stage lander based on an existing upper stage. Was "New Armstrong" the name they were trying to keep hidden? Is "New Armstrong" a single-stage moon lander adapted from a New Glenn upper stage?

Rampant speculation follows...

Two BE-3U engines is, of course, wildly overkill for moon landings. But if the BE-3U can throttle as low (by percentage) as the BE-3 and BE-7, then a single centrally-mounted BE-3U could get down to ~128 kN, enough to hover an 80-90 tonne vehicle. For safety reasons, you'd want engine redundancy and an abort mode, but you could use four BE-7s in a quincunx for that (harkening to the Soviet LK lander's abort engines), and it would all fit very neatly in a 7-meter circle.

Let's say total lunar surface mass is 83 tonnes. Assuming ~445 s of specific impulse and no significant payload offloading, New Armstrong would burn 38 tonnes of propellant to get back to NRHO; it would have needed an additional 68 tonnes of propellant when it left NRHO. Now, the New Glenn upper stage is heavy, somewhere around 16-18 tonnes. Assuming a 5-tonne crew cabin and airlock (about 50% heavier than Constellation's Altair lander crew cabin), that allows a generous 23 tonnes of margin for additional structure, power generation, propellant management systems, landing legs, and lunar surface payload.

New Armstrong would be able to launch as the second stage of New Glenn, just like Lunar Starship launches on Superheavy (although it would probably make use of the 7-meter fairing). It would reach LEO with 17 tonnes of propellant residuals. Three New Glenn refueling launches would increase this to 150 tonnes, enough for New Armstrong to perform its own TLI and insertion at NRHO with about 40 tonnes of residuals.

It would need to take on around 66 tonnes of additional propellant at NRHO. A New Glenn upper stage with the same propellant management capabilities would require three additional New Glenn launches to be fully-fueled in LEO, where it could also do TLI and NRHO insertion, arriving with 67 tonnes of residuals to transfer to New Armstrong.

So Blue Origin could have proposed a single-element "New Armstrong" integrated lander which would require only 8 New Glenn launches (rather than the 12-15 Superheavy launches required for Lunar Starship), based on the New Glenn upper stage. And the hatch would have been 11 meters closer to the lunar surface than Lunar Starship's.

Blue would argue that the 100-tonne+ capability of Lunar Starship is overkill and that cutting the number of required launches almost in half reduces complexity and schedule risk. If they did make an argument, it would definitely explain how the Court described it as "a proposal that resembled the successful offer."
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 11/19/2021 03:48 pm
Quote
Two BE-3U engines is, of course, wildly overkill for moon landings. But if the BE-3U can throttle as low (by percentage) as the BE-3 and BE-7, then a single centrally-mounted BE-3U could get down to ~128 kN, enough to hover an 80-90 tonne vehicle. For safety reasons, you'd want engine redundancy and an abort mode, but you could use four BE-7s in a quincunx for that (harkening to the Soviet LK lander's abort engines), and it would all fit very neatly in a 7-meter circle.

BE-3U throttle range is very low, only down to 88%. 
Source page 18 of the New Glenn Payload Users Guide

Assuming the lander they have "proposed" is simply a stretched version of their HLS architecture they would likely need a 3rd BE-7 engine to provide any engine out redundancy or significant lift from the lunar surface for future in-situ propellant utilization.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/19/2021 04:30 pm
That lander likely to be 5m diameter with 2xBe7. Dry mass with crew 5-10t.
Refuelled with BE7 powered OTV/tanker, which could also be used for LLO insertion.

At 25t to LEO Vulcan could launch it with enough fuel to deliver its self to Gateway.
This would be better crew vehicle as doesn't need the multiple tanker launches of SS.

 



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 11/19/2021 07:12 pm
That lander likely to be 5m diameter with 2xBe7. Dry mass with crew 5-10t.
Refuelled with BE7 powered OTV/tanker, which could also be used for LLO insertion.

At 25t to LEO Vulcan could launch it with enough fuel to deliver its self to Gateway.
This would be better crew vehicle as doesn't need the multiple tanker launches of SS.

In a dream world a partnership with ULA to develop ACES for all tanker duties would be fantastic. 4x BE-7 would be fine for propulsion. That IMO would have been an outstanding proposal.

It's a shame that there is bad blood between the companies following the NSSL bids.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 12/18/2021 04:41 am
It appears that Blue Origin is continuing with the Moon Lander program.......

I saw this...

Michael Staab@AstroStaab

Big career announcement incoming. I've accepted a position with @blueorigin as a Senior Fault Management and System Autonomy Engineer in the Advanced Development Programs Business Unit, supporting Blue's lunar and LEO space station programs.
[https://twitter.com/AstroStaab/status/1471256955788345349?s=20]

----

Michael Staab

Fault Management and System Autonomy Principal Engineer - Lunar Missions at Northrop Grumman, Aerospace

https://twitter.com/AstroStaab


and....

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/rj05la/it_appears_that_blue_origin_is_continuing_with/
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/18/2021 09:55 am
It appears that Blue Origin is continuing with the Moon Lander program.......

I saw this...

Michael Staab@AstroStaab

Big career announcement incoming. I've accepted a position with @blueorigin as a Senior Fault Management and System Autonomy Engineer in the Advanced Development Programs Business Unit, supporting Blue's lunar and LEO space station programs.
[https://twitter.com/AstroStaab/status/1471256955788345349?s=20]

----

Michael Staab

Fault Management and System Autonomy Principal Engineer - Lunar Missions at Northrop Grumman, Aerospace

https://twitter.com/AstroStaab


and....

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/rj05la/it_appears_that_blue_origin_is_continuing_with/
Blue was doing cargo lander with or without NASA funding. Crew lander is another story.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DanClemmensen on 12/18/2021 05:03 pm
It appears that Blue Origin is continuing with the Moon Lander program.......

I saw this...

Michael Staab@AstroStaab

Big career announcement incoming. I've accepted a position with @blueorigin as a Senior Fault Management and System Autonomy Engineer in the Advanced Development Programs Business Unit, supporting Blue's lunar and LEO space station programs.
[https://twitter.com/AstroStaab/status/1471256955788345349?s=20]

----

Michael Staab

Fault Management and System Autonomy Principal Engineer - Lunar Missions at Northrop Grumman, Aerospace

https://twitter.com/AstroStaab


and....

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/rj05la/it_appears_that_blue_origin_is_continuing_with/
Blue was doing cargo lander with or without NASA funding. Crew lander is another story.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
NASA awarded multiple design contracts in September 2021 for the "sustainable" HLS, which is to be used after the initial HLS. Five companies got contracts:
    Blue Origin Federation of Kent, Washington, $25.6 million.
    Dynetics (a Leidos company) of Huntsville, Alabama, $40.8 million.
    Lockheed Martin of Littleton, Colorado, $35.2 million.
    Northrop Grumman of Dulles, Virginia, $34.8 million.
    SpaceX of Hawthorne, California, $9.4 million.

As you see, the "national team" got $95.6 million. I assume that this is enough to at least keep paying the engineers. I also speculate, based on nothing except this article, that SpaceX got $9.4 million because that's all they asked for. Reasonable, since their first-round Starship HLS seems to already far more than meet all of the requirements for the "sustainable" HLS.

It's interesting that this award to BO was made in then midst of BO's lawsuit against NASA over the initial HLS award.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-selects-five-us-companies-to-mature-artemis-lander-concepts
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JCRM on 12/19/2021 04:04 pm


It's interesting that this award to BO was made in then midst of BO's lawsuit against NASA over the initial HLS award.

Well, interesting only to those foaming about NASA never letting BO bid again...
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DanClemmensen on 12/19/2021 05:45 pm


It's interesting that this award to BO was made in then midst of BO's lawsuit against NASA over the initial HLS award.

Well, interesting only to those foaming about NASA never letting BO bid again...
These are the design/study contracts for the "sustainable" HLS under the NextSTEP-2 appendix N contract awards. What I find most interesting is that the contract continues to pretend that the initial HLS is a mere proof of concept and the "sustainable" HLS is the real thing.  As originally conceived in 2016(?), the Artemis 3 landing was pretty much just a "boots on the ground" reprise of Apollo. However, SpaceX won the initial HLS award with Starship HLS, which (if it works) is so much more capable than the originally-conceived "sustainable" HLS that the program should be completely re-evaluated. Instead, NASA is plodding along its pre-ordained path and spending $148 million for basically nothing except job security for an irrelevant OldSpace industry.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the "national team" will be inspired to try to out-perform Starship HLS. If so, I wish them the best, but I see no way that the Blue Moon lunar lander can do it. (Caveat: I am not in the industry and I have no actual knowledge of what's going on, just what I read on the Internet. I'm just a taxpayer watching my tax money apparently being thrown away for nothing.)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Eric Hedman on 12/20/2021 05:33 am
I'm just a taxpayer watching my tax money apparently being thrown away for nothing.
Far from the first time that's ever happened.  And it sure won't be the last time.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 12/21/2021 02:43 am


It's interesting that this award to BO was made in then midst of BO's lawsuit against NASA over the initial HLS award.

Well, interesting only to those foaming about NASA never letting BO bid again...
These are the design/study contracts for the "sustainable" HLS under the NextSTEP-2 appendix N contract awards. What I find most interesting is that the contract continues to pretend that the initial HLS is a mere proof of concept and the "sustainable" HLS is the real thing.  As originally conceived in 2016(?), the Artemis 3 landing was pretty much just a "boots on the ground" reprise of Apollo. However, SpaceX won the initial HLS award with Starship HLS, which (if it works) is so much more capable than the originally-conceived "sustainable" HLS that the program should be completely re-evaluated. Instead, NASA is plodding along its pre-ordained path and spending $148 million for basically nothing except job security for an irrelevant OldSpace industry.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the "national team" will be inspired to try to out-perform Starship HLS. If so, I wish them the best, but I see no way that the Blue Moon lunar lander can do it. (Caveat: I am not in the industry and I have no actual knowledge of what's going on, just what I read on the Internet. I'm just a taxpayer watching my tax money apparently being thrown away for nothing.)

I am not sure that NASA was ever saying that the Option A award wasn't the real thing. Initially, companies that won an award under Option A would have been eligible for Option B which was the sustainable phase. NASA decided not to go forward with Option B because only one award was made under Option A. LETS incorporates Option B and is thus also called the sustainable phase. In terms of LETS being old space, I am not sure that is true either. As was the case under Option A, it is possible that NASA will only make one award under LETS if it doesn't receive two good proposals. The goal of Appendix N is to maintain competition until LETS is ready to be awarded.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DanClemmensen on 12/21/2021 03:25 am


It's interesting that this award to BO was made in then midst of BO's lawsuit against NASA over the initial HLS award.

Well, interesting only to those foaming about NASA never letting BO bid again...
These are the design/study contracts for the "sustainable" HLS under the NextSTEP-2 appendix N contract awards. What I find most interesting is that the contract continues to pretend that the initial HLS is a mere proof of concept and the "sustainable" HLS is the real thing.  As originally conceived in 2016(?), the Artemis 3 landing was pretty much just a "boots on the ground" reprise of Apollo. However, SpaceX won the initial HLS award with Starship HLS, which (if it works) is so much more capable than the originally-conceived "sustainable" HLS that the program should be completely re-evaluated. Instead, NASA is plodding along its pre-ordained path and spending $148 million for basically nothing except job security for an irrelevant OldSpace industry.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the "national team" will be inspired to try to out-perform Starship HLS. If so, I wish them the best, but I see no way that the Blue Moon lunar lander can do it. (Caveat: I am not in the industry and I have no actual knowledge of what's going on, just what I read on the Internet. I'm just a taxpayer watching my tax money apparently being thrown away for nothing.)

I am not sure that NASA was ever saying that the Option A award wasn't the real thing. Initially, companies that won an award under Option A would have been eligible for Option B which was the sustainable phase. NASA decided not to go forward with Option B because only one award was made under Option A. LETS incorporates Option B and is thus also called the sustainable phase. In terms of LETS being old space, I am not sure that is true either. As was the case under Option A, it is possible that NASA will only make one award under LETS if it doesn't receive two good proposals. The goal of Appendix N is to maintain competition until LETS is ready to be awarded.
Your interpretation is probably correct. I was perhaps reading too much into the NASA press release that I linked to:
     https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-selects-five-us-companies-to-mature-artemis-lander-concepts
which implied to me that the initial HLS was not intended to be "sustainable". I'm not sure what you mean by "not to go forward with option B". NASA is certainly going forward with something, to the tune of $148 million, and all but $9.4 million of that is going to "old space" if you count Blue as part of old space as part of the "national team".

Since Starship has not yet flown, there is still the possibility that Starship will not work, and the further possibility that Starship HLS will not work, so I guess NASA is justified in funding alternatives as insurance. As an outsider I see no difference in the risk of Starship failure and the risk of SLS failure or Orion failure, so risk mitigation for Starship HLS is inconsistent. 
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 12/22/2021 12:54 am


It's interesting that this award to BO was made in then midst of BO's lawsuit against NASA over the initial HLS award.

Well, interesting only to those foaming about NASA never letting BO bid again...
These are the design/study contracts for the "sustainable" HLS under the NextSTEP-2 appendix N contract awards. What I find most interesting is that the contract continues to pretend that the initial HLS is a mere proof of concept and the "sustainable" HLS is the real thing.  As originally conceived in 2016(?), the Artemis 3 landing was pretty much just a "boots on the ground" reprise of Apollo. However, SpaceX won the initial HLS award with Starship HLS, which (if it works) is so much more capable than the originally-conceived "sustainable" HLS that the program should be completely re-evaluated. Instead, NASA is plodding along its pre-ordained path and spending $148 million for basically nothing except job security for an irrelevant OldSpace industry.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the "national team" will be inspired to try to out-perform Starship HLS. If so, I wish them the best, but I see no way that the Blue Moon lunar lander can do it. (Caveat: I am not in the industry and I have no actual knowledge of what's going on, just what I read on the Internet. I'm just a taxpayer watching my tax money apparently being thrown away for nothing.)

I am not sure that NASA was ever saying that the Option A award wasn't the real thing. Initially, companies that won an award under Option A would have been eligible for Option B which was the sustainable phase. NASA decided not to go forward with Option B because only one award was made under Option A. LETS incorporates Option B and is thus also called the sustainable phase. In terms of LETS being old space, I am not sure that is true either. As was the case under Option A, it is possible that NASA will only make one award under LETS if it doesn't receive two good proposals. The goal of Appendix N is to maintain competition until LETS is ready to be awarded.
Your interpretation is probably correct. I was perhaps reading too much into the NASA press release that I linked to:
     https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-selects-five-us-companies-to-mature-artemis-lander-concepts
which implied to me that the initial HLS was not intended to be "sustainable". I'm not sure what you mean by "not to go forward with option B". NASA is certainly going forward with something, to the tune of $148 million, and all but $9.4 million of that is going to "old space" if you count Blue as part of old space as part of the "national team".

Since Starship has not yet flown, there is still the possibility that Starship will not work, and the further possibility that Starship HLS will not work, so I guess NASA is justified in funding alternatives as insurance. As an outsider I see no difference in the risk of Starship failure and the risk of SLS failure or Orion failure, so risk mitigation for Starship HLS is inconsistent.

The BAA for the HLS Demo missions had an Option A for Artemis III and an Option B for Artemis IV. Option B was the sustainable demo mission. NASA decided not to go forward with Option B but instead decided to create LETS which includes a demo sustainable mission (but also sustainable missions after that).
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: deadman1204 on 12/22/2021 01:53 pm
I suspect part of the focus on LETS and the next step stuff is political. Alot of congress was upset at spaceX being the sole awardee for option A (this ignores congress being partially at fault due to funding levels preventing a second award).

The lockheeds and boeings are VERY good at getting stuff from congress (it is their business model after all). No doubt NASA is responding to the political winds a bit. However, I do see a silver lining. Increased interest in congress for sustainable landing on the moon means more development money for AFTER Artemis 3, which decreases the chance of the program petering out after we plant another flag.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: su27k on 05/27/2022 02:21 am
Bezos’ Blue Origin May Ferry Futuristic Radio Telescope To Moon’s Far Side (https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2022/05/24/bezos-blue-origin-may-ferry-futuristic-radio-telescope-to-moons-far-side)

Quote from: forbes.com
But unlike previous initiatives to make a lunar far side telescope array a reality, this time commercial space technology’s accessibility has created a paradigm shift so that new space players like Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin have expressed a strong interest in ferrying this telescopic array to the Moon. Whether this ambitious billion-dollar far side array will ultimately be funded solely by NASA or via a public-private partnership has yet to be determined, however.

Blue Origin would like NASA to fund them to bring our telescope but to the Moon, says Burns. But Bezos himself is interested in the science, Burns notes.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: deadman1204 on 05/27/2022 02:36 am
Bezos’ Blue Origin May Ferry Futuristic Radio Telescope To Moon’s Far Side (https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2022/05/24/bezos-blue-origin-may-ferry-futuristic-radio-telescope-to-moons-far-side)

Quote from: forbes.com
But unlike previous initiatives to make a lunar far side telescope array a reality, this time commercial space technology’s accessibility has created a paradigm shift so that new space players like Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin have expressed a strong interest in ferrying this telescopic array to the Moon. Whether this ambitious billion-dollar far side array will ultimately be funded solely by NASA or via a public-private partnership has yet to be determined, however.

Blue Origin would like NASA to fund them to bring our telescope but to the Moon, says Burns. But Bezos himself is interested in the science, Burns notes.
This is hilariously stupid. Bezos wants nasa to build a giant something and then pay them lots of money to launch it. Yet people are using about this actually being a thing.

Is gonna be several years before Blue is a reliable launcher for nasa missions (real ones not the cheap high risk ones).
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JayWee on 05/27/2022 02:40 am
Link to FARSIDE paper:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1911/1911.08649.pdf
Quote
The pre-reserve total cost for the mission is ~$1.1B, including the launch vehicle and the nuclear material power sources for the base station and the 128 receiver elements comprising the science instrument. The development cost is $800M, ~$110M for the instrument (payload) and ~$510M for the flight system, which consists of the base station and deployment rover integrated into a large lunar lander. The Blue Origins Blue Moon Lander was selected as a reference lander for the design. The total mission cost estimate for FARSIDE, after applying NASA- and JPLstandard cost reserves of 30% during development and 15% during operations is ~$1.3B.
The study was done in 2019. That's pre-HLS.

Quote
The 590 kg FARSIDE base station will use a commercial lander, assumed for the purposes of this study to
be similar to the Blue Origin Blue Moon lander, which was scaled from photographs and renderings to
determine the size.
I have my doubts about this study.

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/06/2022 08:08 pm
The National Team is back:

https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1600233901833695232

Quote
The National Team has submitted its proposal for NASA’s SLD program to help the US establish a sustained lunar presence. The National Team partners are @BlueOrigin, @LockheedMartin, @DraperLab, @Boeing, @Astrobotic, and @Honeybee_Ltd.

https://www.blueorigin.com/blue-moon/sld-national-team/

Quote
Sustaining Lunar Development

The National Team of Blue Origin, Lockheed Martin, Draper, Boeing, Astrobotic, and Honeybee Robotics is competing for a NASA Sustaining Lunar Development contract to develop a human landing system for the Artemis program. In partnership with NASA, this team will achieve sustained presence on the Moon.

Edit to add: new thread for this HLS option B proposal:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57816.0

No real info yet so not clear what Blue’s contribution will be or how similar it is to the original HLS contract proposal.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DanClemmensen on 12/07/2022 04:37 pm
The National Team is back:

Edit to add: new thread for this HLS option B proposal:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57816.0

No real info yet so not clear what Blue’s contribution will be or how similar it is to the original HLS contract proposal.
This is an Appendix P proposal, not an Option B proposal. Option B is formally an extension of the already-awarded Appendix N SpaceX Option A contract and is therefore sole-source. Appendix P is the new competitive bid for the second supplier of a "sustainable" lander. I'm sure this distinction is important to someone.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: deadman1204 on 12/07/2022 07:55 pm
I pity the blue employees, that site is an embarrassing train wreck. NOTHING about the mission, not even a vague image of the lander. Nothing talking about the cool things they are gonna do. Zip, zilch, nada. Its 100% how many states and contractors will get money from it. 100% designed to woo corrupt congress critters.

Blue has learned nothing. Their new bid will be exactly like the last one. Designed for maximal profit, and if they lose there will be temper tantrums and law suits.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 12/07/2022 08:22 pm
Blue has learned nothing. Their new bid will be exactly like the last one. Designed for maximal profit, and if they lose there will be temper tantrums and law suits.

Bob Smith gonna Bob Smith.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/07/2022 09:48 pm




No real info yet so not clear what Blue’s contribution will be or how similar it is to the original HLS contract proposal.

Blue will provide the legal team when they lose.

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: meekGee on 12/08/2022 02:22 am
I pity the blue employees, that site is an embarrassing train wreck. NOTHING about the mission, not even a vague image of the lander. Nothing talking about the cool things they are gonna do. Zip, zilch, nada. Its 100% how many states and contractors will get money from it. 100% designed to woo corrupt congress critters.

Blue has learned nothing. Their new bid will be exactly like the last one. Designed for maximal profit, and if they lose there will be temper tantrums and law suits.
But hey they pay well!
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steve G on 12/08/2022 11:52 pm
I haven't seen any updates on the Blue (Cargo) lander since Bezos's big public announcement. The lunar lander immediately switched to the HLS once the bids were in. Has anyone seen any updates for the Blue Moon Lander as originally revealed?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 12/08/2022 11:54 pm
I haven't seen any updates on the Blue (Cargo) lander since Bezos's big public announcement. The lunar lander immediately switched to the HLS once the bids were in. Has anyone seen any updates for the Blue Moon Lander as originally revealed?

It still seemed to be active around 6 months ago based on job postings, but other than that there has been no news.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/28/2022 12:28 pm
https://twitter.com/harry__stranger/status/1608087924238868486

Quote
High resolution satellite imagery shows Blue Origin have recently refreshed their Lunar Hazard Field, where they will be testing technologies being developed for lunar landers.

View the full image here: https://soar.earth/maps/14056?basemap=Google+Hybrid

twitter.com/harry__stranger/status/1608087956706979841

Quote
Blue Origin first mentioned the Lunar Hazard Field during the NS-17 webcast in August 2021: https://m.youtube.com/clip/UgkxbZ53qGI-UajPAvQ0CUjCqUIKUTfFPslF

https://twitter.com/harry__stranger/status/1608087989389004802

Quote
Firefly Aerospace also have a similar facility to this at their site in Texas.
(Second image taken from @Erdayastronaut's tour video: https://youtu.be/ac-V8mO0lWo?t=3579)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: trimeta on 04/19/2023 12:33 am
Short Twitter thread on Blue Origin's lunar terrain field and hazard detection/navigation systems.

https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1648470257462575108

Quote
Our lunar terrain field simulates the surface conditions on the Moon. Sensors identify terrain variations for autonomous hazard detection and avoidance.

Quote
In partnership with NASA, using New Shepard and multiple aircraft, we’re testing our hazard detection and LIDAR Terrain Relative Navigation systems.

https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1648470263506571265

Quote
LIDAR-based navigation isn’t limited by available illumination, which enables precision lunar landing under any lighting conditions anywhere on the Moon.

And another mini-thread about Blue Moon's RCS thrusters.

https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1648472027760820228

Quote
Shown before final machining, these are Blue Moon lander RCS flight thrusters. These thrusters use gaseous hydrogen and oxygen for high performance.

Quote
Each thruster is hotfire tested in our vacuum chamber shown in this infrared image.

https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1648472035545481221

Quote
Blue Moon’s thrusters, fuel cell, and BE-7 main engine all use hydrogen and oxygen supplied from the primary flight tanks, creating a highly efficient integrated power and propulsion system. Shown is the fuel cell assembly being readied for vacuum chamber testing.

There's a third mini-thread about the BE-7 engine used on Blue Moon, but I'll post that over in the BE-7 thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48134.0).
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DreamyPickle on 05/19/2023 05:33 pm
I love that the lander was redesigned to fit the New Glenn 7 meter fairing. Fitting into the 5m fairing of Vulcan was far too limiting and showed a lack of confidence it the company's own products.

It also great to see that the two lunar landers have such radically different designs including different fuel choices and tank placement.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JCRM on 05/20/2023 08:16 am
I love that the lander was redesigned to fit the New Glenn 7 meter fairing. Fitting into the 5m fairing of Vulcan was far too limiting and showed a lack of confidence it the company's own products.


The two contracts have very different delivery dates  relying upon New Glenn for the first contract would have been ridiculous.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Rakietwawka2021 on 05/20/2023 04:54 pm
Can someone tell me where this lander has an engine?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steve G on 05/20/2023 06:27 pm
If the engines are on the base, the engine bells would have to be non-extended and embedded within the bottom so there would be no risk in dinging them as was the case in Apollo 15. They have to be protected for launch and re-use. I doubt they are hidden under the radiator-looking things (which are hinged) but that's just speculation, of course.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/20/2023 06:46 pm
Can someone tell me where this lander has an engine?
I think four corners of base covered in same material. See photo.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 05/20/2023 08:42 pm
So what are they going to do for the HDL cargo variant?  Is the cargo going to be sandwiched between the thrust structure and the tanks, like the crew module is?  Or are they going to put the cargo on the top?

If the HDL is reusable, which is implied in some of the source selection text, then inserting a payload arriving in NRHO from Earth into the enclosed space will get really tricky.  And it's equally tricky to deploy payloads to the surface using davits that have to navigate around whatever struts hold the tanks up.

It'd be much easier to transfer cargos to, and deploy them from, the top of the vehicle.  But then you have a significantly different structure.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Zed_Noir on 05/20/2023 09:37 pm
So what are they going to do for the HDL cargo variant?  Is the cargo going to be sandwiched between the thrust structure and the tanks, like the crew module is?  Or are they going to put the cargo on the top?

If the HDL is reusable, which is implied in some of the source selection text, then inserting a payload arriving in NRHO from Earth into the enclosed space will get really tricky.  And it's equally tricky to deploy payloads to the surface using davits that have to navigate around whatever struts hold the tanks up.

It'd be much easier to transfer cargos to, and deploy them from, the top of the vehicle.  But then you have a significantly different structure.

One simple HDL solution is to insert 4 cargo modules into cage structures with overhead cargo handling frames where the crew space is in the Appendix P lander. Think of four 10 ft size intermodal cargo container. The overhead cargo handling frames are extendable with intergrated winchs. IIRC the reusable Blue Moon 2 lander is capable of landing 20 tonnes of payload. So each cargo module carries about 5 tonnes of payload. Could replace one of the cargo module with a vehicle carrier module.

However the National Team HDL variant is more like a small Transit delivery van compared to the Starship as a semi.  ;)


Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 05/20/2023 09:52 pm
So what are they going to do for the HDL cargo variant?  Is the cargo going to be sandwiched between the thrust structure and the tanks, like the crew module is?  Or are they going to put the cargo on the top?

If the HDL is reusable, which is implied in some of the source selection text, then inserting a payload arriving in NRHO from Earth into the enclosed space will get really tricky.  And it's equally tricky to deploy payloads to the surface using davits that have to navigate around whatever struts hold the tanks up.

It'd be much easier to transfer cargos to, and deploy them from, the top of the vehicle.  But then you have a significantly different structure.

One simple HDL solution is to insert 4 cargo modules into cage structures with overhead cargo handling frames where the crew space is in the Appendix P lander. Think of four 10 ft size intermodal cargo container. The overhead cargo handling frames are extendable with intergrated winchs. IIRC the reusable Blue Moon 2 lander is capable of landing 20 tonnes of payload. So each cargo module carries about 5 tonnes of payload. Could replace one of the cargo module with a vehicle carrier module.

However the National Team HDL variant is more like a small Transit delivery van compared to the Starship as a semi.  ;)

HDL isn't really a mass-constrained problem; it's volume-constrained.  If you have to design stuff so it can sneak past the trusses, that's a pretty significant drawback.  Things are a lot more straightforward if you put the payloads on the top.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Zed_Noir on 05/20/2023 10:08 pm
<snip>
HDL isn't really a mass-constrained problem; it's volume-constrained.  If you have to design stuff so it can sneak past the trusses, that's a pretty significant drawback.  Things are a lot more straightforward if you put the payloads on the top.
Than you have to structurally reinforced the top liquid Hydrogen tank plus figuring out where to put the communication antenna. Also there are the radiator panels around the LH tank to consider.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 05/21/2023 05:03 am
<snip>
HDL isn't really a mass-constrained problem; it's volume-constrained.  If you have to design stuff so it can sneak past the trusses, that's a pretty significant drawback.  Things are a lot more straightforward if you put the payloads on the top.
Than you have to structurally reinforced the top liquid Hydrogen tank plus figuring out where to put the communication antenna. Also there are the radiator panels around the LH tank to consider.

That's my original point:  It's not a great HDL architecture either way.

I think you're right that keeping the cargo low but somewhat volume- and width-constrained is probably the better option.  But it's... kinda weird.  But it does put the cargo low to the ground, similar to the ALPACA.  That's a pretty big deal.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steve G on 05/21/2023 04:47 pm
Apologies for the shoddy artwork, but this is a quick rendition of what the cargo lander may look like.

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 05/21/2023 07:08 pm
It's quite remarkable how far the HLS architecture has moved in four years.

In 2019, NASA's HLS reference design was for a three-vehicle transfer element / descent element / ascent element design, with each element brought up to NRHO fully fueled.  There were some mumblings about making the crewed AE reusable by refueling it, and the TE could have been made reusable, but only by expending something as complex as another TE to refuel it.  The DE was a writeoff.

NASA's trade studies looked at 2-element DE/AE designs, and TE/DAE (descent/ascent element) systems, where the TE was a crasher, but nobody really thought much about DAEs; they seemed to be unrealistically heavy.

It's no surprise that National Team Mark 1 bid a TE/DE/AE system; that's what NASA thought it wanted.  But SpaceX swept in with a lunar Starship DAE (no crashers, just a single massive DAE) and wiped them out.

The lawsuits and gnashing of teeth that ensued focused on the assumed complexity of a design that required an LEO depot, tankers to fill the depot, and a depot or tanker to actually move the accumulated prop to NRHO to refuel the LSS.  The number of launches required figured prominently in the arguments for why this was high risk, and why NASA's decision was fatally flawed.

So it's all the more remarkable that, two years later, National Team Mark 2 has completely drunk the Kool-Aid on the DAE architecture, with an implied depot in LEO and a transfer vehicle to take the accumulated prop to NRHO for filling the DAE.  Blue has done a complete 180, effectively adopting SpaceX's architecture in its entirety.

The trajectory of this is shockingly similar to how launcher reusability went from being an impossible idea, to a crazy one, and then on to being the conventional wisdom for how to build a new launch system.  There's a quote attributed to Gandhi (apocryphally, it turns out):  "First they ignore you.  Then they laugh at you.  Then they attack you. Then you win."

SpaceX has now done that twice in a decade.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: StormtrooperJoe on 05/21/2023 07:27 pm
I think it is a sign of how fast the space industry(and I don't just mean SpaceX) is moving right now, which is very. If only NASA opened up a commercial lunar crew program, then we might see similar innovations and good ideas in that space. I think many would agree that that is the single biggest thing that NASA could do to improve itself in the next few years.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 05/21/2023 09:25 pm
It's quite remarkable how far the HLS architecture has moved in four years.

In 2019, NASA's HLS reference design was for a three-vehicle transfer element / descent element / ascent element design, with each element brought up to NRHO fully fueled.  There were some mumblings about making the crewed AE reusable by refueling it, and the TE could have been made reusable, but only by expending something as complex as another TE to refuel it.  The DE was a writeoff.

NASA's trade studies looked at 2-element DE/AE designs, and TE/DAE (descent/ascent element) systems, where the TE was a crasher, but nobody really thought much about DAEs; they seemed to be unrealistically heavy.

It's no surprise that National Team Mark 1 bid a TE/DE/AE system; that's what NASA thought it wanted.  But SpaceX swept in with a lunar Starship DAE (no crashers, just a single massive DAE) and wiped them out.

The lawsuits and gnashing of teeth that ensued focused on the assumed complexity of a design that required an LEO depot, tankers to fill the depot, and a depot or tanker to actually move the accumulated prop to NRHO to refuel the LSS.  The number of launches required figured prominently in the arguments for why this was high risk, and why NASA's decision was fatally flawed.

So it's all the more remarkable that, two years later, National Team Mark 2 has completely drunk the Kool-Aid on the DAE architecture, with an implied depot in LEO and a transfer vehicle to take the accumulated prop to NRHO for filling the DAE.  Blue has done a complete 180, effectively adopting SpaceX's architecture in its entirety.

The trajectory of this is shockingly similar to how launcher reusability went from being an impossible idea, to a crazy one, and then on to being the conventional wisdom for how to build a new launch system.  There's a quote attributed to Gandhi (apocryphally, it turns out):  "First they ignore you.  Then they laugh at you.  Then they attack you. Then you win."

SpaceX has now done that twice in a decade.

Funny... I just saw your comment... looks like great minds think alike as I had just posted this in a topic about the CIS Lunar Transporter without seeing your comment.. looks like we are joining the dots with Blue's strategic plans:

" ...the CISLunar Transporter ultimately is THE BIGGER deal than the lander and makes a economic sustainable lunar eco-system in the next six + plus years from now..the lander is merely a connector from the gateway and back...the CISLunar Transporter turns it into a profitable business model ....and I posit that Blue is thinking strategic with this, and that means [I am spit balling here..and guessing where they are going with this...]:

1. The CISLunar Transport will be re-usable, and not one off.

2. In the mid-term to long term.. Launching SLS rocket to the lunar gateway will not be sustainable... when you can shuttle, fuel, food, and other resources, and perhaps even people via a more economic and sustainable CISLunar Transporter... by that stage NASA would be more interesting in using SLS for other space exploration projects... whereas Blue is clearly looking to set up infrastructure that it can build upon, and most importantly CHARGE service and transportation fees... that is how they will make this venture profitable.

3. Once the CISLunar Transporter deliver its goods to the Lunar Gateway, that means there is an empty transporter going back to Earth that Blue can use to return cargo [Mining? High value Minerals? ] back to Earth...

4. Whilst the connector to the Moon will be the Lunar Gateway, I posit that CISLunar Transport would return to that warehouse in Earth orbit... Blue's Orbital Reef to pick up the consolidated cargo in terms of fuel, food, people [including Dr Heywood Floyd going to Clavius Base... because they have found something that has been deliberately buried!! ] going out to the Moon, and receive the cargo coming back.... and you can bet the Blue and it's partners are going to CHARGE warehousing, service and transport fees [no doubt this this cargo will be launched via New Glenn to Orbital Reef, and returned via a Jarvis ...]

I am sure this is the strategic plan for Blue Origin in the mid term.... that is 8-10 years from now....  because utimately this Moon enterprise is all about logistics and you can bet Blue and its partners are going to provide the hardware at near cost to NASA... but make a profit on the service fees.

Ultimately I suspect Blue intends to use the hydrogen from the water that it has mined in the Moon to provide fuel for the CISLunar Transporter, and I posit that it will be a Nuclear Thermal Rocket in about 10-20 years from now.... because of the greater Isp... I only hope they ensure they have plenty of AE-35 units in stock on the moon.... just in case!
"

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Asteroza on 05/21/2023 10:53 pm
It's quite remarkable how far the HLS architecture has moved in four years.

In 2019, NASA's HLS reference design was for a three-vehicle transfer element / descent element / ascent element design, with each element brought up to NRHO fully fueled.  There were some mumblings about making the crewed AE reusable by refueling it, and the TE could have been made reusable, but only by expending something as complex as another TE to refuel it.  The DE was a writeoff.

NASA's trade studies looked at 2-element DE/AE designs, and TE/DAE (descent/ascent element) systems, where the TE was a crasher, but nobody really thought much about DAEs; they seemed to be unrealistically heavy.

It's no surprise that National Team Mark 1 bid a TE/DE/AE system; that's what NASA thought it wanted.  But SpaceX swept in with a lunar Starship DAE (no crashers, just a single massive DAE) and wiped them out.

The lawsuits and gnashing of teeth that ensued focused on the assumed complexity of a design that required an LEO depot, tankers to fill the depot, and a depot or tanker to actually move the accumulated prop to NRHO to refuel the LSS.  The number of launches required figured prominently in the arguments for why this was high risk, and why NASA's decision was fatally flawed.

So it's all the more remarkable that, two years later, National Team Mark 2 has completely drunk the Kool-Aid on the DAE architecture, with an implied depot in LEO and a transfer vehicle to take the accumulated prop to NRHO for filling the DAE.  Blue has done a complete 180, effectively adopting SpaceX's architecture in its entirety.

The trajectory of this is shockingly similar to how launcher reusability went from being an impossible idea, to a crazy one, and then on to being the conventional wisdom for how to build a new launch system.  There's a quote attributed to Gandhi (apocryphally, it turns out):  "First they ignore you.  Then they laugh at you.  Then they attack you. Then you win."

SpaceX has now done that twice in a decade.

Well, but, one could argue an all in one reusable lander is effectively forced by the pricing of the SpaceX award size? There's a very bright searchlight focused on the price of a second HLS lander (which hasn't been budgeted for either). Would a partially expendable or fully expendable offering stay within the ballpark of the SpaceX award the way this has?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DanClemmensen on 05/22/2023 12:19 am

Well, but, one could argue an all in one reusable lander is effectively forced by the pricing of the SpaceX award size? There's a very bright searchlight focused on the price of a second HLS lander (which hasn't been budgeted for either). Would a partially expendable or fully expendable offering stay within the ballpark of the SpaceX award the way this has?
I'm not sure what you mean. NASA awarded SpaceX Option A of NextSTEP appendix H at a fixed price of $2.89 Billion in April of 2021. This culminates in the crewed landing for Artemis III. NASA then  excersized Option B of the contract and awarded SpaceX an additional $1.13 Billion for a "sustained" lander. This will be the lander for Artemis IV. The BO Appendix P lander is supposed to be the crewed lander for Artemis V. SpaceX and BO will compete for landings after Artemis V.

We have not yet seen any CONOPS from SpaceX for reusing Starship HLS. The various CONOPS that have been speculated about on these forums do not seem to me to be cheaper than just expending Starship HLS. My guess is that  the mission cost will be less than $500 million, because that $1.13 Billion includes the incremental development cost. Starships should get cheaper as they enter high production.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 05/22/2023 04:37 am

Well, but, one could argue an all in one reusable lander is effectively forced by the pricing of the SpaceX award size? There's a very bright searchlight focused on the price of a second HLS lander (which hasn't been budgeted for either). Would a partially expendable or fully expendable offering stay within the ballpark of the SpaceX award the way this has?

...We have not yet seen any CONOPS from SpaceX for reusing Starship HLS. The various CONOPS that have been speculated about on these forums do not seem to me to be cheaper than just expending Starship HLS. My guess is that  the mission cost will be less than $500 million, because that $1.13 Billion includes the incremental development cost. Starships should get cheaper as they enter high production.

I suspect that both architectures have a long way to go before they're routinely reused.  Dust decontamination, consumable reprovisioning, inspection and repair of FOD, and reintegration of unpressurized payloads are all problems with extremely vague requirements and no easy solutions.  So I agree that both systems may turn out to be one-shots for a few missions.

As for cost, I suspect that the LSS has a much lower theoretical cost/kg for surface payloads, but I wouldn't be surprised if the practical costs didn't favor Blue, because NASA won't risk huge payloads or lots of aggregations of payloads for quite a while, especially when either architecture could wind up carrying them.  And Blue's architecture requires a lot fewer launches than SpaceX's, even if SpaceX's launches are somewhat cheaper.

All that said, it looks a lot better for Blue if the whole system is reusable.  But that's more of a cosmetic thing than an economic one--at least for a few missions.

One huge advantage that SpaceX has is that it's possible to produce an LSS that's capable of EDL--even if NASA insists on taking the crew off in NRHO and returning them in a separate vehicle.  The cost is obviously dry mass for the TPS and elonerons, along with the complexity of supporting landing legs and (presumed) waist thrusters for lunar landings with the TPS.  But getting the ship back on terra firma is worth a lot, both in terms of reusability and in terms of being able to tear the thing apart to understand the kinds of wear and tear incurred on the lunar surface.

I don't know how Blue is going to get the same kind of data--unless they're willing to contract with SpaceX to have a Starship gobble a Blue Moon up and return it to Earth.  I suspect that won't be their first choice, but it might be the only way they can get the data they need to make reusability worthwhile.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: catdlr on 05/22/2023 06:01 am
https://youtu.be/GpoR87UDnPA
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JEF_300 on 05/22/2023 06:45 am
As for cost, I suspect that the LSS has a much lower theoretical cost/kg for surface payloads, but I wouldn't be surprised if the practical costs didn't favor Blue, because NASA won't risk huge payloads or lots of aggregations of payloads for quite a while, especially when either architecture could wind up carrying them.  And Blue's architecture requires a lot fewer launches than SpaceX's, even if SpaceX's launches are somewhat cheaper.

I think this is very important. If you want to land dozens of tons of cargo on the Moon, Starship is great! But it will be a long time before that is needed. Starship's x-factor means it can kind of get away with it, but using Starship for the return to the Moon flight is a bit like using an entire Space Shuttle to take 1 or 2 people to Mir. You certainly can do it, and they certainly did, but it was somewhat excessive.

Honestly, that analogy kind of holds up. I mean, unless you're constructing a fully-fledged Moon-base, I don't think the capabilities of Starship are really needed. And even then, like the Shuttle, it's only needed during construction. Once that base is operational, it will probably be cheaper to do resupply and crew rotations with Blue Moon than Starship. After all, 2-3 New Glenn launches are probably gonna be cheaper than 8+ Starship launches, no matter how much voodoo Elon performs. That's the magic of an optimized architecture (...and hydrolox. That helps too.)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: kevinof on 05/22/2023 07:50 am
I suspect that by the time we get to a situation where we have a lunar base built and operational it will be a minimum 15 years from now and Starship will have moved on to Mars. If any future lunar base is small and only requires a couple of crew per rotation then the BO/National lander would work great but if it's anything bigger then it's very limiting in terms of crew capacity.

...snip..

Honestly, that analogy kind of holds up. I mean, unless you're constructing a fully-fledged Moon-base, I don't think the capabilities of Starship are really needed. And even then, like the Shuttle, it's only needed during construction. Once that base is operational, it will probably be cheaper to do resupply and crew rotations with Blue Moon than Starship. After all, 2-3 New Glenn launches are probably gonna be cheaper than 8+ Starship launches, no matter how much voodoo Elon performs. That's the magic of an optimized architecture (...and hydrolox. That helps too.)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 05/22/2023 08:06 am
I suspect that by the time we get to a situation where we have a lunar base built and operational it will be a minimum 15 years from now and Starship will have moved on to Mars. If any future lunar base is small and only requires a couple of crew per rotation then the BO/National lander would work great but if it's anything bigger then it's very limiting in terms of crew capacity.

...snip..

Honestly, that analogy kind of holds up. I mean, unless you're constructing a fully-fledged Moon-base, I don't think the capabilities of Starship are really needed. And even then, like the Shuttle, it's only needed during construction. Once that base is operational, it will probably be cheaper to do resupply and crew rotations with Blue Moon than Starship. After all, 2-3 New Glenn launches are probably gonna be cheaper than 8+ Starship launches, no matter how much voodoo Elon performs. That's the magic of an optimized architecture (...and hydrolox. That helps too.)

That is exactly what is the intention of NASA to build a lunar base, as it is the clearly the goal of Blue Origin. That is why the most important part of Blue Moon is the cis lunar transport. That is a really big deal. I also posit that Orbital Reef is going to be a very important part in this as the earth based depot. That is why they have designed a sustainable architecture that will not limit the growth of this base. Blue are clearly looking to utilise the resources on the moon to attain their goal of having a million people living and working in space. That is why Blue is looking to mine lunar ice to provide fuel for their lander.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Cheapchips on 05/22/2023 08:26 am
Can someone tell me where this lander has an engine?
I think four corners of base covered in same material. See photo.


The highlighted bits probably, with two on the other side?  That does make it look like both airlocks have engines sitting underneath them.  There's certainly space, BE-7 is only around 1.5m tall. Maybe a bit odd from a thrust loads perspective?

 
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 05/22/2023 10:34 am
Can someone tell me where this lander has an engine?
I think four corners of base covered in same material. See photo.


The highlighted bits probably, with two on the other side?  That does make it look like both airlocks have engines sitting underneath them.  There's certainly space, BE-7 is only around 1.5m tall. Maybe a bit odd from a thrust loads perspective?

This is how Scott Manley guesses the engine arrangement...
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Zed_Noir on 05/22/2023 10:51 am
Can someone tell me where this lander has an engine?
I think four corners of base covered in same material. See photo.


The highlighted bits probably, with two on the other side?  That does make it look like both airlocks have engines sitting underneath them.  There's certainly space, BE-7 is only around 1.5m tall. Maybe a bit odd from a thrust loads perspective?
Maybe the possible four BE-7 engines could act as cosine thrusters if they can gimbaled 30 degrees outward just prior to touchdown.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: chopsticks on 05/22/2023 01:50 pm
I probably missed this, but where is the docking port? Is it in that round protrusion on the side?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JSz on 05/22/2023 02:25 pm
I probably missed this, but where is the docking port? Is it in that round protrusion on the side?

I think not from below - between the legs, but from above, as it was in the LM.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DanClemmensen on 05/22/2023 02:40 pm
As for cost, I suspect that the LSS has a much lower theoretical cost/kg for surface payloads, but I wouldn't be surprised if the practical costs didn't favor Blue, because NASA won't risk huge payloads or lots of aggregations of payloads for quite a while, especially when either architecture could wind up carrying them.  And Blue's architecture requires a lot fewer launches than SpaceX's, even if SpaceX's launches are somewhat cheaper.
I think this is very important. If you want to land dozens of tons of cargo on the Moon, Starship is great! But it will be a long time before that is needed. Starship's x-factor means it can kind of get away with it, but using Starship for the return to the Moon flight is a bit like using an entire Space Shuttle to take 1 or 2 people to Mir. You certainly can do it, and they certainly did, but it was somewhat excessive.
How do you measure "excessive"? If Starship HLS is cheaper than BO HLS per mission, then use Starship HLS, even if it is only delivering a minimal crew and payload. until we see a more detailed CONOPS we won't be able to guess the BO HLS mission cost.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DanClemmensen on 05/22/2023 02:46 pm
I suspect that by the time we get to a situation where we have a lunar base built and operational it will be a minimum 15 years from now and Starship will have moved on to Mars. If any future lunar base is small and only requires a couple of crew per rotation then the BO/National lander would work great but if it's anything bigger then it's very limiting in terms of crew capacity.

...snip..

Honestly, that analogy kind of holds up. I mean, unless you're constructing a fully-fledged Moon-base, I don't think the capabilities of Starship are really needed. And even then, like the Shuttle, it's only needed during construction. Once that base is operational, it will probably be cheaper to do resupply and crew rotations with Blue Moon than Starship. After all, 2-3 New Glenn launches are probably gonna be cheaper than 8+ Starship launches, no matter how much voodoo Elon performs. That's the magic of an optimized architecture (...and hydrolox. That helps too.)
NASA's "sustainable HLS" requirements only make sense in terms of Artemis/SLS/Orion. Orion is the bottleneck, so the Lunar base will be tiny. Once you allow for crew flights in a more capable spacecraft from Earth to cislunar space, you will need a bigger lander to match.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: ThatOldJanxSpirit on 05/22/2023 03:08 pm
I probably missed this, but where is the docking port? Is it in that round protrusion on the side?

I think not from below - between the legs, but from above, as it was in the LM.

It’s on the side of the crew compartment.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: kevinof on 05/22/2023 03:35 pm
100% and the point I was trying to make (but I was clumsy). This lander is optimised for the current Artemis plan with boots on the surface for maybe a couple of weeks a year (all because of SLS). This limits the crew , the stay time , the frequency and the size of any lunar facility.

Take away SLS and it now opens up the opportunity to greatly increase the crew and the size of the outpost- something that the BO lander is not ideal for.



I suspect that by the time we get to a situation where we have a lunar base built and operational it will be a minimum 15 years from now and Starship will have moved on to Mars. If any future lunar base is small and only requires a couple of crew per rotation then the BO/National lander would work great but if it's anything bigger then it's very limiting in terms of crew capacity.

...snip..

Honestly, that analogy kind of holds up. I mean, unless you're constructing a fully-fledged Moon-base, I don't think the capabilities of Starship are really needed. And even then, like the Shuttle, it's only needed during construction. Once that base is operational, it will probably be cheaper to do resupply and crew rotations with Blue Moon than Starship. After all, 2-3 New Glenn launches are probably gonna be cheaper than 8+ Starship launches, no matter how much voodoo Elon performs. That's the magic of an optimized architecture (...and hydrolox. That helps too.)
NASA's "sustainable HLS" requirements only make sense in terms of Artemis/SLS/Orion. Orion is the bottleneck, so the Lunar base will be tiny. Once you allow for crew flights in a more capable spacecraft from Earth to cislunar space, you will need a bigger lander to match.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Kazioo on 05/22/2023 04:04 pm
I'm wondering about plume-regolith interaction.

It's a widely discussed problem for Starship (hence the proposed additional thrusters on top), but this lander is also much heavier than the Apollo one and the engines seem to be very close to the ground.

I remembered this post from Metzger:
Quote
the 5-ton (landing mass) Apollo Lunar Module blew about 2.6 tons of soil per landing. Using the equation we derived from Apollo landings (a 2.5 power index) this predicts a 40-ton lander will blow 2.6*(40/5)^2.5 = 470 tons of soil!

As this is apparently not a solved problem in physics we will have to wait for the demo missions to know more. Quite fascinating.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JEF_300 on 05/22/2023 05:19 pm
How do you measure "excessive"? If Starship HLS is cheaper than BO HLS per mission, then use Starship HLS, even if it is only delivering a minimal crew and payload. until we see a more detailed CONOPS we won't be able to guess the BO HLS mission cost.

I think there's plenty of reason to think that Blue Moon will be cheaper than Starship HLS, which I partially laid out in the part of my post that you cut out of this response.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steve G on 05/22/2023 05:20 pm
I was thinking that perhaps after the landing, there would be some kind of mat they could anchor underneath the lander to reduce debris during takeoff. However, I'd like to see the source of 2.6 tons of soil removed during the Apollo landings. There was a lot of dust but no crater under the lander. Further, with better guidance than Apollo, there would be a lot less hover time kicking up the dust. Apollo 12 first picked up dust at about 125 feet, and Conrad took another fifty seconds to land and no question, he blew a lot of dust.

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFSa6vUix70

That's a lot longer than I expect future manned landings and I'm certain the final approach and and precision landing will be tailored to minimize dust.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JEF_300 on 05/22/2023 05:27 pm
100% and the point I was trying to make (but I was clumsy). This lander is optimised for the current Artemis plan with boots on the surface for maybe a couple of weeks a year (all because of SLS). This limits the crew , the stay time , the frequency and the size of any lunar facility.

Take away SLS and it now opens up the opportunity to greatly increase the crew and the size of the outpost- something that the BO lander is not ideal for.



I suspect that by the time we get to a situation where we have a lunar base built and operational it will be a minimum 15 years from now and Starship will have moved on to Mars. If any future lunar base is small and only requires a couple of crew per rotation then the BO/National lander would work great but if it's anything bigger then it's very limiting in terms of crew capacity.

...snip..

Honestly, that analogy kind of holds up. I mean, unless you're constructing a fully-fledged Moon-base, I don't think the capabilities of Starship are really needed. And even then, like the Shuttle, it's only needed during construction. Once that base is operational, it will probably be cheaper to do resupply and crew rotations with Blue Moon than Starship. After all, 2-3 New Glenn launches are probably gonna be cheaper than 8+ Starship launches, no matter how much voodoo Elon performs. That's the magic of an optimized architecture (...and hydrolox. That helps too.)
NASA's "sustainable HLS" requirements only make sense in terms of Artemis/SLS/Orion. Orion is the bottleneck, so the Lunar base will be tiny. Once you allow for crew flights in a more capable spacecraft from Earth to cislunar space, you will need a bigger lander to match.

See, I disagree. I think that even if you remove SLS and Orion from the equation, the governments of the world still won't be willing to spend for a base much bigger (in terms of internal volume and crew compliment) than ISS is. That's all you really need for research and prestige. If you want a bigger base, you probably need to bring in commercial uses. And I don't see any of those on the horizon yet.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DanClemmensen on 05/22/2023 05:51 pm
See, I disagree. I think that even if you remove SLS and Orion from the equation, the governments of the world still won't be willing to spend for a base much bigger (in terms of internal volume and crew compliment) than ISS is. That's all you really need for research and prestige. If you want a bigger base, you probably need to bring in commercial uses. And I don't see any of those on the horizon yet.
I think the "governments of the world" operate on cost, not spacecraft volume, and a lunar base with an annual cost like the ISS may become feasible. If the per-seat cost of transport can get close to the current per-seat cost to ISS (about $55 million) for a crew of 8, it should be feasible. Clearly, your vision is a guess, and my vision is also a guess. My vision is for a continuously-occupied lunar surface station with a crew of eight to 12 and six-month crew rotations.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: joek on 05/22/2023 05:52 pm
See, I disagree. I think that even if you remove SLS and Orion from the equation, the governments of the world still won't be willing to spend for a base much bigger (in terms of internal volume and crew compliment) than ISS is. That's all you really need for research and prestige. If you want a bigger base, you probably need to bring in commercial uses. And I don't see any of those on the horizon yet.

Apologies for the allegories, but bit of the forest vs. the trees in this discussion? The forest being cheap large scale LEO launch. The trees being Lunar outpost(s).  As you suggest, a good argument can be made for optimizing for the latter--at least in the short term. In the mid- to long-term, will bet on the forest (SpaceX SS/SH) as they appear to have what it takes to sustain the forest (via Starlink) and undercut those focused on the trees. Maybe Kuiper will provide Blue the same; another discussion.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: matthewkantar on 05/22/2023 06:07 pm
The name for the lander is hilarious given the saying it is associated with. To me the really interesting question will be whether or not B.O. can get Boeing and Lockheed to perform better on this project than they have for NASA.

I’ve lost count of the subcontractors team members, is it five? six? More? The second lander’s approach is very much how NASA would do it themselves.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JEF_300 on 05/22/2023 06:13 pm
See, I disagree. I think that even if you remove SLS and Orion from the equation, the governments of the world still won't be willing to spend for a base much bigger (in terms of internal volume and crew compliment) than ISS is. That's all you really need for research and prestige. If you want a bigger base, you probably need to bring in commercial uses. And I don't see any of those on the horizon yet.
I think the "governments of the world" operate on cost, not spacecraft volume, and a lunar base with an annual cost like the ISS may become feasible. If the per-seat cost of transport can get close to the current per-seat cost to ISS (about $55 million) for a crew of 8, it should be feasible. Clearly, your vision is a guess, and my vision is also a guess. My vision is for a continuously-occupied lunar surface station with a crew of eight to 12 and six-month crew rotations.
I don't think governments operate on cost. And certainly, the US government doesn't; see SLS. The US government simply decides what it wants to see happen (whether that be a specific mission, or the maintenance of jobs in their districts, or anything in between), and then pays as little as it takes to make that occur. I think that what the US government, and therefore it's international partners, will want to see happen is a permanently crewed lunar research outpost. I don't think they will really care how big or small that outpost is, so long as they can say that it exists, and it continues to do research.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: punder on 05/22/2023 06:14 pm
If you want a bigger base, you probably need to bring in commercial uses. And I don't see any of those on the horizon yet.
Well, just to throw in a contrary opinion, Bob&Doug launched in May 2020, and inspiration4 flew about 18 months later. The third commercial Dragon crew is at the ISS now. Falcon 9 started with ISS cargo and now flies mostly commercial missions, even if you don’t count Starlink.

Meaning, it won’t take long, after capability is demonstrated, for lunar commercial interests to come along. I believe there is huge latent interest in lunar surface ops, and there are more ways to make money there than in LEO. But no point unless it’s demonstrated you can get there (and back) affordably and regularly.

My prediction, New Glenn will fly a lot less often than Starship and each flight will cost a lot more. Blue Moon landers and their LM tugs will cost a LOT more than Starship HLS and its tankers, and the LM involvement will make them a lot less responsive to the commercial market. My gut feeling from decades of observation, salt to taste.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JEF_300 on 05/22/2023 06:26 pm
If you want a bigger base, you probably need to bring in commercial uses. And I don't see any of those on the horizon yet.
Well, just to throw in a contrary opinion, Bob&Doug launched in May 2020, and inspiration4 flew about 18 months later. The third commercial Dragon crew is at the ISS now. Falcon 9 started with ISS cargo and now flies mostly commercial missions, even if you don’t count Starlink.

Meaning, it won’t take long, after capability is demonstrated, for lunar commercial interests to come along. I believe there is huge latent interest in lunar surface ops, and there are more ways to make money there than in LEO. But no point unless it’s demonstrated you can get there (and back) affordably and regularly.

My prediction, New Glenn will fly a lot less often than Starship and each flight will cost a lot more. Blue Moon landers and their LM tugs will cost a LOT more than Starship HLS and its tankers, and the LM involvement will make them a lot less responsive to the commercial market. My gut feeling from decades of observation, salt to taste.

I mean, fair enough, this might be what happens. I just think that the cost barrier for getting to the lunar surface, even with Starship, will make it an environment very different than what's happening in LEO. And even in LEO, there still hasn't been so much commercial activity that it would warrant a larger station, has there? I'm just skeptical, that's all.

As for the last part, I'll admit that I do also tend to be a skeptic on the Starship launch rate, but there's whole threads for Starship arguments, so I'll just leave it at that.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/22/2023 06:33 pm

.

I’ve lost count of the subcontractors team members, is it five? six? More? The second lander’s approach is very much how NASA would do it themselves.

Blue's first design is how NASA would've done it which was why it was 3 stage vehicle with some of those stages expendable.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 05/22/2023 07:10 pm
As for cost, I suspect that the LSS has a much lower theoretical cost/kg for surface payloads, but I wouldn't be surprised if the practical costs didn't favor Blue, because NASA won't risk huge payloads or lots of aggregations of payloads for quite a while, especially when either architecture could wind up carrying them.  And Blue's architecture requires a lot fewer launches than SpaceX's, even if SpaceX's launches are somewhat cheaper.
I think this is very important. If you want to land dozens of tons of cargo on the Moon, Starship is great! But it will be a long time before that is needed. Starship's x-factor means it can kind of get away with it, but using Starship for the return to the Moon flight is a bit like using an entire Space Shuttle to take 1 or 2 people to Mir. You certainly can do it, and they certainly did, but it was somewhat excessive.
How do you measure "excessive"? If Starship HLS is cheaper than BO HLS per mission, then use Starship HLS, even if it is only delivering a minimal crew and payload. until we see a more detailed CONOPS we won't be able to guess the BO HLS mission cost.

But the LSS probably won't be cheaper.  It requires a lot more launches, even with a near-zero payload.

It is of course possible that a Starship tanker launch will cost less than a third of what a New Glenn launch will cost, but I think that's unlikely, even with the NG S2 being expendable.  There's just no getting around the fact that the LSS is carrying a buttload of dry mass that isn't necessary for most lunar surface missions.  That makes all kinds of sense when you're doing fairly minor mods to an extremely versatile vehicle, but it isn't going to compete with something that's purpose-built for the Moon.

This is ultimately the heart of the difference between Elon's and Jeff's visions.  Elon is all about civilization on Mars, and Jeff is all about civilization in cislunar space.  Their designs reflect the difference.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DanClemmensen on 05/22/2023 07:23 pm
As for cost, I suspect that the LSS has a much lower theoretical cost/kg for surface payloads, but I wouldn't be surprised if the practical costs didn't favor Blue, because NASA won't risk huge payloads or lots of aggregations of payloads for quite a while, especially when either architecture could wind up carrying them.  And Blue's architecture requires a lot fewer launches than SpaceX's, even if SpaceX's launches are somewhat cheaper.
I think this is very important. If you want to land dozens of tons of cargo on the Moon, Starship is great! But it will be a long time before that is needed. Starship's x-factor means it can kind of get away with it, but using Starship for the return to the Moon flight is a bit like using an entire Space Shuttle to take 1 or 2 people to Mir. You certainly can do it, and they certainly did, but it was somewhat excessive.
How do you measure "excessive"? If Starship HLS is cheaper than BO HLS per mission, then use Starship HLS, even if it is only delivering a minimal crew and payload. until we see a more detailed CONOPS we won't be able to guess the BO HLS mission cost.
But the LSS probably won't be cheaper.  It requires a lot more launches, even with a near-zero payload.
A Starship HLS mission requires a Depot, multiple tanker flights, and an HLS. For ongoing flights, we reuse the same depot, so maybe one expended HLS and (with evolved Raptors) maybe a minimum of two tanker flights.

To reuse HLS, pick a CONOPS you like. Perhaps a second Depot in NRHO, or fly the first Depot to NRHO and then back, and use multiple additional tanker flights. Maybe four additional tanker flights for a total of six.

I think the cost of tanker flights is minor (for both BO and SpaceX) compared to the logistics of non-fuel reprovisioning for reuse. It's a great deal easier to provision on Earth and expend the HLS. I don't know if it's cheaper: that depends on the cost of a new HLS.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: matthewkantar on 05/22/2023 07:24 pm


.

I’ve lost count of the subcontractors team members, is it five? six? More? The second lander’s approach is very much how NASA would do it themselves.

Blue's first design is how NASA would've done it which was why it was 3 stage vehicle with some of those stages expendable.

Sorry if I was unclear. I didn’t mean to say B.O. is like NASA schematically or strategically, they are similar in spreading the work around to a laundry list of subcontractors. 
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 05/22/2023 07:54 pm
I think the cost of tanker flights is minor (for both BO and SpaceX) compared to the logistics of non-fuel reprovisioning for reuse. It's a great deal easier to provision on Earth and expend the HLS. I don't know if it's cheaper: that depends on the cost of a new HLS.

I tend to agree with you that it'll be a lot simpler to start out expendable with the crew stuff.  But the number of tanker launches for both architectures is roughly constant, irrespective of whether the crew-certified hardware is reused or not.

A lot depends on the premium needed to crew-certify stuff.  If it's 2-3x the non-crew versions, then tanker launch costs will dominate.  If it's 8x, that's another story.

But there's no getting around the fact that Blue's system is going to require 3 tanker launches per sortie, and SpaceX's is going to require 8-11 tankers (depending on how Starship IMLEO settles out).  That's a big difference.

As I said up-thread, the issues surrounding reprovisioning, inspection, refurbishment, and payload re-integration have been given short shrift.  I can't tell if that's because there's engineering under the hood that we don't know about, or whether NASA doesn't want to draw attention to the hefty gap between "theoretically reusable" and "actually reusable".

It's a no-brainer to expend the LSS for HDL cargo missions; the cost of the prop to bring the silly thing home is way more than the cost of expending the hardware--even if there were an EDL-capable LSS, which there isn't (yet).

I'm not sure the same is true of Blue Moon.  Unlike an LSS cargo mission, which only needs to be refueled in LEO to do an LEO-LS mission, the Blue Moon tankage isn't big enough to do LEO-LS without refueling somewhere in cislunar as well.  If you have to send a cislunar transporter to cislunar no matter what, and if you can find a way to insert payloads from the transporter to the Blue Moon (a huge "if"), then cargo reuse may turn out to be a better deal.

My guess is that all forms of reusability are pipe dreams for the first 3-4 sorties for both architectures.  Then we'll see.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/22/2023 08:17 pm
Akin’s Laws of Spacecraft Design.
#38. “Capabilities drive requirements, regardless of what the systems engineering textbooks say.”
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/22/2023 08:26 pm


.

I’ve lost count of the subcontractors team members, is it five? six? More? The second lander’s approach is very much how NASA would do it themselves.

Blue's first design is how NASA would've done it which was why it was 3 stage vehicle with some of those stages expendable.

Sorry if I was unclear. I didn’t mean to say B.O. is like NASA schematically or strategically, they are similar in spreading the work around to a laundry list of subcontractors.
Nothing wrong with teaming with experts. LM gives them crew habitat ie repackaged Orion plus all their experience building and operating exploration spacecraft.
Astrobotic all the development work they've done on lunar landers especially landing navigation systems.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Oersted on 05/22/2023 08:50 pm
So, the US is forking out I don't know how many billions for this lander, and Blue Origin hasn't even bothered to publish a video on Youtube (or elsewhere) of it? - Why do I need to look at Scott Manleys Kerbal recreation to get an idea what it looks like?

I think it is totally weird that there is so little info out there. One single render of the updated lander on the Blue Origin website. Not very respectful towards US taxpayers who, I think, have a right to see what their money is going to.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JEF_300 on 05/22/2023 09:24 pm
So, the US is forking out I don't know how many billions for this lander, and Blue Origin hasn't even bothered to publish a video on Youtube (or elsewhere) of it? - Why do I need to look at Scott Manleys Kerbal recreation to get an idea what it looks like?

I think it is totally weird that there is so little info out there. One single render of the updated lander on the Blue Origin website. Not very respectful towards US taxpayers who, I think, have a right to see what their money is going to.

First of all, it's $3.4 billion. There, now you know.

Second of all, I haven't been super impressed with Blue Origin's PR at basically any point in time. I much prefer them hushing up and quietly posting pictures or hardware as it comes.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: spacenuance on 05/22/2023 09:33 pm
So, the US is forking out I don't know how many billions for this lander, and Blue Origin hasn't even bothered to publish a video on Youtube (or elsewhere) of it? - Why do I need to look at Scott Manleys Kerbal recreation to get an idea what it looks like?

I think it is totally weird that there is so little info out there. One single render of the updated lander on the Blue Origin website. Not very respectful towards US taxpayers who, I think, have a right to see what their money is going to.

And SpaceX did? They set the bar pretty low with HLS details after their Artemis III award, I think there were only two renders released, right? The one of it landed and the one of it just before landing. Im sure Blue will release a video or something eventually, they have plenty of time.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 05/22/2023 09:37 pm
So, the US is forking out I don't know how many billions for this lander, and Blue Origin hasn't even bothered to publish a video on Youtube (or elsewhere) of it? - Why do I need to look at Scott Manleys Kerbal recreation to get an idea what it looks like?

I think it is totally weird that there is so little info out there. One single render of the updated lander on the Blue Origin website. Not very respectful towards US taxpayers who, I think, have a right to see what their money is going to.

First of all, it's $3.4 billion. There, now you know.

Second of all, I haven't been super impressed with Blue Origin's PR at basically any point in time. I much prefer them hushing up and quietly posting pictures or hardware as it comes.

Never thought the day would come where I'd be seemingly defending Blue's atrociously bad PR, but SpaceX really hasn't been any better with the Starship HLS variant, or Dragon XL.  Neither company has been good in sharing details for their landers.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/22/2023 09:40 pm
So, the US is forking out I don't know how many billions for this lander, and Blue Origin hasn't even bothered to publish a video on Youtube (or elsewhere) of it? - Why do I need to look at Scott Manleys Kerbal recreation to get an idea what it looks like?

I think it is totally weird that there is so little info out there. One single render of the updated lander on the Blue Origin website. Not very respectful towards US taxpayers who, I think, have a right to see what their money is going to.

And SpaceX did? They set the bar pretty low with HLS details after their Artemis III award, I think there were only two renders released, right? The one of it landed and the one of it just before landing. Im sure Blue will release a video or something eventually, they have plenty of time.
It sucks that we have so few official details on either lander. Granted, NASA is getting the bargain of a lifetime with both of them (Starship more than BlueMoon), but still. It’s annoying and unnecessary.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Eric Hedman on 05/22/2023 10:36 pm
You have to remember these companies haven't wanted competitors to know the details of how they are doing things.  Dynetics showed more and I think it got Blue to see the light on the value of having a payload close to the surface.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: trimeta on 05/22/2023 10:39 pm
You have to remember these companies haven't wanted competitors to know the details of how they are doing things.  Dynetics showed more and I think it got Blue to see the light on the value of having a payload close to the surface.
I think Blue Origin figured that part out from the previous Source Selection Statement alone, not any PR that Dynetics themselves put out.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: punder on 05/22/2023 10:51 pm
Second of all, I haven't been super impressed with Blue Origin's PR at basically any point in time. I much prefer them hushing up and quietly posting pictures or hardware as it comes.
Ha, if the NG launches are covered by the same announcers as NS, they’re getting the mute button from me!

The screaming enthusiasm is great and all, just not my thing.  :D

P.s. and sorry to go down this rabbit hole.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/23/2023 01:10 am
Neither Blue or Dynetics have supplied information on refueling missions and how their tankers will work. This is something SpaceX has address.

Its refuelling that make all 3 of these landers reuseable.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: trimeta on 05/23/2023 01:20 am
Neither Blue or Dynetics have supplied information on refueling missions and how their tankers will work. This is something SpaceX has address.

Its refuelling that make all 3 of these landers reuseable.
Although admittedly, how many of those details only came out in the documents following Blue Origin's lawsuit to block SpaceX's contract? I think they didn't even use the word "depot" publicly until then.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/23/2023 01:24 am
You have to remember these companies haven't wanted competitors to know the details of how they are doing things.  Dynetics showed more and I think it got Blue to see the light on the value of having a payload close to the surface.
Right, but do you honestly think they wouldn't bid if they were forced to release details? I think they still would. The issue is basically a collective action problem. If no one is forced to disclose information, there's a slight benefit to not disclosing your information, and anyone who discloses is at a slight disadvantage. So the stable result is that no one release information, and then it's a level playing field. BUT if everyone is forced to release information, there's no problem because it's still a level playing field.

...that's why I think the problem is really with NASA. NASA should just force all providers to release the information they bid, solving the collective action problem. It wouldn't actually harm anyone as the relative impact is the same for everyone, but everyone's bid would likely be slightly better with more information, so overall it's a win.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/23/2023 01:25 am
Neither Blue or Dynetics have supplied information on refueling missions and how their tankers will work. This is something SpaceX has address.

Its refuelling that make all 3 of these landers reuseable.
Although admittedly, how many of those details only came out in the documents following Blue Origin's lawsuit to block SpaceX's contract? I think they didn't even use the word "depot" publicly until then.
No, the "depot" word was actually redacted (although obvious). It was another document that actually mentioned "depot", and it wasn't from the lawsuit.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Exastro on 05/23/2023 02:10 am
I'm wondering about plume-regolith interaction.

It's a widely discussed problem for Starship (hence the proposed additional thrusters on top), but this lander is also much heavier than the Apollo one and the engines seem to be very close to the ground.

I remembered this post from Metzger:
Quote
the 5-ton (landing mass) Apollo Lunar Module blew about 2.6 tons of soil per landing. Using the equation we derived from Apollo landings (a 2.5 power index) this predicts a 40-ton lander will blow 2.6*(40/5)^2.5 = 470 tons of soil!

As this is apparently not a solved problem in physics we will have to wait for the demo missions to know more. Quite fascinating.

At the risk of acting as a concern-troll:

If I did the math right, there's another risk associated with using a high-Isp (i.e., high exhaust velocity) rocket engine on a lunar lander: it's probably going to launch dust into lunar orbit, with a periapse (perilune?) occurring close to the landing site.  That's a special concern for sites near the poles, since there the lunar rotation won't cover much distance during one orbital period, which is 108 minutes (if circular).  If you're 100 km from the pole, the ground moves only 1.7 km during an orbital period.

So the lander might get sandblasted with micrometeorites of its own creation starting about 108 minutes after it touches down.

One way to avoid this might be to use a low-ISP engine for operations close to the surface where the density of the plume is high enough to lift the dust. The speed in a circular orbit just above the lunar surface is 1.67 km/sec, so a crude monopropellant rocket might work.  Or, if you've got to stick with hydrolox, you might come up with a landing engine that runs far from the stochiometric mixture ratio.  Or maybe you can inject a bunch of oxygen downstream of the combustion chamber to bulk up and slow down the jet?

A couple of natural effects might mitigate this issue.  First, I think only launch elevations close to zero (i.e., starting with nearly horizontal trajectories) will be able to go all the way around without striking the surface.  Second, the lunar gravity field is lumpy, and that should help spread out the debris.  I'd bet only a tiny fraction of the high-velocity launched particles actually return to wreak harm on the lander.

Wouldn't mind having a few millimeters of good stainless between that and the crew, though.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/23/2023 03:05 am
There appear to be closeable shutters for the windows, which should mitigate that issue somewhat.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 05/23/2023 05:59 am
I'm wondering about plume-regolith interaction.

It's a widely discussed problem for Starship (hence the proposed additional thrusters on top), but this lander is also much heavier than the Apollo one and the engines seem to be very close to the ground.

I remembered this post from Metzger:
Quote
the 5-ton (landing mass) Apollo Lunar Module blew about 2.6 tons of soil per landing. Using the equation we derived from Apollo landings (a 2.5 power index) this predicts a 40-ton lander will blow 2.6*(40/5)^2.5 = 470 tons of soil!

As this is apparently not a solved problem in physics we will have to wait for the demo missions to know more. Quite fascinating.

At the risk of acting as a concern-troll:

If I did the math right, there's another risk associated with using a high-Isp (i.e., high exhaust velocity) rocket engine on a lunar lander: it's probably going to launch dust into lunar orbit, with a periapse (perilune?) occurring close to the landing site.  That's a special concern for sites near the poles, since there the lunar rotation won't cover much distance during one orbital period, which is 108 minutes (if circular).  If you're 100 km from the pole, the ground moves only 1.7 km during an orbital period.

So the lander might get sandblasted with micrometeorites of its own creation starting about 108 minutes after it touches down.

One way to avoid this might be to use a low-ISP engine for operations close to the surface where the density of the plume is high enough to lift the dust. The speed in a circular orbit just above the lunar surface is 1.67 km/sec, so a crude monopropellant rocket might work.  Or, if you've got to stick with hydrolox, you might come up with a landing engine that runs far from the stochiometric mixture ratio.  Or maybe you can inject a bunch of oxygen downstream of the combustion chamber to bulk up and slow down the jet?

A couple of natural effects might mitigate this issue.  First, I think only launch elevations close to zero (i.e., starting with nearly horizontal trajectories) will be able to go all the way around without striking the surface.  Second, the lunar gravity field is lumpy, and that should help spread out the debris.  I'd bet only a tiny fraction of the high-velocity launched particles actually return to wreak harm on the lander.

Wouldn't mind having a few millimeters of good stainless between that and the crew, though.

If you have dust entrained in Blue Moon exhaust, it'll have a velocity of about 4400m/s.  That's well past escape velocity.  Even the Apollo LMDE had an exhaust speed of about 2790m/s at landing, which is a tad past escape speed. There will obviously be a distribution of departure velocities, but the really energetic stuff isn't coming back. 

Anything that leaves the surface at an angle actually has a periapse below the surface, and will collide with the surface well short of returning to the same spot.

For stuff that leaves exactly tangentially, it has to be energetic enough to get clear of any obstructions, including the oblateness of the Moon, but not so energetic that it escapes completely.  There's probably a window in there, but it's pretty small.

The fastest orbital period around the Moon from surface level is 1.8 hours (6500s).  Stuff that might come back at you is probably a bit longer than that, because you don't have to worry about stuff that collides with mountains or gets chopped off by the oblateness of the Moon.  Let's SWAG the bulk of the dangerous stuff at a period of 7000s.

Looks like the landing sites closest to the poles (https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-identifies-candidate-regions-for-landing-next-americans-on-moon) are about 15km away.

Lunar rotation is 2π/27.3d = 2.66E-6rad/s.  So 15,000m * 2.66E-6 * 7000 = 280m of motion.  That's close enough to be worrisome, but there are a lot of filter conditions up above before anything comes back at all, and the stuff that makes it through all those filters should be the most precisely departing fraction of the dust--which means that it'll land 280m away. 

However, some debris on its way to that 280m-distant spot will collide with the lander.  Maybe a degree's worth?  So 1/360th of everything that went out but didn't get removed by any of the mechanisms above.  But you can figure out the direction that stuff would come in to hit the lander, and engineer the landing site so there's a mountain along that azimuth.

It's not a trivial concern, but the amount of material might not be much more than ordinary low-energy MMOD.

Longer-term, I'd be more concerned about scattering events leaving dust in stable orbits, changing the character of the lunar atmosphere.  The science geeks won't like that, nor will the engineers working for the astronomers.  That's probably a good reason to make hard-surface landing pads with berms near bases ASAP, and to look at systems with very high clearance for expedition vehicles.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Oersted on 05/23/2023 09:13 am
So, the US is forking out I don't know how many billions for this lander, and Blue Origin hasn't even bothered to publish a video on Youtube (or elsewhere) of it? - Why do I need to look at Scott Manleys Kerbal recreation to get an idea what it looks like?

I think it is totally weird that there is so little info out there. One single render of the updated lander on the Blue Origin website. Not very respectful towards US taxpayers who, I think, have a right to see what their money is going to.

First of all, it's $3.4 billion. There, now you know.

Second of all, I haven't been super impressed with Blue Origin's PR at basically any point in time. I much prefer them hushing up and quietly posting pictures or hardware as it comes.

Never thought the day would come where I'd be seemingly defending Blue's atrociously bad PR, but SpaceX really hasn't been any better with the Starship HLS variant, or Dragon XL.  Neither company has been good in sharing details for their landers.

I agree that neither company has been good about sharing details, but this thread is about the Blue Moon lander, so I only mentioned that.

In general we have a much better view into SpaceX development given the very transparent proceedings at Boca Chica.

I still think US taxpayers deserve much more insight into the hardware they are funding. I cannot imagine any other "public works contracts" more opaque than what we are seeing here. And it is a lot of money.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JCRM on 05/23/2023 04:39 pm
It's quite remarkable how far the HLS architecture has moved in four years.

No it hasn't. Trump wanted boots on the moon earlier, so NASA Nerfed the design for the first couple of landers.

Quote


The trajectory of this is shockingly similar to how launcher reusability went from being an impossible idea,

STS, Venture Star and Delta Clipper beg to differ
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 05/23/2023 11:04 pm
Moderator:
Remember to delete the Tapatalk tag when you post. Thanks.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 05/24/2023 10:32 am
A key technology that this lander is the 20K cryo-cooler....which boils at 20.38 K.. That means the liquid hydrogen would need to be kept at a temp of about 10K or so... why kind of technology do they need to keep liquid hydrogen at about 10K? What is done at present in industry, and what is currently done with current rocket engines and hydrogen tanks for rockets?

Would they use a special kind of Peltier cooler, or a special kind of refrigeration system with some kind of compressor...using liquid helium perhaps as the working fluid of the refrigeration system... from what I remember in my thermodynamics classes the temperature at which they are rejecting the heat too has to be less than temperature of the container they wish to cool? I understand the temperature of the outer space is 2.7K, but on the moon, or lunar orbit the surface facing away from the sun would be away 116.15 K.cold, but that is like frying an egg when it comes to the temperature to keep LH2 from boiling off.. what technology would they use?

Addendum
------------------

I just found this ....

https://youtu.be/99qAt_Znf28?t=998

Perhaps this?

What do they use on the James Web Telescope?




Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/24/2023 01:25 pm
Why do you claim 10K, literally half the temperature of the boiling point?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: matthewkantar on 05/24/2023 02:01 pm
Why do you claim 10K, literally half the temperature of the boiling point?

Margin?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 05/24/2023 02:07 pm
Why do you claim 10K, literally half the temperature of the boiling point?

Yep... just picking a margin that is practical.. ensuring that the LH2 while not boiling is not evaporating away at a significant amount... and  I would guess any lower starts to become a tougher engineering problem and I am assuming the heat transfer medium is helium, and helium boils at 4 K....

Here is what they do on the James Webb Space Telescope.. it gets down to 7 K...

https://youtu.be/FUH61gx149c

I think the challenge for Blue is greater mass of hydrogen [what is the guesstimate on the volume of the Blue Moon hydrogen tank?] and so the greater increase in work that the cryocooler would have do to keep that mass of hydrogen below it's boiling temperature, and so everything scales up accordingly, and that might present a real engineering challenge [??!!], when compared to the cryocooler on the James Webb....

 What do you think?

Addendum...
-----------------------
See attached research paper... "Development and Testing of a High-Capacity 20 K Cryocooler"
[This can be found at: https://cryocooler.org/resources/Documents/C22/335.pdf ]

"Abstract:

Creare is developing a high-capacity 20 K cryocooler to support NASA’s initiatives for zero‑boil‑off storage and liquefaction of hydrogen. The specific type of cryocooler is a single-stage turbo-Brayton cryocooler that is designed to produce up to 20 W of refrigeration at 20 K and rejects heat at 300 K. The turbomachines are derived from prior designs optimized for operation in helium and at high volumetric flow rates. The recuperator is new technology developed through a collaboration with Mezzo Technologies and Edare LLC, Creare’s sister company, and optimized for high mass flow rates, low pressure drop and high thermal effectiveness. The high effectiveness recuperator enables the cryocooler to operate between  300 and 20 K in a single stage. Three centrifugal compressors plumbed in series provide the pressure ratio which is expanded through a single turbo‑alternator. The cryocooler components were tested and then packaged and integrated in a flight‑like configuration suitable for launch vibration testing. Thermodynamic characterization testing demonstrated up to 22.5 W of refrigeration at 22.7 K and up to 19.2 W of refrigeration at 20 K. Maximum cryocooler COP was 15.9% of the Carnot cycle and the minimum specific power was 80 W/W. The cooling capacity and performance of this cryocooler are new benchmarks for 20 K cryocoolers for space.  This paper reviews the component testing, integration, and initial testing of the cryocooler.

INTRODUCTION
NASA is supporting the development of technologies to support future long-term human exploration missions beyond low‑Earth orbit. A critical aspect of these missions is the long-term storage and transfer of the cryogenic propellant to support the chemical propulsion needs of future missions. Liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen provide the highest specific impulse of any practical chemical propellant, permitting longer range and higher payload mass.  For long‑duration missions, the cryogen storage tanks must be cooled to reduce or eliminate boil‑off. For some architectures, the net heat load to store 38‑metric tons of liquid hydrogen is estimated to be 20 W at 20 K, including design margin. [1] To enable long-duration zero boil-off storage, this heat load must be lifted using an active refrigerator. However, this heat load exceeds the capacity for any space cryocooler demonstrated to date by a significant margin.
"


Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/24/2023 02:36 pm
That’s an extremely expensive margin and extremely far from an optimal trade between temperature delta margin and cryocooler difficulty and power.

For example, because of the Stefan Boltzmann law, radiating at 10Kelvin requires literally 16 times the area as 20 Kelvin.

Applying arbitrary margin like that makes the problem nearly impossible to solve. Bad engineering.

10 degrees margin is reasonable when you’re operating near room temperature but totally absurd at liquid hydrogen temperatures.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/24/2023 02:57 pm
Let’s show how bad the situation is if you pick 10K for the cryocooler instead of of 20K.

Carnot efficiency of a refrigerator, the theoretical thermodynamic limit, is:

B= Tcold/(Thot-Tcold)

For a Carnot efficiency refrigerator chilling stuff down to just 0C, with the “hot side” at 27.315C, the efficiency is:
273.15K/(27.315K) = 10 or 1000%. You are able to move 10 times the amount of heat as the energy (electricity or mechanical power) needed to run the machine. This is the theoretical limit.

For a 20K chiller, and let’s say the radiators are at 300K (27C or about) to keep their mass down, we are just:

20K/(300K-20K) = 1/14 or 7.1% efficient. Even with a perfectly Carnot efficient chiller, it takes 14 times as much energy to move heat energy from 20K to 300K as the value of the heat energy.

At 10K, it’s worse:
10K/(300K-10K) =1/29. So just 3.4% efficient. BUT that’s not the whole story! It gets harder and harder to approach carnal efficiency in practical terms when you get colder. Your percent of Carnot efficiency gets worse!

At 20K, you can only get to about 7% of Carnot efficiency typically. That’s 7% of 7.1%! Or about 0.5%, half a percent.

And at 10K, you can only get 4% of Carnot efficiency. 4% of 3.4%! That’s just a tenth of one percent! 0.1%.

So if you have, say, a 100Watt heat leak (and with a complex lander design, that could easily be the case if you’re not extremely careful), a 20K cryocooler would take a pretty high 20kW of electricity to work, but a 10K cryocooler needs 100,000 Watts of electricity! That’s like the electricity output of the ISS. Plus the cryocooler itself will be much heavier.

So yeah, I think it’s silly to use a 10K cryocooler if you only need 20K.


Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/24/2023 03:15 pm
Note: the heat of vaporization of hydrogen is pretty high, too. So much so that at the efficiencies I calculated above, the energy required to reliquefy hydrogen at 20K is about 88MJ/kg, which is nearly the same as the latent chemical energy of hydrogen which is 142MJ/kg. Of course if you include the oxygen needed for that, it goes down to 15.8MJ/kg.

So it actually would take more oxygen/hydrogen mass if you ran a fuel cell to run a cryocooler at 20K than if you just brought more liquid hydrogen mass to begin with.

For a solar powered cryocooler, let’s say you have a total specific power of about 34W/kg (including the cryocooler, solar array, radiator, etc), it’d take 30 days for the active cooling system to beat the passive boiloff system. And that’s using the 20K cryocooler NOT the 10K one.

… that’s all using typical cryocooler efficiencies, though. It’s possible to improve on that significantly. BUT it means a lot of hard engineering work by Blue.

I hope they do really well on this problem because really you would want to sub cool the hydrogen and get to slush hydrogen, as that significantly reduces the dry mass of hydrogen propulsion. Including not just hydrolox but nuclear thermal propulsion as well.

Methane and oxygen, on the other hand, are FAR easier to keep cold. It’s feasible to keep them liquid entirely passively, but even if you have to use cryocooler, the power required is far less.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/24/2023 03:29 pm
At 35 W per kilogram for the whole cryo- system including solar panels and radiators, to deal with a 100 W heat leak in the oxygen tank would only take about 33 kg but for the hydrogen tank would take nearly a ton. (And the hydrogen tank is much larger for a given propellant mass plus has a greater temperature delta, so mass being equal and if same insulation type is used, hydrogen will have much greater heat leak).

It’s kind of ironic that Blue is pursuing active cooling when active cooling is a much harder sell (compared to just relying on passive boiloff latent heat of hydrogen), has to be much more massive for hydrolox than for methalox whereas SpaceX is not. I guess it just shows the difference in philosophy of the two companies. SpaceX is just relying on flightrate. Which makes sense as SpaceX knows how to launch 61-100 times per year, now, whereas Blue Origin has managed less than a tenth that many flights per year, and with a far, far smaller and suborbital hydrolox rocket.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: sevenperforce on 05/24/2023 03:48 pm
With four engine pods, there's at least some redundancy for engine damage, but they are all offset at the outer perimeter so gimbal wouldn't be enough to get a single engine through CoM.

They can handle one engine-out just fine by shutting down the opposite engine, but after that they are screwed.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DanClemmensen on 05/24/2023 04:02 pm
With four engine pods, there's at least some redundancy for engine damage, but they are all offset at the outer perimeter so gimbal wouldn't be enough to get a single engine through CoM.

They can handle one engine-out just fine by shutting down the opposite engine, but after that they are screwed.
This is true if the engines are on the perimeter, but we don't know that. A cluster of three engines mounted near the center might work.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: sevenperforce on 05/24/2023 05:33 pm
With four engine pods, there's at least some redundancy for engine damage, but they are all offset at the outer perimeter so gimbal wouldn't be enough to get a single engine through CoM.

They can handle one engine-out just fine by shutting down the opposite engine, but after that they are screwed.
This is true if the engines are on the perimeter, but we don't know that. A cluster of three engines mounted near the center might work.
Indeed. I was going off of what appear to be engine shrouds equidistant between the landing legs, but I could be totally wrong and they could be at the center instead.

If they are in fact equidistant between the landing legs then that would theoretically provide for a "drop and go" cargo delivery architecture, although the cargo would get a little toasty on ascent.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/24/2023 06:26 pm
At 35 W per kilogram for the whole cryo- system including solar panels and radiators, to deal with a 100 W heat leak in the oxygen tank would only take about 33 kg but for the hydrogen tank would take nearly a ton. (And the hydrogen tank is much larger for a given propellant mass plus has a greater temperature delta, so mass being equal and if same insulation type is used, hydrogen will have much greater heat leak).

It’s kind of ironic that Blue is pursuing active cooling when active cooling is a much harder sell (compared to just relying on passive boiloff latent heat of hydrogen), has to be much more massive for hydrolox than for methalox whereas SpaceX is not. I guess it just shows the difference in philosophy of the two companies. SpaceX is just relying on flightrate. Which makes sense as SpaceX knows how to launch 61-100 times per year, now, whereas Blue Origin has managed less than a tenth that many flights per year, and with a far, far smaller and suborbital hydrolox rocket.
To make LH2 on moon from water Blue will need to cryocooler technology. Permanent shadowed craters extreme cold can provide of  lot of cooling needed to cool hydrogen gas produced by electrolysis of water.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/24/2023 06:43 pm
The permanently shadowed regions don’t help much. They don’t provide more cooling power than just being in NHRO behind a sun shield would provide.

You’re right that if you’re doing ISRU, you obviously have to have a cryocooler involved. I’m not against Blue Origin doing it, just pointing out it’s a hard trade. (SpaceX is also intending to do ISRU on Mars, so they’d also have an incentive to do cryocoolers.)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: sevenperforce on 05/24/2023 07:12 pm
Permanent shadowed craters extreme cold can provide of  lot of cooling needed to cool hydrogen gas produced by electrolysis of water.

The permanently shadowed regions don’t help much. They don’t provide more cooling power than just being in NHRO behind a sun shield would provide.
What if the cryocooler uses an in-ground heat exchanger? Are the permanently shadowed regions going to stay significantly colder than other areas?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/24/2023 07:34 pm
Not feasible. Lunar regolith in vacuum is an excellent insulator. Even solid rock would suck for anything but short term use.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JEF_300 on 05/24/2023 08:37 pm
Not feasible. Lunar regolith in vacuum is an excellent insulator. Even solid rock would suck for anything but short term use.

Ok, so I'm confused. What do you mean by "Not feasible" here? Is lunar regolith is somehow a better insulator than the vacuum of space, or are you just saying that it's close enough that it wouldn't be worth the digging? Surely any material to radiate into is better than nothing, right?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Phil Stooke on 05/24/2023 08:57 pm
Not sure I know enough about this to comment usefully, but if you radiate into space, the heat is gone.  If you radiate or conduct into regolith, you warm the regolith and eventually it's as warm as your source and stops working.  The better the regolith is as an insulator, the faster that will happen.  Maybe this is too simplistic, it's just my impression of the situation.  Corrections welcome.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/24/2023 08:58 pm
Not feasible. Lunar regolith in vacuum is an excellent insulator. Even solid rock would suck for anything but short term use.

Ok, so I'm confused. What do you mean by "Not feasible" here? Is lunar regolith is somehow a better insulator than the vacuum of space, or are you just saying that it's close enough that it wouldn't be worth the digging? Surely any material to radiate into is better than nothing, right?
Regolith is great insulator which means radiator covered in it wouldn't radiate much heat.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: joek on 05/24/2023 09:32 pm
Not sure I know enough about this to comment usefully, but if you radiate into space, the heat is gone.  If you radiate or conduct into regolith, you warm the regolith and eventually it's as warm as your source and stops working.  The better the regolith is as an insulator, the faster that will happen.  Maybe this is too simplistic, it's just my impression of the situation.  Corrections welcome.

Free space xfer will be radiative. Ground loop xfer will be conductive. The thermal xfer--and efficiency--for each is different. A conductive xfer will, in general, be more efficient. However, lunar regolith is a good insulator, which means conductive xfer is lower.

Loose analogy: the difference between ground-source heat pumps and air-source heat pumps on Earth. Ground-source is more efficient due to more efficient conductive xfer through Earth soil, because Earth soil is conductive. Lunar soil (regolith), not so much.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 05/24/2023 09:51 pm
It’s kind of ironic that Blue is pursuing active cooling when active cooling is a much harder sell (compared to just relying on passive boiloff latent heat of hydrogen)....

Once again, Blue origin are being strategic. Just as used NS to develop their hydrogen engine technology for the moon, here they are developing Active cooling for long duration Lunar surface missions, but also in a future iteration of the cislunar transporter [CT] that will use a nuclear thermal engine, and long duration in inter planetary missions to Mars, and return... [the first iteration of the CT will use hydrolox]...

...Under SLD, we will develop and fly solar-powered 20-degree Kelvin cryocoolers and the other technologies required to prevent LOX-LH2 boil-off. Future missions beyond the Moon, and enabling capabilities such as high-performance nuclear thermal propulsion, will benefit greatly from storable LH2....

https://www.blueorigin.com/news/nasa-selects-blue-origin-for-mission-to-moon/

By our thinking not about what is needed for one mission, but what will be needed in order to make a sustainable lunar mission profile for missions to the Moon and later Mars...
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JCRM on 05/25/2023 10:00 am
Why do you claim 10K, literally half the temperature of the boiling point?

Margin?
No margin needed, a little boil-off is desirable, assuming fuel-cells. Excess boil-off is liquifed and reinjected

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Oersted on 05/26/2023 03:32 am

Once again, Blue origin are being strategic. Just as used NS to develop their hydrogen engine technology for the moon,

What does NS stand for?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 05/26/2023 04:02 am

Once again, Blue origin are being strategic. Just as used NS to develop their hydrogen engine technology for the moon,

What does NS stand for?
New Shepard.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 06/06/2023 01:28 am
This has some interesting additional information with some speculation about Blue Moon...enjoy...

https://youtu.be/Qz-o464EBMI (https://youtu.be/Qz-o464EBMI)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/15/2023 08:28 am
https://twitter.com/brickmack/status/1669195759382609921

Quote
Blue Moon in lunar orbit prior to landing, with its radiators deployed
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 06/15/2023 11:16 am
https://twitter.com/brickmack/status/1669195759382609921

Quote
Blue Moon in lunar orbit prior to landing, with its radiators deployed

Thank you... OK some questions:
1. Docking and crew transfer will be by the port on the habitation module.....some hacks thought it would be through the tankage... clearly not! ....the docking process is going to be interesting...I wonder how?

2. Why are the radiators deployed out?

3. What refrigerant would be circulating to keep the hydrogen tanks below 20K... liquid helium?

4. I understood there are solar arrays but these are not showing... in locations where the sun is no longer shining [ perhaps looking for a monoilith that has been deliberately buried!!!] .. would they use fuel cells to generate the electricity?

5. How will they refuel the hydrogen and oxygen tanks.. from the photograph is there a refuelling port? Maybe the top of the hydrogen tank.. on that "landing pad".. perhaps? Just trying to work out the refuelling configuration between this and the CT... .
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: warp99 on 06/15/2023 01:07 pm
https://twitter.com/brickmack/status/1669195759382609921

Quote
Blue Moon in lunar orbit prior to landing, with its radiators deployed

Thank you... OK some questions:
1. Docking and crew transfer will be by the port on the habitation module.....some hacks thought it would be through the tankage... clearly not! ....the docking process is going to be interesting...I wonder how?

2. Why are the radiators deployed out?

3. What refrigerant would be circulating to keep the hydrogen tanks below 20K... liquid helium?

4. I understood there are solar arrays but these are not showing... in locations where the sun is no longer shining [ perhaps looking for a monoilith that has been deliberately buried!!!] .. would they use fuel cells to generate the electricity?

5. How will they refuel the hydrogen and oxygen tanks.. from the photograph is there a refuelling port? Maybe the top of the hydrogen tank.. on that "landing pad".. perhaps? Just trying to work out the refuelling configuration between this and the CT... .
#1 Docking is done with LIDAR and cameras for alignment so the location of the docking port is not that critical.  My take is that the lander will not dock directly with Gateway but will always dock with Orion. 

#2 The radiators need to be edge on to the Sun so are assumed by OP to tilt up.  In my take there are two radiators and two solar panels and the top cap rotates relative to the tanks and crew module when on the Lunar surface to keep the radiators in the shade and the solar panels facing the Sun which will always be on the horizon at the South Pole.  However if the lander is designed for use on the rest of the Moon then the panels will need to tilt up and the radiators will need to rotate to be edge on to the Sun even when it is overhead. 

#3 The refrigerant would be hydrogen for the hydrogen tank possibly rejecting heat to the LOX tank so pumping heat from 20K to 90K.  The LOX tank in turn uses oxygen as the working fluid and rejects heat to the radiators.  It is possible that there will be an additional refrigeration stage using liquid ammonia or similar so that the radiators can run at 150C to minimise their size.  The ammonia stage can pump heat from 293K to 423K and use the cold sink for heating and cooling the cabin to around 20C.  For safety the cabin cooling would use a glycol cooling fluid to the life support heat exchangers and then use a heat exchanger to transfer heat to the ammonia cold sink. 

The efficiency of the heat pump stages is low with these large temperature ratios so considerable electrical power will be required and good tank insulation to minimise the heat that needs to be pumped. 

#4 The solar panels are on the rear side of the rendered lander and will be the primary energy source.  Blue Origin have mentioned fuel cells which could be used when in shadow for several days in order to minimise battery size and weight.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DanClemmensen on 06/15/2023 02:37 pm
#1 Docking is done with LIDAR and cameras for alignment so the location of the docking port is not that critical.  My take is that the lander will not dock directly with Gateway but will always dock with Orion. 
The HLS specifications call for docking with Gateway, not Orion, when Gateway is available. The Appendix P lander will fly only after Gateway is available. Among other things this means the HLS's IDSS port can be active-only instead of active/passive. HLS is supposed to be able to take on cargo that was brought to Gateway by a GLS spacecraft (nominally Dragon XL).

The Artemis mission architecture apparently tries hard to minimize the number of crewed RPODs. Docking HLS to Orion would add at least one RPOD. 

The Gateway port that is usually shown in NASA renders for HLS is one of the two radial ports on the HALO module. This might be awkward due to the geometry. if so, they might choose to dock Gateway at the outward-facing ESPRIT-ERM port, which sticks out pretty far to the side of Gateway's major axis, or to an I-HAB radial port, which is slightly less cramped than a HALO port. docking to the outward-facing port of the proposed Gateway Airlock Module would be even less cramped, but if GAM ever flies it will be after the Appendix P HLS.

HLS could dock to to I-HAB radial, but this would require Orion to dock somewhere else (see above).

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: spacenut on 06/15/2023 03:05 pm
From the video, I don't think SpaceX's elevator platform for exiting and entering Starship will be hanging.  I though there would be a couple of rails on the side of the Starship to help guide the platform up and down, not dangling and swinging as the video showed.  Also, there is no atmosphere on the moon and thus no wind. 
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: edzieba on 06/16/2023 11:17 am
The elevator rides on a rail. The LETS presentation (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220003725/downloads/22%203%207%20Kent%20IEEE%20paper.pdf) even has photos of it.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/17/2023 04:31 am
Here's the new image. We see a docking target at the top of the vehicle, but there don't seem to be any ports for transferring propellant.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 06/17/2023 04:51 am
Here's the new image. We see a docking target at the top of the vehicle, but there don't seem to be any ports for transferring propellant.

At the top of the vehicle, when you zoom up there is a docking target probe... this indicates that Blue Origin is meant to dock with this. Near the docking target probe there are two light grey rectangular boxes... what would they be for? Refueling ports?  How does one refuel a tank in zero gravity... would there be a need for a vent port?  One would need to consider the internal plumbing to the LH2 and the LOX tanks, as to where would be the best location, I propose it would be best on the top.... of course we do not know what is on the other side of the vehicle...
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: catdlr on 06/17/2023 06:07 am
Here's the new image. We see a docking target at the top of the vehicle, but there don't seem to be any ports for transferring propellant.

At the top of the vehicle, when you zoom up there is a docking target probe... this indicates that Blue Origin is meant to dock with this. Near the docking target probe there are two light grey rectangular boxes... what would they be for? Refueling ports?  How does one refuel a tank in zero gravity... would there be a need for a vent port?  One would need to consider the internal plumbing to the LH2 and the LOX tanks, as to where would be the best location, I propose it would be best on the top.... of course we do not know what is on the other side of the vehicle...

When I look at this image zoomed up, I see it is a very well-done detailed CGI of the lunar craft but a rough-done (without much detail and too smooth rendition) image of the proposed docking cap placed on top of what should be up there.  I sense "secret sauce" underneath that.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 06/17/2023 12:25 pm
Here's the new image. We see a docking target at the top of the vehicle, but there don't seem to be any ports for transferring propellant.

At the top of the vehicle, when you zoom up there is a docking target probe... this indicates that Blue Origin is meant to dock with this. Near the docking target probe there are two light grey rectangular boxes... what would they be for? Refueling ports?  How does one refuel a tank in zero gravity... would there be a need for a vent port?  One would need to consider the internal plumbing to the LH2 and the LOX tanks, as to where would be the best location, I propose it would be best on the top.... of course we do not know what is on the other side of the vehicle...

When I look at this image zoomed up, I see it is a very well-done detailed CGI of the lunar craft but a rough-done (without much detail and too smooth rendition) image of the proposed docking cap placed on top of what should be up there.  I sense "secret sauce" underneath that.

This is a fan made image.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Comga on 06/17/2023 08:00 pm
Here's the new image. We see a docking target at the top of the vehicle, but there don't seem to be any ports for transferring propellant.

At the top of the vehicle, when you zoom up there is a docking target probe... this indicates that Blue Origin is meant to dock with this. Near the docking target probe there are two light grey rectangular boxes... what would they be for? Refueling ports?  How does one refuel a tank in zero gravity... would there be a need for a vent port?  One would need to consider the internal plumbing to the LH2 and the LOX tanks, as to where would be the best location, I propose it would be best on the top.... of course we do not know what is on the other side of the vehicle...

When I look at this image zoomed up, I see it is a very well-done detailed CGI of the lunar craft but a rough-done (without much detail and too smooth rendition) image of the proposed docking cap placed on top of what should be up there.  I sense "secret sauce" underneath that.

This is a fan made image.

Thank you
That explains why it makes no sense.
I am very familiar with these, having worked on the version of the docking target that currently resides on the forward port of the ISS.
What we see here is a crude rendition pasted onto a surface of a simplistic model.
The target is missing the high contrast pattern, and the reflectors it would need to make it compliant with the NASA docking standard.
Most significantly, this target's placement would be in the center of a docking port. 
What is illustrated here is it stuck on a bare surface.
Nothing can be learned about the actual Blue Moon lander by studying this image.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: brickmack on 06/18/2023 03:55 am
Thank you
That explains why it makes no sense.
I am very familiar with these, having worked on the version of the docking target that currently resides on the forward port of the ISS.
What we see here is a crude rendition pasted onto a surface of a simplistic model.
The target is missing the high contrast pattern, and the reflectors it would need to make it compliant with the NASA docking standard.
Most significantly, this target's placement would be in the center of a docking port. 
What is illustrated here is it stuck on a bare surface.
Nothing can be learned about the actual Blue Moon lander by studying this image.

Since I had no usable reference to work with of the top of the lander, I simply copy-pasted my model of the Ascent Element/Descent Element docking interface from Blue's Option A HLS bid, which did have an optical target in that location (see this official render from the time). Since it was an older model it wasn't all that detailed and I didn't bother to update it here since it was basically a placeholder pending proper references, but I do have a more correct model of that target now
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 06/19/2023 10:24 pm
Thank you
That explains why it makes no sense.
I am very familiar with these, having worked on the version of the docking target that currently resides on the forward port of the ISS.
What we see here is a crude rendition pasted onto a surface of a simplistic model.
The target is missing the high contrast pattern, and the reflectors it would need to make it compliant with the NASA docking standard.
Most significantly, this target's placement would be in the center of a docking port. 
What is illustrated here is it stuck on a bare surface.
Nothing can be learned about the actual Blue Moon lander by studying this image.

Since I had no usable reference to work with of the top of the lander, I simply copy-pasted my model of the Ascent Element/Descent Element docking interface from Blue's Option A HLS bid, which did have an optical target in that location (see this official render from the time). Since it was an older model it wasn't all that detailed and I didn't bother to update it here since it was basically a placeholder pending proper references, but I do have a more correct model of that target now

I expect the docking mechanism that allows refueling to be identical to the one that's going to dock the two parts of the Cislunar Transporter together.  Both of them have to flow prop from one set of LH2 and LOX tanks to the other.

Just as with Starships and tankers/depots, it's quite likely that you need 1-2mm/s˛ of ullage acceleration in order to transfer prop.  I suspect that means that the Blue Moon needs to be refueled by the CT while it's free-flying, rather than docked at the Gateway.

My artwork is so much cheesier than yours that there's really no comparison, but I think that one of the following 2 configurations is likely.  I'd bet on the one where everything is in-line.  Note that I don't have any plumbing in these pictures, other than just the LH2 and LOX tanks.

PS: You have berthing grapples in your picture.  I think that's unlikely.  I'd expect the docking points to be some modification of the IDSS, although plumbing that with cyrogenic transfer connections could get dicey.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Comga on 06/23/2023 10:11 pm
brickmack:  Apologies for any offense felt.  Certainly not my intent.
The real issue is that Blue really hasn't given much of a basis.
Their image, which you showed, started with  the docking target pasted on in an essentially random spot.

Radical:  The second image Brickmack included is of a docking tunnel, which has the grapple fixtures for its unloading and installation by the ISS RMS.
It's an image from before the addition of the lidar targets on its periphery and central cross. (A nitpick to rival Nomadd's (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58905.msg2499615#msg2499615) ;) )

edit:disambiguation  (and "its" for "it's"  :-O )
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: brickmack on 06/25/2023 06:46 pm
Radical:  Brickmack is showing an image of a docking tunnel, which has the grapple fixtures for it's unloading and installation by the ISS RMS

Not sure what grapple fixtures you're seeing here. The circular things on top? Those are dishes (again, undetailed due to lack of references). The actual docking tunnel is on the side of the cabin, covered up by an MMOD shield
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: jarmumd on 06/26/2023 02:33 pm
Radical:  Brickmack is showing an image of a docking tunnel, which has the grapple fixtures for it's unloading and installation by the ISS RMS

Not sure what grapple fixtures you're seeing here. The circular things on top? Those are dishes (again, undetailed due to lack of references). The actual docking tunnel is on the side of the cabin, covered up by an MMOD shield

Your second image is of the Pressurized Mating Adapter, which converts from CBM to APAS (then APAS to IDSS through the International Docking Adapter), on the ISS.  On the top and bottom it has grapple fixtures for the arm.  Not talking about the old national team picture.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: jarmumd on 06/26/2023 02:40 pm
Since I had no usable reference to work with of the top of the lander, I simply copy-pasted my model of the Ascent Element/Descent Element docking interface from Blue's Option A HLS bid, which did have an optical target in that location (see this official render from the time). Since it was an older model it wasn't all that detailed and I didn't bother to update it here since it was basically a placeholder pending proper references, but I do have a more correct model of that target now

So everyone is aware, the mechanism the national team was using to connect the elements consisted of extendable rods (you can see these in promo videos), and hard capture was done through Capture Latch Assemblies (CLA's).  So while I think this is technically docking, it's not the same as IDSS docking mechanisms.  This is why the target doesn't need to be in the center.  It's docking like Gemini-Agena was docking - capture and structural connection, but doesn't allow astronauts to transfer through.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 06/26/2023 06:24 pm
Radical:  Brickmack is showing an image of a docking tunnel, which has the grapple fixtures for it's unloading and installation by the ISS RMS

Not sure what grapple fixtures you're seeing here. The circular things on top? Those are dishes (again, undetailed due to lack of references). The actual docking tunnel is on the side of the cabin, covered up by an MMOD shield

Your dishes look almost exactly like FRGF's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grapple_fixture).  See attached.

I somehow missed the petals on the top docking mechanism.  It sorta-kinda makes sense now, although that's a lot of extra mass for a refueling mechanism that doesn't need to support a crew tunnel.

We're looking at 3 different "ports" on the Blue Moon:

1) One GDSS docking adapter, to support crew access to the Gateway.  (GDSS is just IDSS with some backward-compatible enhancements.)

2) One airlock/hatch to support crew access to the lunar surface.

3) One refueling port, to support refueling by the Cislunar Transport.  Presumably, this is what you were trying to develop artwork for.

#1 and #2 come off of opposite sides of the BM crew compartment.  I, like you, believe that #3 will be on the top of the LH2 tank, but this isn't for-sure.  Hydrolox could conceivably be flowed through the Gateway, although I don't think GDSS will support that right now.

I'm still betting that there will be a single spec for hooking the two components of the CT together, and the same spec will connect the second CT tank to the BM.  Whether that spec will be based on IDSS or GDSS, I don't know.  Some issues:

a) Has to support LH2 and LOX connect/disconnect.

b) No clue on flow rates.  My guess is it'll be governed by how much heat can be allowed to soak in during the prop transfer.

c) CT version needs to be able to support the secondary tank under thrust.  Shouldn't be a big deal if the CT is using an RL10 for propulsion, but if it's a BE-3U, burnout load on the adapter will become a problem.

d) Open question whether docking for refueling occurs in free-flight or when the BM is docked to the Gateway.  When docked to the Gateway, the number of RPODU's is minimized, but the risk to the Gateway is considerably greater.  If done in free-flight, the BM needs to dock to the GW after lunar ascent, transfer the crew, then later undock, dock with the CT, transfer prop, undock from the CT, and re-dock with the GW.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 06/30/2023 05:29 am
Despite delays, NASA in Alabama is leading return to moon, ‘make no bones about that’
Published: Jun. 29, 2023, 10:08 a.m.

By Lee Roop | [email protected]

-----
Jody Singer, director of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, recently made clear her center’s big role in returning humans to the moon.

“When the next astronauts land on the moon, they will do it with an industry-led human landing system team managed here at Marshall with partnerships with Blue Origin and our other partner SpaceX,” Singer said at a June 9 celebration of Blue Origin’s team joining moon lander builders for America’s return to the lunar surface.

That next landing won’t happen in 2024, the year marking the 55th anniversary of the 1969 Apollo 11 mission that put the first astronauts on the lunar surface (Marshall played a major role in that initial foray, too). An anniversary landing isn’t NASA’s goal but a fly-around “return to the moon” by astronauts could happen next year and the next footsteps on the lunar surface could be made as early as 2026.

Singer wasn’t exaggerating Alabama’s role in thr next human landing. “This is a Marshall-led program, make no bones about that,” landing system program director Lisa Watson-Morgan said at the same June event. The Marshall center has “a little over 200 people” working on the landing, Watson-Morgan said, and “across the agency upwards of 300, 400 more.”

As Singer said, two commercial teams are leading the surface return. The first is SpaceX founded by Elon Musk. Blue Origin, the rocket company founded by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, is leading the second team. Blue Origin’s team includes Lockheed Martin, Draper, Boeing, Astrobotic and Honeybee Robotics. Astrobotic is building the lander and says its first lander is ready to go.

John Couluris, manager of Blue Origin’s landing program, said at the same event that Blue is preparing to test moon mission rocket engines at the historic 4670 Test Stand at Marshall. The engines are made at the company’s plants in Seattle and Huntsville.


“The sacrifices that have been made to get us where we are today have been incredible,” Couluris said, although he did not elaborate. He called the coming test firings “incredibly important for the nation, not only for ULA which utilizes our engines on Vulcan, but also for New Glenn.” New Glenn is the bigger rocket Blue Origin has been working on for several years. It is nearing completion now at the company’s factory in Florida.


Like previous rocket programs, the two companies working toward the lunar return have had moments of triumph and disappointment. SpaceX’s moon rocket Starship exploded in the air on its first launch attempt in April and the program is currently grounded by the Federal Aviation Administration.

ULA CEO Tory Bruno has also released a video of an explosion during an April test of part of his company’s Vulcan Centaur rocket. The mishap at Marshall Space Flight Center was blamed on a hydrogen fuel leak.

That incident will delay the first launch of Vulcan Centaur planned to send the private Peregrine lander toward the moon. It has also delayed two test satellites for Amazon’s Project Kuiper internet constellation and a payload for Celestis, a space member services company.

The Peregrine lander is “assembled and ready for its journey to Florida for integration with our launch vehicle, United Launch Alliance (ULA)’s Vulcan Centaur,” Astrobotic said in May. “While the Astrobotic team is looking forward to launch, we understand ULA is conducting an investigation following a test article anomaly. The ULA team ... will provide a new date once the investigation is complete. We have confidence they will move through the investigation and Vulcan will fly when it is safe to launch.”

But with two companies actively building rockets capable of deep space destinations like the moon, NASA is confident the return will happen. And the road to get there, just like the original moon landing, passes through Alabama.

https://www.al.com/news/2023/06/despite-delays-nasa-in-alabama-is-leading-return-to-moon-make-no-bones-about-that.html  (https://www.al.com/news/2023/06/despite-delays-nasa-in-alabama-is-leading-return-to-moon-make-no-bones-about-that.html)





Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: deadman1204 on 06/30/2023 02:51 pm
What "sacrifices" Is the article above referring to? In "The sacrifices that have been made to get us where we are today have been incredible"
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/30/2023 03:29 pm
Working long hours, foregoing higher wages, etc
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DrHeywoodFloyd on 07/01/2023 01:53 am
What "sacrifices" Is the article above referring to? In "The sacrifices that have been made to get us where we are today have been incredible"

Like sacrifices to win the contract for the Artemis V mission, to get the BE-4 certified for ULA... and a lot of other work and programs that keeps to itself..... As we know blue origin only makes announcements when it believes that it has made significant achievements.....
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/01/2023 02:45 am
What "sacrifices" Is the article above referring to? In "The sacrifices that have been made to get us where we are today have been incredible"

Like sacrifices to win the contract for the Artemis V mission, to get the BE-4 certified for ULA... and a lot of other work and programs that keeps to itself...

You are just detailing the result of such supposed "sacrifices", but not what the sacrifices themselves were.

Quote
...As we know blue origin only makes announcements when it believes that it has made significant achievements.....

Well that explains why we rarely hear anything from Blue Origin...  ;)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/01/2023 02:48 am
Working long hours, foregoing higher wages, etc

Those are possibilities, but do we know if any of those are the supposed "sacrifices"?

And just to note, I'm not saying people didn't have to work long hours on the HLS proposal, just that I'm wondering why they are making a big deal of it - I've worked long hours on proposals before, and my company never put out a press release to alert the world that I did...  :D
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: kevinof on 07/01/2023 03:46 am
What "sacrifices" Is the article above referring to? In "The sacrifices that have been made to get us where we are today have been incredible"

Like sacrifices to win the contract for the Artemis V mission, to get the BE-4 certified for ULA... and a lot of other work and programs that keeps to itself..... As we know blue origin only makes announcements when it believes that it has made significant achievements.....
They are not sacrifices. Thats "normal" work, your day job, the reason you were hired. Same as any other employee in any other business.

A sacrifice is doing something for free or  handing over your first born. Love to know what these fantastic sacrifices are.

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: clongton on 07/03/2023 01:05 pm
What "sacrifices" Is the article above referring to? In "The sacrifices that have been made to get us where we are today have been incredible"

Like sacrifices to win the contract for the Artemis V mission, to get the BE-4 certified for ULA... and a lot of other work and programs that keeps to itself..... As we know blue origin only makes announcements when it believes that it has made significant achievements.....

Those are not sacrifices; that's work. The same kind of things every other company does to get itself ahead. Their use of the word "sacrifices" is self-serving crap.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DanClemmensen on 07/03/2023 01:09 pm
What "sacrifices" Is the article above referring to? In "The sacrifices that have been made to get us where we are today have been incredible"
I assumed it involves chickens on an altar.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/03/2023 01:16 pm
I’m also a bit skeptical of Blue Origin, but is it really necessary to pick apart just some random throw away line from a manager? We’re not the intended audience, and this is just some low-stakes rah-rah speech. It’s a bore to read people argue about it on here, and the negativity about it is pointless.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: AlexP on 07/03/2023 01:23 pm
From another article covering the same thing:

Quote
John Couluris, Blue Origin’s vice president for lunar transportation, said his team is honored by the assignment of building a second lander. “I want to thank Huntsville and the Marshall Space Flight Center,” Couluris said. “The sacrifices that have been made to get us forward to where we are today have been incredible.”
https://www.al.com/news/2023/06/blue-origin-nasa-talk-about-really-big-goals-for-return-to-moon.html

So he's essentially thanking other people for helping. Not really worth getting in a mood over.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Starshipdown on 07/03/2023 05:22 pm
This is why looking for or waiting for better information and context is worthwhile in cases like this because the bias of the reporter affect what and how that information is presented. If there's full video of the event, it's even better to watch that because then you bypass all gatekeeper biases, and can inform a better opinion from it.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/06/2023 05:43 am
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1676754734152024064

Quote
It was an honor to host @SenatorCantwell and @SenBillNelson today, and show them the breadth and volume of hardware we’re building that will help us return to the Moon—this time to stay. #Artemis
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/13/2023 07:40 pm
https://twitter.com/free_space/status/1679575383056826368

Quote
Some details on @blueorigin HLS & cislunar transporter, provided by @LMSpace : the CT is comprised of a tug and a tanker, launching separately on New Glenn rockets and docking in LEO. Both CT and Blue Moon Mark-2 lander powered by three BE-7 engines. Cover story in next issue @AviationWeek
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 07/14/2023 12:25 am
https://twitter.com/free_space/status/1679575383056826368

Quote
Some details on @blueorigin HLS & cislunar transporter, provided by @LMSpace : the CT is comprised of a tug and a tanker, launching separately on New Glenn rockets and docking in LEO. Both CT and Blue Moon Mark-2 lander powered by three BE-7 engines. Cover story in next issue @AviationWeek

Well, that sinks my, "The tug is a mutant Centaur V" theory.  I guess that drops the probability that LockMart is ULA's purchaser considerably.

It sure seems as if LockMart and ULA are both putting themselves in a position where they're completely dependent on Blue for a lot of their future growth.  Seems like there ought to be a plan to defray that risk.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 07/14/2023 01:43 am
I think the most important thing here is that Scott Manley was right about Blue Moon Mark II having three engines:
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Zed_Noir on 07/14/2023 11:57 am
<snip>
Well, that sinks my, "The tug is a mutant Centaur V" theory.  I guess that drops the probability that LockMart is ULA's purchaser considerably.
<snip>
Me think the LockMart Tug is "an amputated propulsion section of the Blue Moon Lander Mk.2" grafted onto a stretch Centaur V tankage section plus some hypergolic RCS/ullage thrusters on each section.

Why build something new when you can cobble something together with available or soon to be available parts.

The only issue that might need to be resolved is connecting the plumbing between the tankage and propulsion sections for the cryogenic propellants after docking the sections together.

So the possibility of LockMart buying ULA isn't ruled out yet.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Hug on 07/15/2023 08:48 am
Well, that sinks my ... theory.
Same bro. (well mine had been sunken earlier). I still think Lockheed is lead potential buyer; but want for Centaur probably isn't driver.


Aviation weekly cover. Roughly what you would expect from the description. Sun shields and solar panels etc. The tanker part looks to me like a single hydrogen tank maybe? Could be common dome, but on the tug part they have separate lox and hydrogen tanks.

(https://aviationweek.com/sites/default/files/2023-07/aw_230717_cvr.jpg)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 07/16/2023 09:06 pm
I still think Lockheed is lead potential buyer; but want for Centaur probably isn't driver.

It kinda brings up another question:  If LockMart is going to incorporate BE-7's in projects, what does that do to AJR's RL10 sales?

The RL10 is a nice compromise between something that works for second stages on launchers and something that can handle BEO injections or lunar landings.  But it's a bit too low a thrust for the launchers, and it's a bit too high for the BEO applications.

Blue seems to have addressed both ends of the market with separate engines:  The BE-3U for the launchers, and the BE-7 for the low-thrust apps.  CT adopting BE-7 for its tug is double-plus ungood for Rocketdyne.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 07/20/2023 08:13 pm
This presentation has a bit of details on the concept of operations of the lander (see slide 12 and also attached):

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230010065

Quote
Human Landing System
Document ID  20230010065
Document Type  Presentation
Authors  Lisa Watson-Morgan
(Marshall Space Flight Center Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, United States)
Date Acquired  July 10, 2023
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: GWH on 07/21/2023 12:19 am
I wonder how many refuelling launches are required?

The graphic makes it look like one, but we know the cislunar transporter is at least 2 launches on its own. Launching partly fueled is conceivable.

If it is indeed only 4 launches in total that's pretty good.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: deltaV on 07/21/2023 12:36 am
I wonder how many refuelling launches are required?

The graphic makes it look like one, but we know the cislunar transporter is at least 2 launches on its own. Launching partly fueled is conceivable.

If it is indeed only 4 launches in total that's pretty good.

There's a "..." between the first two launch vehicle icons. That suggests that more launches are required than shown.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Asteroza on 07/21/2023 01:23 am
I wonder how many refuelling launches are required?

The graphic makes it look like one, but we know the cislunar transporter is at least 2 launches on its own. Launching partly fueled is conceivable.

If it is indeed only 4 launches in total that's pretty good.

There's a "..." between the first two launch vehicle icons. That suggests that more launches are required than shown.

Maybe it isn't showing the initial CT pair launches, and that's strictly the "re"fueling op at the beginning of a cycle when CT is empty after a return from NRHO? That would need a minimum 2 launches of a refueling tanker right?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: woods170 on 07/21/2023 09:53 am
I wonder how many refuelling launches are required?

The graphic makes it look like one, but we know the cislunar transporter is at least 2 launches on its own. Launching partly fueled is conceivable.

If it is indeed only 4 launches in total that's pretty good.

There's a "..." between the first two launch vehicle icons. That suggests that more launches are required than shown.

Yeah. I've circled that in the image below and it means indeed that more than one GS2 Refueler is needed to fully fuel the Cis-lunar transporter.

Here we are in 2023 when it was just 2 years ago that Blue labeled multiple cryogenic refuelings as "immensely complex and high risk".
How the tables have turned...

Come to think of it... The Blue Moon conops is actually HIGHER risk than the HLS Starship conops. That is because the HLS Starship is refueled from the depot in LEO. But the Blue Moon lander is refueled from the Cis-lunar transporter in NRHO.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 07/22/2023 03:58 am
Come to think of it... The Blue Moon conops is actually HIGHER risk than the HLS Starship conops. That is because the HLS Starship is refueled from the depot in LEO. But the Blue Moon lander is refueled from the Cis-lunar transporter in NRHO.

For the first mission, maybe.  After that, both architectures refuel in NRHO.

Also, I'm not exactly rock-solid on how the first Starship mission closes if fueled only in LEO.  When you burden an LEO-fueled mission with sump losses, ullage gas losses, boiloff for 100days, FPR (I've been using 1.5% extra delta-v for each maneuver), and an Isp that's reduced a bit to account for one RaptorSL burning for steering purposes (3 RVacs @ 100% throttle @ 372s and one RSL @ 50% throttle @ 352s = 369s average), things are more than tight.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 07/22/2023 04:02 am
I wonder how many refuelling launches are required?

The graphic makes it look like one, but we know the cislunar transporter is at least 2 launches on its own. Launching partly fueled is conceivable.

If it is indeed only 4 launches in total that's pretty good.

There's a "..." between the first two launch vehicle icons. That suggests that more launches are required than shown.

The CT is 2 launches to get it deployed.  After that, it's however many prop launches are required to get it ready for it's reusable LEO-NRHO-fuel-LEO conops.  I think they can get by with 3 no-payload New Glenns to refuel the CT when it's reused.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 07/22/2023 01:47 pm
Come to think of it... The Blue Moon conops is actually HIGHER risk than the HLS Starship conops. That is because the HLS Starship is refueled from the depot in LEO. But the Blue Moon lander is refueled from the Cis-lunar transporter in NRHO.

For the first mission, maybe.  After that, both architectures refuel in NRHO.

Also, I'm not exactly rock-solid on how the first Starship mission closes if fueled only in LEO.  When you burden an LEO-fueled mission with sump losses, ullage gas losses, boiloff for 100days, FPR (I've been using 1.5% extra delta-v for each maneuver), and an Isp that's reduced a bit to account for one RaptorSL burning for steering purposes (3 RVacs @ 100% throttle @ 372s and one RSL @ 50% throttle @ 352s = 369s average), things are more than tight.

You will notice that the SpaceX conops for Artemis III (on slide 7) speak of refueling in Earth orbit, not LEO.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/22/2023 04:27 pm
SpaceX refuel in HEO as there is no active cooling to handle heat reflected from earth.

With depots lower the orbit better as it increases amount of fuel delivered to orbit per launch. That fuel still has to be delivered to lunar orbit ideally with OTV tanker that has higher ISP engines and lower dry mass than RLV US.

Blue is using depot with extra mass from active cooling as OTV tanker which counts against it but this can be offset some what by taking slower and lower DV route (few months) to moon. Because boiloff isn't issue time is on OTV side.
In future there maybe case for ultralight OTV tanker that uses passive cooling and takes quicker route (3-4days) but higher DV to a lunar orbit depot.

Both companies architecture has pros and cons. Fuel type also drives engineering choices. Boiloff with hydrolox forces use of active cooling but now there is no time constraints because of boiloff. Blue can do tanker launchers months apart while SpaceX may need to do them every week to avoid too much boiloff before departing to moon.

Blue's tanker can wait months if not years in lunar orbit without much fuel loss if SLS launch is delayed. Not sure how long SpaceX can wait without need of a extra topup tanker launch.



Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 07/23/2023 04:39 pm
SpaceX refuel in HEO as there is no active cooling to handle heat reflected from earth.

Do you have a source for that or is that a guess based on available information? We have heard mostly Earth orbit and LEO a couple of times but I am still skeptical about LEO.

Quote
Blue's tanker can wait months if not years in lunar orbit without much fuel loss if SLS launch is delayed. Not sure how long SpaceX can wait without need of a extra topup tanker launch.

The fueled lander has to be able to loiter at Gateway/NRHO for a period of 90 days according to NASA's requirements.  I don't think that there is any requirement beyond this 90 days period. According to the source selection statement, Starship can loiter for 100 days.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 07/30/2023 07:04 pm
SpaceX refuel in HEO as there is no active cooling to handle heat reflected from earth.

I don't expect there to be active cooling on a Starship tanker, and maybe not on the LSS, but I'd be surprised if there weren't active cooling on the depot.

For the depot to be reasonably efficient in managing boiloff without active cooling, it would have to be in not only a high earth orbit, but a high circular orbit, so it wasn't heated at the low perigee.  That's incredibly inefficient for the tankers bringing prop up to the depot.

If you have to use an HEEO (low perigee, high apogee) to give the LSS enough prop to do HEEO-NRHO-LS-NRHOą, then it makes more sense to load the depot in VLEO, then boost it into HEEO before the LSS mission begins.  But then it requires active cooling during the prop accumulation phase.

Quote
Blue is using depot with extra mass from active cooling as OTV tanker which counts against it but this can be offset some what by taking slower and lower DV route (few months) to moon. Because boiloff isn't issue time is on OTV side.
In future there maybe case for ultralight OTV tanker that uses passive cooling and takes quicker route (3-4days) but higher DV to a lunar orbit depot.

Both companies architecture has pros and cons. Fuel type also drives engineering choices. Boiloff with hydrolox forces use of active cooling but now there is no time constraints because of boiloff. Blue can do tanker launchers months apart while SpaceX may need to do them every week to avoid too much boiloff before departing to moon.

Blue's tanker can wait months if not years in lunar orbit without much fuel loss if SLS launch is delayed. Not sure how long SpaceX can wait without need of a extra topup tanker launch.

The more important metric for Blue is how many New Glenn "tankers" (basically a New Glenn with no payload) it takes to ready a CT mission.

My back-of-napkin for a 16t dry mass Blue Moon that can do NRHO-LS(polar)-NRHO requires 41.8t of hydrolox, if we assume the BE-7 gets Isp=450s.  If you assume that the CT tug, with cryocooling, has ε=10% dry/(dry+prop), and the refueling tank for the Blue Moon has ε=7%, then 3 New Glenn launches can just barely fill the whole thing up.

I have no idea if ε=10% is a reasonable number for a tug with a cryocooler and its radiators, but anything more than that will require more NG launches.  Since NG launches are likely to be considerably more expensive than the competition (i.e., Starship tanker launches), keeping to 3 launches will be fairly important.

_____________
ąI'm still a big fan of an LSS with 1500t tanks.  It enables the LSS to go LEO-NRHO-LS-NRHO on a single refueling, with no weird RPODs in eccentric orbits with Van Allen Belt transits.  Given that SpaceX seems to be planning on stretching the Starship anyway, going to 1500t for LSS shouldn't be hard, even if it slightly reduces the height of the "garage", where the airlocks let the crew out to board the elevator, and where any unpressurized cargo would be held.  Even if the tanks consume some of the cylindrical payload bay space, the garage should still be able to be 3m high, which is more than enough.

The biggest down-side to 1500t LSS tanks is that it raises the center of mass a bit on landing.  But I doubt it raises it enough to matter.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 08/09/2023 03:47 am
It's quite remarkable how far the HLS architecture has moved in four years.

No it hasn't. Trump wanted boots on the moon earlier, so NASA Nerfed the design for the first couple of landers.

That's not really true. NASA had easier requirements for the Artemis III demo but the sustainable HLS demo (option B under the initial BAA) had similar requirements to Appendix P. Appendix P allows a 2 person lander but a 4 person lander also needs to be offered. That was the same under the original BAA. Fortunately, this time Blue seems to be offering only one lander that can carry 4 persons instead of the two versions that they offered under Option A.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JCRM on 08/10/2023 12:09 pm
It's quite remarkable how far the HLS architecture has moved in four years.

No it hasn't. Trump wanted boots on the moon earlier, so NASA Nerfed the design for the first couple of landers.

That's not really true. NASA had easier requirements for the Artemis III demo but the sustainable HLS demo (option B under the initial BAA) had similar requirements to Appendix P. Appendix P allows a 2 person lander but a 4 person lander also needs to be offered. That was the same under the original BAA. Fortunately, this time Blue seems to be offering only one lander that can carry 4 persons instead of the two versions that they offered under Option A.

Yeah, it is pretty much true. If you've got to offer a 4 person option, there's little point developing a different two person option.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DanClemmensen on 08/10/2023 02:03 pm
It's quite remarkable how far the HLS architecture has moved in four years.

No it hasn't. Trump wanted boots on the moon earlier, so NASA Nerfed the design for the first couple of landers.

That's not really true. NASA had easier requirements for the Artemis III demo but the sustainable HLS demo (option B under the initial BAA) had similar requirements to Appendix P. Appendix P allows a 2 person lander but a 4 person lander also needs to be offered. That was the same under the original BAA. Fortunately, this time Blue seems to be offering only one lander that can carry 4 persons instead of the two versions that they offered under Option A.
I think the Option B (and Appendix P) HLSs must sustain a crew of 2 for a "long" stay, and must also be able to transport a crew of 4 if two of them will be sustained on the surface in a habitat outside of the lander. NASA has not yet acknowledged that Starship HLS Option B can sustain a crew of 4, removing the need for the habitat. That would require them to re-write their pretty plans and update their PowerPoint deck. I do not know if an occupied Starship HLS on the surface would have longer duration than an unoccupied Orion docked to Gateway.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 08/14/2023 11:27 pm
It's quite remarkable how far the HLS architecture has moved in four years.

No it hasn't. Trump wanted boots on the moon earlier, so NASA Nerfed the design for the first couple of landers.

That's not really true. NASA had easier requirements for the Artemis III demo but the sustainable HLS demo (option B under the initial BAA) had similar requirements to Appendix P. Appendix P allows a 2 person lander but a 4 person lander also needs to be offered. That was the same under the original BAA. Fortunately, this time Blue seems to be offering only one lander that can carry 4 persons instead of the two versions that they offered under Option A.
I think the Option B (and Appendix P) HLSs must sustain a crew of 2 for a "long" stay, and must also be able to transport a crew of 4 if two of them will be sustained on the surface in a habitat outside of the lander. NASA has not yet acknowledged that Starship HLS Option B can sustain a crew of 4, removing the need for the habitat. That would require them to re-write their pretty plans and update their PowerPoint deck. I do not know if an occupied Starship HLS on the surface would have longer duration than an unoccupied Orion docked to Gateway.

The requirement for HLS habitation capability is for 8 days for both 2 crew and 4 crew missions. The longer missions requires the HLS to be on the lunar surface for 33 days but up to 30 days can be uninhabited. For now, the 30 day missions assume that a surface habitat and a pressurized rover are available. Of course, an HLS provider is allowed to exceed the requirements.

Quote from: pages 29, 37 and 38 of HLS-RQMT-006
HLS-S-R-0324 Habitation Capability (Two Crew) [DRM-H-001]

The Integrated Lander shall be capable of providing a habitable environment for two (2) crew for at least eight (8) Earth days.

Rationale: The Integrated Lander must be able to provide habitability for the specified duration, for the specified crew complement to accommodate the crew. The specified duration is from staging vehicle undocked to staging vehicle docked. The eight day duration is driven by the Near-rectilinear Halo Orbit (NRHO) period.

HLS-S-R-0327 Habitation Capability (Four Crew) [DRM-H-002]

The Integrated Lander shall be capable of providing a habitable environment for four (4) crew for at least eight (8) Earth days.

Rationale: The Integrated Lander must be able to provide habitability for the specified duration, for the specified crew complement to accommodate the crew. This (8) Earth days will have uninhabited periods between inhabited operational days. The eight day duration is driven by the Near-rectilinear Halo Orbit (NRHO) period as well as the need for timeline flexibility regarding preparation for, and execution of, crew transfer to/from Artemis Base Camp.

HLS-S-R-0042 Polar Sortie Surface Duration [DRM-H-001]

The Integrated Lander shall be capable of operating on the lunar surface for a minimum of 6.25 Earth days, when pre-emplaced habitable surface assets are not available.

Rationale: The optimal NRHO has a period, apolune and perilune that drives the architecture to a 6.25 Earth day surface stay capability when no additional surface assets are available. Surface duration starts upon touchdown on the lunar surface and concludes upon liftoff from the lunar surface.

HLS-S-R-0358 Non-Polar Sortie Surface Duration (Goal) [DRM-H-001b]

The Integrated Lander shall be capable of operating on the non-polar lunar surface for a minimum of 2.3 (threshold) / 6.25 (goal) Earth days, when pre-emplaced habitable surface assets are not available.

Rationale: Because non-polar sorties are not intended to exceed the performance capability of polar sorties, descent/ascent transit times may increase and surface stay time may decrease. The threshold 2.3 Earth day surface stay represents the amount of time to perform a single EVA to complete a minimum set of mission objectives.

Surface duration starts upon touchdown on the lunar surface and concludes upon liftoff from the lunar surface.

HLS-S-R-0043 Polar Excursion Surface Duration [DRM-H-002]

The Integrated Lander shall be capable of operating on the lunar surface for a minimum of 33 Earth days, including up to 30 days uninhabited, when pre-emplaced habitable surface assets are available.

Rationale: The accessibility of pre-emplaced habitable surface assets allows an extended mission. The crew will transfer to these surface assets and then will live/work out of them for up to 30 days. The Integrated Lander only supports the crew before the initial transfer to surface assets, and after the return transfer from surface assets. Surface duration starts upon touchdown on the lunar surface and concludes upon liftoff from the lunar surface.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56067.msg2427585#msg2427585
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DanClemmensen on 08/15/2023 12:16 am
I think the Option B (and Appendix P) HLSs must sustain a crew of 2 for a "long" stay, and must also be able to transport a crew of 4 if two of them will be sustained on the surface in a habitat outside of the lander. NASA has not yet acknowledged that Starship HLS Option B can sustain a crew of 4, removing the need for the habitat. That would require them to re-write their pretty plans and update their PowerPoint deck. I do not know if an occupied Starship HLS on the surface would have longer duration than an unoccupied Orion docked to Gateway.
The requirement for HLS is for 8 days for both 2 crew and 4 crew missions. The longer missions requires the HLS to be uninhabited on the lunar surface for 30 days.
Thanks for the correction. It is not required to be uninhabited. It is required to function properly if it is uninhabited. A vendor is not prohibited from supplying an HLS that can also remain inhabited and sustain a crew for 30 days or longer.  This is another example of NASA's tunnel vision, sticking with mission parameters that ceased to make sense after they selected Starship HLS. Why should I leave my comfy RV to live in an  uncomfortable tent just because the original specs called for using a mini-car instead of an RV?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 08/15/2023 12:53 am
I think the Option B (and Appendix P) HLSs must sustain a crew of 2 for a "long" stay, and must also be able to transport a crew of 4 if two of them will be sustained on the surface in a habitat outside of the lander. NASA has not yet acknowledged that Starship HLS Option B can sustain a crew of 4, removing the need for the habitat. That would require them to re-write their pretty plans and update their PowerPoint deck. I do not know if an occupied Starship HLS on the surface would have longer duration than an unoccupied Orion docked to Gateway.
The requirement for HLS is for 8 days for both 2 crew and 4 crew missions. The longer missions requires the HLS to be uninhabited on the lunar surface for 30 days.
Thanks for the correction. It is not required to be uninhabited. It is required to function properly if it is uninhabited. A vendor is not prohibited from supplying an HLS that can also remain inhabited and sustain a crew for 30 days or longer.  This is another example of NASA's tunnel vision, sticking with mission parameters that ceased to make sense after they selected Starship HLS. Why should I leave my comfy RV to live in an  uncomfortable tent just because the original specs called for using a mini-car instead of an RV?

Yes, I had corrected the uninhabited period but you replied too quickly (or I was to slow to make the corrections...).

These are minimum requirements, you are allowed to exceed them but it's not clear by how much Starship exceeds them. But bear in mind that at this point that the HLS services phase has yet to be awarded, so NASA can't assume that Starship will win a services contract for missions past Artemis V. Artemis III, IV and V are demo missions that will likely only last 6.5 days.

NASA appears to be considering having a 15 day mission for 2 astronauts on the mission after the pressurized rover is delivered to the Moon (currently Artemis VII). 4 astronaut missions for 30 days would only happen once both the pressurized rover and surface habitat are delivered to the Moon. 

Quote from: pages 29 and 32 of HEOMD-007
The delivery of the PR enables longer duration stays, a minimum of 30 days for 2 crew, at the South Pole. Likely the first mission of this type will be of shorter duration, as represented in Figure 3 with 15 days.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210022080/downloads/HEOMD-007%20HEO%20SCOPE%20-%2009-28-2021%20NTRS.pdf
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JCRM on 08/17/2023 07:35 pm
This is another example of NASA's tunnel vision, sticking with mission parameters that ceased to make sense after they selected Starship HLS.

They can, perhaps, change their mission parameters after Starship HLS is delivered, but without a starship alternative it would be a very risk move
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DanClemmensen on 08/17/2023 11:41 pm
This is another example of NASA's tunnel vision, sticking with mission parameters that ceased to make sense after they selected Starship HLS.

They can, perhaps, change their mission parameters after Starship HLS is delivered, but without a starship alternative it would be a very risk move
If you wait that long, there is no chance to add even a minimal rover to Artemis III. NASA could have added a minimal rover in 2021 with the understanding that it might not have been delivered on time, but it's almost certainly too late now. Unless someone is building a minimal rover in secret somewhere, the Artemis III crew will not have a rover and the mission is basically just flags and footprints.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JCRM on 08/18/2023 11:16 am
This is another example of NASA's tunnel vision, sticking with mission parameters that ceased to make sense after they selected Starship HLS.

They can, perhaps, change their mission parameters after Starship HLS is delivered, but without a starship alternative it would be a very risk move
the Artemis III crew will not have a rover and the mission is basically just flags and footprints.

Well yes, as I stated previously, I consider NASA nerfed the early Artemis to meet Trumps timescale.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DanClemmensen on 08/18/2023 02:23 pm
This is another example of NASA's tunnel vision, sticking with mission parameters that ceased to make sense after they selected Starship HLS.

They can, perhaps, change their mission parameters after Starship HLS is delivered, but without a starship alternative it would be a very risk move
the Artemis III crew will not have a rover and the mission is basically just flags and footprints.

Well yes, as I stated previously, I consider NASA nerfed the early Artemis to meet Trumps timescale.
That was what got us into this mess with an architecture and schedule in 2020 with only flags and footprints for 2024. My problem is that NASA did not alter the architecture in 2021 to take advantage of Starship HLS.

The other problem, of course, is that NASA, with the active collaboration of the rest of the space community, uses fantasy scheduling for Artemis and for all other projects. An extreme example was awarding an HLS contract in April 2021 for delivery as part of Artemis III in December 2024. Any schedule is accepted unless it violates the laws of physics.

But this is supposed to be the  Blue Moon Lunar Lander thread. I contend that the original (Appendix A) losing BO bid suffered from fantasy scheduling. We cannot know if this was better or worse scheduling than Starship HLS. I also contend that the newer BO Appendix P lander suffers from fantasy scheduling: an award in March 2023 for deliver for Artemis V (then in 2027?).
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: deadman1204 on 08/18/2023 03:08 pm
This is another example of NASA's tunnel vision, sticking with mission parameters that ceased to make sense after they selected Starship HLS.

They can, perhaps, change their mission parameters after Starship HLS is delivered, but without a starship alternative it would be a very risk move
the Artemis III crew will not have a rover and the mission is basically just flags and footprints.

Well yes, as I stated previously, I consider NASA nerfed the early Artemis to meet Trumps timescale.
That was what got us into this mess with an architecture and schedule in 2020 with only flags and footprints for 2024. My problem is that NASA did not alter the architecture in 2021 to take advantage of Starship HLS.

The other problem, of course, is that NASA, with the active collaboration of the rest of the space community, uses fantasy scheduling for Artemis and for all other projects. An extreme example was awarding an HLS contract in April 2021 for delivery as part of Artemis III in December 2024. Any schedule is accepted unless it violates the laws of physics.

But this is supposed to be the  Blue Moon Lunar Lander thread. I contend that the original (Appendix A) losing BO bid suffered from fantasy scheduling. We cannot know if this was better or worse scheduling than Starship HLS. I also contend that the newer BO Appendix P lander suffers from fantasy scheduling: an award in March 2023 for deliver for Artemis V (then in 2027?).
In NASA's defense, the schedule was politically set. Even after the election, congress didn't really let NASA change it to something reasonable.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 08/18/2023 04:43 pm
This is another example of NASA's tunnel vision, sticking with mission parameters that ceased to make sense after they selected Starship HLS.

They can, perhaps, change their mission parameters after Starship HLS is delivered, but without a starship alternative it would be a very risk move
the Artemis III crew will not have a rover and the mission is basically just flags and footprints.

Well yes, as I stated previously, I consider NASA nerfed the early Artemis to meet Trumps timescale.
That was what got us into this mess with an architecture and schedule in 2020 with only flags and footprints for 2024. My problem is that NASA did not alter the architecture in 2021 to take advantage of Starship HLS.

The other problem, of course, is that NASA, with the active collaboration of the rest of the space community, uses fantasy scheduling for Artemis and for all other projects. An extreme example was awarding an HLS contract in April 2021 for delivery as part of Artemis III in December 2024. Any schedule is accepted unless it violates the laws of physics.

But this is supposed to be the  Blue Moon Lunar Lander thread. I contend that the original (Appendix A) losing BO bid suffered from fantasy scheduling. We cannot know if this was better or worse scheduling than Starship HLS. I also contend that the newer BO Appendix P lander suffers from fantasy scheduling: an award in March 2023 for deliver for Artemis V (then in 2027?).

The base contract for HLS was actually awarded in 2020.

I don't think that there was any money for an LTV prior to FY24. In the FY24 Budget summary chart, it says that LTV will be used for Artemis V but if the LTV is ready before the Artemis V mission, they will obviously use it for that mission. In its RFP, NASA is asking for the providers to start their LTV services no later than August 2028. It's also up to the LTV provider how they they get their rover delivered to the Moon through commercial lander services (most likely through HLS).

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=54676.msg2515328#msg2515328
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 08/18/2023 04:56 pm
This is another example of NASA's tunnel vision, sticking with mission parameters that ceased to make sense after they selected Starship HLS.

They can, perhaps, change their mission parameters after Starship HLS is delivered, but without a starship alternative it would be a very risk move
the Artemis III crew will not have a rover and the mission is basically just flags and footprints.

Well yes, as I stated previously, I consider NASA nerfed the early Artemis to meet Trumps timescale.

I am not sure that is true. The LTV could have been awarded earlier. It's supposed to be awarded in November of this year but perhaps more likely in January 2024, once that the government is no longer under a continuing resolution (CR). I don't think that you can blame the Trump Administration for this delay, I think that it has more to do with budgetary constraints. 

The pressurized rover and the habitats are supposed to be provided by JAXA and the Italian Space Agency but there is no agreements on those yet either. The Biden Administration has been slow to finalize these agreements and I don't know why. I think that part of the reason is the development of the Moon to Mars strategy has only gotten to Artemis V and both the habitats and pressurized rover are planned for missions after that.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DanClemmensen on 08/18/2023 05:05 pm
This is another example of NASA's tunnel vision, sticking with mission parameters that ceased to make sense after they selected Starship HLS.

They can, perhaps, change their mission parameters after Starship HLS is delivered, but without a starship alternative it would be a very risk move
the Artemis III crew will not have a rover and the mission is basically just flags and footprints.

Well yes, as I stated previously, I consider NASA nerfed the early Artemis to meet Trumps timescale.
That was what got us into this mess with an architecture and schedule in 2020 with only flags and footprints for 2024. My problem is that NASA did not alter the architecture in 2021 to take advantage of Starship HLS.

The base contract for HLS was actually awarded in 2020.
But NASA could not have added a minimal rover in 2020, because there were three competing HLSs until 13 months later and adding a rover to be landed by HLS would have been "unfair", as you put it.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 08/18/2023 05:36 pm
There was plans for a more basic LTV to be used in 2024 under a 2020 RFI but they were later dropped in 2021 in favor of a more scientific rover that could be used yearlong.

Here is the 2020 RFI for the 2024 LTV (it would have been delivered by CLPS).

Quote from: page 5 of the 2020 LTV RFI
NASA is interested in exploring the possibility of a cost effective development effort resulting in one LTV to be delivered to NASA for integration and launch as a payload aboard a Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) launch, potentially in the 2024 timeframe. The LTV will be used for Extravehicular Activities (EVA) mobility support, for science and exploration including potential teleoperations, transportation support for small cargo and possibly other tasks.

https://sam.gov/opp/46cd587dcba34a8e96792f26d3c7a8d8/view
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: JCRM on 08/21/2023 10:38 am

 My problem is that NASA did not alter the architecture in 2021 to take advantage of Starship HLS.


|It would be foolish to do so until Starship HLS is delivered, until then it's prudent to continue the existing plan once it is delivered NASA are quite capable of extending the contract for further flights, as they have done so for Dragon 2 and Crew Dragon
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: deltaV on 08/24/2023 03:12 am

 My problem is that NASA did not alter the architecture in 2021 to take advantage of Starship HLS.


|It would be foolish to do so until Starship HLS is delivered, until then it's prudent to continue the existing plan once it is delivered NASA are quite capable of extending the contract for further flights, as they have done so for Dragon 2 and Crew Dragon

I'll soon reply in the Artemis thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58212.0), which is a better place for discussions of topics that don't have much to do with Blue's lander.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/27/2023 02:44 pm
As this thread is getting rather long, started a new one for the Mk1 Lunar Cargo lander:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59772.msg2535237#msg2535237
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 10/31/2023 08:35 pm
https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/status/1719392648258068983
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/01/2023 05:24 am
Here's the link to the Washington Post article with the animation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2023/nasa-moon-missions-landing-blue-origin-artemis/
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: deadman1204 on 11/06/2023 03:19 pm
Here's the link to the Washington Post article with the animation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2023/nasa-moon-missions-landing-blue-origin-artemis/
paywall
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Greg Hullender on 11/06/2023 03:27 pm
Here's the link to the Washington Post article with the animation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2023/nasa-moon-missions-landing-blue-origin-artemis/
paywall
Here's a "gift link (https://wapo.st/471R9Ee)," which should be free to view. Let me know if it works. The animation is definitely fun to watch. :-)

The plan seems to include a lander and a tanker. The lander flies straight to NRHO without needing to refuel in LEO. The tanker fills up in LEO (with multiple New Glenn flights, although the article makes it sound like it just needs two: one to launch it and a second to fuel it up). Then the tanker flies to the moon to refuel the lander.

After each mission, the lander stays in NRHO and the tanker flies back to Earth. Both are available for future missions; nothing is expended.

Both vehicles are strictly hydrolox; no methane here.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: kenny008 on 11/06/2023 04:06 pm
Here's the link to the Washington Post article with the animation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2023/nasa-moon-missions-landing-blue-origin-artemis/
paywall
Here's a "gift link (https://wapo.st/471R9Ee)," which should be free to view. Let me know if it works. The animation is definitely fun to watch. :-)

The plan seems to include a lander and a tanker. The lander flies straight to NRHO without needing to refuel in LEO. The tanker fills up in LEO (with multiple New Glenn flights, although the article makes it sound like it just needs two: one to launch it and a second to fuel it up). Then the tanker flies to the moon to refuel the lander.

After each mission, the lander stays in NRHO and the tanker flies back to Earth. Both are available for future missions; nothing is expended.

Both vehicles are strictly hydrolox; no methane here.

If I remember right, Jeff Bezos was using the multiple SpaceX tanker flights to show why SpaceX was a poor choice for the original contract award.  Looks like they are now on board with tanker flights.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/07/2023 04:11 am
Thanks Greg! Here's a series of screen captures so you don't have to tediously scroll through the animation. They show the astronauts going through the LH2 tank, which I don't think is correct. I believe the lander docks to the Gateway using its side docking port, with the astronauts transferring directly to the cabin.

Its not clear how the CLT is refuelled. Does it dispose of Module 2 either in Lunar orbit, on the way back to Earth or after LEO insertion with a new Module 2 launched, or do both modules get refuelled by other tankers. It seems Module 1 has its own tanks so a single new Module 2 won't be sufficient for a reflight. This would indicate that a reflight might require perhaps 1.5 launches. The other half would be for the next flight.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Steve G on 11/07/2023 11:27 am
I was under the impression that the mechanism to dock with Gateway would be part of the crew compartment so they wouldn't have to use a tunnel running through the propulsion tanks. Was I wrong or has something changed?
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DanClemmensen on 11/07/2023 02:30 pm
I was under the impression that the mechanism to dock with Gateway would be part of the crew compartment so they wouldn't have to use a tunnel running through the propulsion tanks. Was I wrong or has something changed?
The entire interested space community knows that you are correct. The PR hack that put this infomercial animation together did not. But hey, Jeff Bezos' Washington Post is unlikely to exert editorial control over a submission from Jeff Bezos' BO.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Greg Hullender on 11/07/2023 04:17 pm
I was under the impression that the mechanism to dock with Gateway would be part of the crew compartment so they wouldn't have to use a tunnel running through the propulsion tanks. Was I wrong or has something changed?
The entire interested space community knows that you are correct. The PR hack that put this infomercial animation together did not. But hey, Jeff Bezos' Washington Post is unlikely to exert editorial control over a submission from Jeff Bezos' BO.
Nah. The writer, Christian Davenport, has written articles for the Post that were very critical of Blue Origin (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/09/25/blue-origin-space-ceo-resigns/). One should never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. :-)

It does leave me wondering what the actual architecture for the lander is supposed to be. I agree that the astronauts are unlikely to be good at swimming through liquid hydrogen!
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 11/07/2023 05:29 pm
I was under the impression that the mechanism to dock with Gateway would be part of the crew compartment so they wouldn't have to use a tunnel running through the propulsion tanks. Was I wrong or has something changed?
The entire interested space community knows that you are correct. The PR hack that put this infomercial animation together did not. But hey, Jeff Bezos' Washington Post is unlikely to exert editorial control over a submission from Jeff Bezos' BO.
Nah. The writer, Christian Davenport, has written articles for the Post that were very critical of Blue Origin (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/09/25/blue-origin-space-ceo-resigns/). One should never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. :-)

It does leave me wondering what the actual architecture for the lander is supposed to be. I agree that the astronauts are unlikely to be good at swimming through liquid hydrogen!

No, having a tunnel that goes through the tanks is a proper Kerbal thing to do.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DanClemmensen on 11/07/2023 05:35 pm
I was under the impression that the mechanism to dock with Gateway would be part of the crew compartment so they wouldn't have to use a tunnel running through the propulsion tanks. Was I wrong or has something changed?
The entire interested space community knows that you are correct. The PR hack that put this infomercial animation together did not. But hey, Jeff Bezos' Washington Post is unlikely to exert editorial control over a submission from Jeff Bezos' BO.
Nah. The writer, Christian Davenport, has written articles for the Post that were very critical of Blue Origin (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/09/25/blue-origin-space-ceo-resigns/). One should never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. :-)

It does leave me wondering what the actual architecture for the lander is supposed to be. I agree that the astronauts are unlikely to be good at swimming through liquid hydrogen!
Christian Davenport is probably not the PR hack that put this infomercial animation together. Unless you think he has the graphics and Web skills? I speculate that he got it from someone else. It's really quite impressive except for being totally wrong in several places.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Greg Hullender on 11/07/2023 06:06 pm
I was under the impression that the mechanism to dock with Gateway would be part of the crew compartment so they wouldn't have to use a tunnel running through the propulsion tanks. Was I wrong or has something changed?
The entire interested space community knows that you are correct. The PR hack that put this infomercial animation together did not. But hey, Jeff Bezos' Washington Post is unlikely to exert editorial control over a submission from Jeff Bezos' BO.
Nah. The writer, Christian Davenport, has written articles for the Post that were very critical of Blue Origin (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/09/25/blue-origin-space-ceo-resigns/). One should never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. :-)

It does leave me wondering what the actual architecture for the lander is supposed to be. I agree that the astronauts are unlikely to be good at swimming through liquid hydrogen!
Christian Davenport is probably not the PR hack that put this infomercial animation together. Unless you think he has the graphics and Web skills? I speculate that he got it from someone else. It's really quite impressive except for being totally wrong in several places.
The article attributes the animation to someone else, but I assumed he was working with what he was given. Davenport (in my view) is the one responsible for accuracy.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: spacebleachers on 11/08/2023 11:49 am
Then you don't understand how newspapers work, or least used to work. It's actually the editors that are responsible for ensuring the accuracy. Yes, the editors will often mock the reporters for not getting it correct, but its ultimately the editors jobs to get it accurate.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: deadman1204 on 11/08/2023 02:15 pm
Then you don't understand how newspapers work, or least used to work. It's actually the editors that are responsible for ensuring the accuracy. Yes, the editors will often mock the reporters for not getting it correct, but its ultimately the editors jobs to get it accurate.
Having spent several years working with hundreds of newspapers online, I can tell you that this is a ideal view of newspaper editors. Not really how they work in the wild
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: spacebleachers on 11/09/2023 11:06 am
Then you don't understand how newspapers work, or least used to work. It's actually the editors that are responsible for ensuring the accuracy. Yes, the editors will often mock the reporters for not getting it correct, but its ultimately the editors jobs to get it accurate.
Having spent several years working with hundreds of newspapers online, I can tell you that this is a ideal view of newspaper editors. Not really how they work in the wild
Having a family member who actually did this for newspapers and having her explain that it was part of her job, I can tell you it's more than just the ideal view. Sorry you were associated with a bunch of slackers.

But yes, it would be nice if the graphics produced for this would have been more accurate.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 11/17/2023 02:27 pm
https://twitter.com/genejm29/status/1725534757499371684
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 11/17/2023 02:40 pm
https://twitter.com/genejm29/status/1725522264068649033
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 11/17/2023 07:14 pm
https://twitter.com/LucasSa54749430/status/1725607236926644567
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 12/15/2023 12:38 am
See below:

At 1h15m and 1h16m of this video, Jeff Bezos was asked if he would like to walk on the Moon (or Mars). He says that he thinks that the Moon will be reserved for professional astronauts during his lifetime (he added that he hopes to be wrong but that would be his bet if they were making bets on it).  I was disappointed in that answer. I am not sure why Blue couldn't have private astronaut missions to the lunar surface. He said that we could have factories on the Moon that are automated.

https://twitter.com/lexfridman/status/1735360877312778404
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 02/27/2024 07:53 pm
The image below is a capture from the video (at 2m20s):

https://twitter.com/steveg3215/status/1762575442093982157
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Robert_the_Doll on 02/27/2024 09:55 pm
A comparison of the the Lockheed Martin video screencap with the Aviation Week & Space Technology cover view from nearly the opposite angle:

Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DrTadd on 02/28/2024 01:03 pm
What is the odds that BO will try a lunar landing with their own starter lander in 25?

I realize that BO has a lot of kuipner launches ahead of them, but I would think they could squeeze in some 'experimental operations' once NG is gaining cadence.

Would make a better use of a launch than just throwing up a mass simulator... although I would guess the Kupiner satellites are cheap enough they could be a reasonable substitute.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: whitelancer64 on 02/28/2024 02:45 pm
What is the odds that BO will try a lunar landing with their own starter lander in 25?

I realize that BO has a lot of kuipner launches ahead of them, but I would think they could squeeze in some 'experimental operations' once NG is gaining cadence.

Would make a better use of a launch than just throwing up a mass simulator... although I would guess the Kupiner satellites are cheap enough they could be a reasonable substitute.

Zero. It's not anywhere near ready yet. I would not expect their lunar landing test until 27 ish.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/28/2024 03:52 pm
What is the odds that BO will try a lunar landing with their own starter lander in 25?

I realize that BO has a lot of kuipner launches ahead of them, but I would think they could squeeze in some 'experimental operations' once NG is gaining cadence.
<snip>
Amazon need all the lift capacity that BO and other launch providers can muster to get enough KuiperSats up to meet regulatory deployment deadline.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DrTadd on 02/28/2024 04:00 pm


Zero. It's not anywhere near ready yet. I would not expect their lunar landing test until 27 ish.
[/quote]

But that is the human lander. You don't think they have a different version to give a whirl and get practice before the 27 human lander program? THey do have that solar cell research and having access to real moon regiolith would be useful to that progam. Plus all the engineering know how to land anything would be useful up the road for the human lander. Same with any type of refueling 'engineering science' before 27.

I foresee issues with SX putting off engineering science with respect to their lander win... given that programs 25 time frame.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: whitelancer64 on 02/28/2024 04:15 pm
Quote

Zero. It's not anywhere near ready yet. I would not expect their lunar landing test until 27 ish.

But that is the human lander. You don't think they have a different version to give a whirl and get practice before the 27 human lander program? THey do have that solar cell research and having access to real moon regiolith would be useful to that progam. Plus all the engineering know how to land anything would be useful up the road for the human lander. Same with any type of refueling 'engineering science' before 27.

I foresee issues with SX putting off engineering science with respect to their lander win... given that programs 25 time frame.

By "starter lander" I presumed you meant the single-launch Mark 1 cargo lander that was unveiled last year. It's not anywhere near ready to go. Maybe late 2026 at the earliest, but I suspect 27 is much more likely. Blue Origin has said that the Mk1 power systems, avionics, RCS and other systems are in common with their Mk2 human lander.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: Asteroza on 02/28/2024 09:02 pm
A comparison of the the Lockheed Martin video screencap with the Aviation Week & Space Technology cover view from nearly the opposite angle:

Top image has an interesting porch design I think...
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: yg1968 on 03/04/2024 02:03 am
https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1764453960016867487

https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1764454365354435021
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: spacenuance on 03/04/2024 02:11 am
https://x.com/60Minutes/status/1764453960016867487

Stated in the full video, Blue expects the first cargo version of the lander to go to the moon in 12-16 months.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: AlexP on 03/04/2024 10:49 am
What is the odds that BO will try a lunar landing with their own starter lander in 25?

I realize that BO has a lot of kuipner launches ahead of them, but I would think they could squeeze in some 'experimental operations' once NG is gaining cadence.

Would make a better use of a launch than just throwing up a mass simulator... although I would guess the Kupiner satellites are cheap enough they could be a reasonable substitute.
I guess this wasn't so outlandish an idea after all  ;)
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: whitelancer64 on 03/04/2024 03:24 pm
What is the odds that BO will try a lunar landing with their own starter lander in 25?

I realize that BO has a lot of kuipner launches ahead of them, but I would think they could squeeze in some 'experimental operations' once NG is gaining cadence.

Would make a better use of a launch than just throwing up a mass simulator... although I would guess the Kupiner satellites are cheap enough they could be a reasonable substitute.
I guess this wasn't so outlandish an idea after all  ;)

March-July 2025 is very aggressive scheduling. Good luck to Blue Origin.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: wannamoonbase on 03/04/2024 03:42 pm
What is the odds that BO will try a lunar landing with their own starter lander in 25?

I realize that BO has a lot of kuipner launches ahead of them, but I would think they could squeeze in some 'experimental operations' once NG is gaining cadence.

Would make a better use of a launch than just throwing up a mass simulator... although I would guess the Kupiner satellites are cheap enough they could be a reasonable substitute.
I guess this wasn't so outlandish an idea after all  ;)

Attempting an automated landing to prove out technology and hardware is pretty reasonable.

If they can recover New Glenn and reuse it quickly (and faster than many of us expect) then why not lob your own vehicle to the moon?

I think NG reuse will take awhile though.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: DanClemmensen on 03/04/2024 04:10 pm
What is the odds that BO will try a lunar landing with their own starter lander in 25?

I realize that BO has a lot of kuipner launches ahead of them, but I would think they could squeeze in some 'experimental operations' once NG is gaining cadence.

Would make a better use of a launch than just throwing up a mass simulator... although I would guess the Kupiner satellites are cheap enough they could be a reasonable substitute.
I guess this wasn't so outlandish an idea after all  ;)

Attempting an automated landing to prove out technology and hardware is pretty reasonable.

If they can recover New Glenn and reuse it quickly (and faster than many of us expect) then why not lob your own vehicle to the moon?

I think NG reuse will take awhile though.
A load of Kuipers would probably be cheaper, so even if the mission fails, the cost is lower. If the mission succeeds, its a win for Kuiper, and Kuiper really needs every launch it can get. Kuipers have better be inexpensive, since they need so many of them. Kuiper also needs to design build, and test its NG dispenser anyway. Cost share: BO would offer to fly the mission for free but with no guarantee of success.
Title: Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
Post by: e of pi on 03/19/2024 05:11 pm
What is the odds that BO will try a lunar landing with their own starter lander in 25?

I realize that BO has a lot of kuipner launches ahead of them, but I would think they could squeeze in some 'experimental operations' once NG is gaining cadence.

Would make a better use of a launch than just throwing up a mass simulator... although I would guess the Kupiner satellites are cheap enough they could be a reasonable substitute.
I guess this wasn't so outlandish an idea after all  ;)

March-July 2025 is very aggressive scheduling. Good luck to Blue Origin.
It's been their target for a while now (they were talking about landings in '25 for Mk1 in the award press conference, and even before then I think), and they have agreements for thermal vacuum testing and stuff with NASA this fall, I think? So it seems like it's stayed pretty much on schedule for about two or three years now.