Author Topic: Argonaut (European Large Logistics Lander)  (Read 23705 times)

Offline spacexplorer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
  • italy
  • Liked: 379
  • Likes Given: 402
Re: Argonaut (European Large Logistics Lander)
« Reply #40 on: 05/05/2023 07:20 am »
ESA Invitation To Tender for Airbus Defence and Space GmbH (DE) and Thales Alenia Space Italy SpA (IT) dated 24/3/2023:

https://esastar-publication-ext.sso.esa.int/interacts/details/33

Offline ironnitride

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • UK
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Argonaut (European Large Logistics Lander)
« Reply #41 on: 07/18/2023 10:42 pm »
Wrong, no Thales Alenia in Germany. If Germany has the majority stake in the program... you can imagine how it ends.

ESA works on the policy of geo-return as you pointed out. A similar fraction of money contributed by each member state should be spent by companies in the same country as a rule of thumb.

The bulk of the cost of the program would be on hardware development and procurement so if the contractor manages to use German suppliers for some critical equipents geo-return can be balanced out. Germany is good at Engines, tanks and valves. 

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17369
  • Liked: 7185
  • Likes Given: 3083
Re: Argonaut (European Large Logistics Lander)
« Reply #42 on: 07/20/2023 01:58 pm »
Quote from: Space Transport
Ariane 6 will launch Argonaut in a direct flight to the Moon. 🚀🌑
Argonaut is #Europe’s autonomous lunar lander. Designed to be versatile it could bring cargo, a rover, production facilities or even a power station to the Moon: https://esa.int/argonaut

https://twitter.com/ESA_transport/status/1682020291277627396

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17369
  • Liked: 7185
  • Likes Given: 3083
Re: Argonaut (European Large Logistics Lander)
« Reply #43 on: 07/20/2023 02:01 pm »
The Modules will remain the same. They have already been negotiated against Orion seats to Gateway.

Never seen a negotiation where you get more with the same bargaining chip.

I think that the new bargaining chips are Argonaut and Moonlight. Presumably, ESA could trade these for a trip from Gateway to the lunar surface.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17369
  • Liked: 7185
  • Likes Given: 3083
Re: Argonaut (European Large Logistics Lander)
« Reply #44 on: 07/20/2023 02:09 pm »
Ok so we are back to my original question.

My impression is that Starship with its low operating cost and huge payload to Lunar surface reduces considerably the bargaining power of the pair Ariane 64 / Argonaut.

So do I miss something which makes Ariane 64 / Argonaut against ESA astronaut on the surface a palatable deal for NASA much more than I think ?

I see what you mean but I think that the argument is that NASA and its Artemis partners need small cargo (CLPS), medium (Argonaut) and large cargo capability (cargo HLS-Starship) to the lunar surface. Argonaut would fit into the medium cargo capability.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5715
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4486
  • Likes Given: 1871
Re: Argonaut (European Large Logistics Lander)
« Reply #45 on: 07/20/2023 02:29 pm »
Ok so we are back to my original question.

My impression is that Starship with its low operating cost and huge payload to Lunar surface reduces considerably the bargaining power of the pair Ariane 64 / Argonaut.

So do I miss something which makes Ariane 64 / Argonaut against ESA astronaut on the surface a palatable deal for NASA much more than I think ?

I see what you mean but I think that the argument is that NASA and its Artemis partners need small cargo (CLPS), medium (Argonaut) and large cargo capability (cargo HLS-Starship) to the lunar surface. Argonaut would fit into the medium cargo capability.
The argument for three sizes is only valid if smaller is cheaper. IF starship works at all, and IF (big if) an expendable Starship is cheaper (single unit cost) than a smaller launcher, then this argument disappears. Of course Starship will also crush the competition for any lunar destination that is the target of multiple payloads that are collectively too large for the smaller landers. The huge Starship may end up being cheaper than smaller landers because Starships are to be made in high volume from cheap standardized materials. Finally, a landed expended Starship is a resource that can be used as is or broken up for parts and materials.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17369
  • Liked: 7185
  • Likes Given: 3083
Re: Argonaut (European Large Logistics Lander)
« Reply #46 on: 07/20/2023 06:58 pm »
Ok so we are back to my original question.

My impression is that Starship with its low operating cost and huge payload to Lunar surface reduces considerably the bargaining power of the pair Ariane 64 / Argonaut.

So do I miss something which makes Ariane 64 / Argonaut against ESA astronaut on the surface a palatable deal for NASA much more than I think ?

I see what you mean but I think that the argument is that NASA and its Artemis partners need small cargo (CLPS), medium (Argonaut) and large cargo capability (cargo HLS-Starship) to the lunar surface. Argonaut would fit into the medium cargo capability.
The argument for three sizes is only valid if smaller is cheaper. IF starship works at all, and IF (big if) an expendable Starship is cheaper (single unit cost) than a smaller launcher, then this argument disappears. Of course Starship will also crush the competition for any lunar destination that is the target of multiple payloads that are collectively too large for the smaller landers. The huge Starship may end up being cheaper than smaller landers because Starships are to be made in high volume from cheap standardized materials. Finally, a landed expended Starship is a resource that can be used as is or broken up for parts and materials.

I think that it is similar to smaller LVs. There is likely a need for smaller dedicated lunar missions. Flying Starship for a small cargo is overkill. Starship has yet to be awarded any CLPS missions, even though they are a potential provider.  NASA has yet to award any missions for HDL (HLS-cargo) also. HDL would be used for the pressurized rover and the foundation surface habitats but that's about it. I am not skeptical that Starship will work but I am skeptical that a Starship will be as cheap as what is expected (at least in the short term). The Artemis IV HLS-Starship is costing NASA $1.15B, so I am guessing that an HDL cargo mission would be about half that price.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1