If I understand correctly, we may know the basic layout of the HLS payload section. Good!I count the rings from the top. The pressurized part is the ogive section together with the volume of the lower bulkhead contained in Rings 1 & 2. Rings 3-4 are the unpressurized garage with the two airlocks at the two sides. Rings 5-6 contains the upper bulkhead of the methane tank, the adapter structure and the landing engines.Do they need header tanks at the top for the HLS? After all, lunar landing and ascent requires MUCH more fuel, than Earth landing. They would eat up some pressurized volume.It is huge for two astros for a weak. Even for four ones for a longer period next time. The garage could hold a large rover, but building one is not in the cards for the early flights. I am speculating, whether this development can be a precursor for the Martian crew vehicle. The huge garage can hold a large pressurized rover and/or can be the receiving location of a large pressurized cargo container for resupplying on the surface. On the other hand, the pressurized space will be much less, that usually imagined. It should accommodate the crew (how many?) for years (incl. solar storms) and contains many tons of consumables.
post move from the "Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)" thread.Quote from: geza on 08/13/2023 12:26 pmIf I understand correctly, we may know the basic layout of the HLS payload section. Good!I count the rings from the top. The pressurized part is the ogive section together with the volume of the lower bulkhead contained in Rings 1 & 2. Rings 3-4 are the unpressurized garage with the two airlocks at the two sides. Rings 5-6 contains the upper bulkhead of the methane tank, the adapter structure and the landing engines.Do they need header tanks at the top for the HLS? After all, lunar landing and ascent requires MUCH more fuel, than Earth landing. They would eat up some pressurized volume.It is huge for two astros for a weak. Even for four ones for a longer period next time. The garage could hold a large rover, but building one is not in the cards for the early flights. I am speculating, whether this development can be a precursor for the Martian crew vehicle. The huge garage can hold a large pressurized rover and/or can be the receiving location of a large pressurized cargo container for resupplying on the surface. On the other hand, the pressurized space will be much less, that usually imagined. It should accommodate the crew (how many?) for years (incl. solar storms) and contains many tons of consumables. Probably not. The Lunar cosine thrusters not likely to be included with a Martian crew Starship. Also there might be less propellant tankage than the HLS lander to have more cargo carrying volume.Initially there will only be small non-pressurized runabout crew vehicles, IMO. But many will be embarked for the initial crew Starship wave to Mars. The garage compartment might be very small compare to the one in the Artemis HLS lander. Much of the cargo deck with the garage/airlock compartment will be utilized for pressurized cargo storage. Speculate a stack of folded crew runabouts will make the trip to Mars on the stowed elevator platform in the garage/airlock.
Nick Cummings said that the Artemis III Starship only had one crewed deck but that multiple crewed decks were possible. So there will be likely be differences between the interior of HLS-Starship and crewed Starship.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 08/14/2023 02:41 ampost move from the "Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)" thread.Quote from: geza on 08/13/2023 12:26 pmIf I understand correctly, we may know the basic layout of the HLS payload section. Good!I count the rings from the top. The pressurized part is the ogive section together with the volume of the lower bulkhead contained in Rings 1 & 2. Rings 3-4 are the unpressurized garage with the two airlocks at the two sides. Rings 5-6 contains the upper bulkhead of the methane tank, the adapter structure and the landing engines.Do they need header tanks at the top for the HLS? After all, lunar landing and ascent requires MUCH more fuel, than Earth landing. They would eat up some pressurized volume.It is huge for two astros for a weak. Even for four ones for a longer period next time. The garage could hold a large rover, but building one is not in the cards for the early flights. I am speculating, whether this development can be a precursor for the Martian crew vehicle. The huge garage can hold a large pressurized rover and/or can be the receiving location of a large pressurized cargo container for resupplying on the surface. On the other hand, the pressurized space will be much less, that usually imagined. It should accommodate the crew (how many?) for years (incl. solar storms) and contains many tons of consumables. Probably not. The Lunar cosine thrusters not likely to be included with a Martian crew Starship. Also there might be less propellant tankage than the HLS lander to have more cargo carrying volume.Initially there will only be small non-pressurized runabout crew vehicles, IMO. But many will be embarked for the initial crew Starship wave to Mars. The garage compartment might be very small compare to the one in the Artemis HLS lander. Much of the cargo deck with the garage/airlock compartment will be utilized for pressurized cargo storage. Speculate a stack of folded crew runabouts will make the trip to Mars on the stowed elevator platform in the garage/airlock.SX and Musk espouse the strategy of designing for mass production. In this light, we can consider each of the elements geza mentioned as assembles of sub assemblies; from the methane tank (cylinder), the garage component, and the pressurised ogive. These I assert are being developed as standard items, except that each can be stretched. The methane upper dome will not change, but could be placed higher or lower. Obviously moving the crew lower bulkhead is harder if it is withing the ogive.But basically there is a standard architecture for a crew starship.Even for non surface purposes, the garage could be used for vacuum experiments, satellite capture, vacuum stowage and delivery.... and if it can also be pressurised then that would be so useful for shirtsleeve servicing of rovers, satellites, assembly etc. both on the surface and in space. Items like cosine thrusters being included where the designed use requires. Just like models of a ford transit; cargo, minibus, crew-cab, stretched or not, diesel, petrol or electric....
IMO it's more likely that the cargo deck would be unpressurised and accessed from two small airlocks on either side of the cargo deck each accessed from the crew compartment directly above.
Quote from: yg1968 on 08/14/2023 12:00 pmNick Cummings said that the Artemis III Starship only had one crewed deck but that multiple crewed decks were possible. So there will be likely be differences between the interior of HLS-Starship and crewed Starship.HLS Starship will will be set up for multi-day missions (6.5 days or longer) sitting on the Moon vertically. It will be arranged to make housekeeping reasonably simple in this .16 g gravity field.Crewed Starships have multiple potential functions and missions, so they will not be optimized for 0.16 g vertical. The EDL versions must accomodate launch (3+ g vertical ), long-duration (0 g), entry (2+ g horizontal), and landing (1+ g vertical). I'm not sure how best to address this, but the long-duration will probably dominate if they want to maximize the number of passengers to Mars.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 08/24/2023 02:05 pmHLS Starship will will be set up for multi-day missions (6.5 days or longer) sitting on the Moon vertically. It will be arranged to make housekeeping reasonably simple in this .16 g gravity field.Crewed Starships have multiple potential functions and missions, so they will not be optimized for 0.16 g vertical. The EDL versions must accomodate launch (3+ g vertical ), long-duration (0 g), entry (2+ g horizontal), and landing (1+ g vertical). I'm not sure how best to address this, but the long-duration will probably dominate if they want to maximize the number of passengers to Mars.Lunar, Martian and 0g orbital, all have different needs. Why not crew module inserts optimized for the intended use. Even Mars has different needs. 6-10 crew for the first mission or two, then increasing numbers over time up to the aspirational 100.
HLS Starship will will be set up for multi-day missions (6.5 days or longer) sitting on the Moon vertically. It will be arranged to make housekeeping reasonably simple in this .16 g gravity field.Crewed Starships have multiple potential functions and missions, so they will not be optimized for 0.16 g vertical. The EDL versions must accomodate launch (3+ g vertical ), long-duration (0 g), entry (2+ g horizontal), and landing (1+ g vertical). I'm not sure how best to address this, but the long-duration will probably dominate if they want to maximize the number of passengers to Mars.
<snip>I doubt that there would be a very large pressurised cargo deck as it would be very wasteful of gas and also time consuming to keep pressurizing and depressurizing it. IMO it's more likely that the cargo deck would be unpressurised and accessed from two small airlocks on either side of the cargo deck each accessed from the crew compartment directly above. That would also remove the need for a huge 3m x 3m pressurised hatch. IIRC there is a NASA requirement for two airlocks, (but I might be wrong on that as I can't find the reference).
Quote from: Slarty1080 on 08/27/2023 08:23 am<snip>I doubt that there would be a very large pressurised cargo deck as it would be very wasteful of gas and also time consuming to keep pressurizing and depressurizing it. IMO it's more likely that the cargo deck would be unpressurised and accessed from two small airlocks on either side of the cargo deck each accessed from the crew compartment directly above. That would also remove the need for a huge 3m x 3m pressurised hatch. IIRC there is a NASA requirement for two airlocks, (but I might be wrong on that as I can't find the reference).You do realize that storing cargo in a vacuum is problematic. Like outgassing from the cargo. It will be hard to store consumables (major part of the cargo) and equipment in a vacuum.More likely is a non-pressurized garage compartment with a 3 X 3 meter cargo hatch on the cargo deck with adjacent airlocks that can access the cargo deck. Will be interesting to see where SpaceX locate the EVA preparation compartment and how close is it to the sick bay.
Quote from: Slarty1080 on 08/27/2023 08:23 amI doubt that there would be a very large pressurised cargo deck as it would be very wasteful of gas and also time consuming to keep pressurizing and depressurizing it. IMO it's more likely that the cargo deck would be unpressurised and accessed from two small airlocks on either side of the cargo deck each accessed from the crew compartment directly above.You do realize that storing cargo in a vacuum is problematic. Like outgassing from the cargo. It will be hard to store consumables (major part of the cargo) and equipment in a vacuum.
I doubt that there would be a very large pressurised cargo deck as it would be very wasteful of gas and also time consuming to keep pressurizing and depressurizing it. IMO it's more likely that the cargo deck would be unpressurised and accessed from two small airlocks on either side of the cargo deck each accessed from the crew compartment directly above.
[yg's twitter citation, just above]
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/02/2023 03:16 am[yg's twitter citation, just above]Note that this is for the commercial LEO SAA, not the HLS, but there's an item in the SpaceX SAA that should be kind of alarming:Q3 2025: Milestone #7 On-Orbit Propellant Storage Preliminary Design ReviewThis isn't addressing the depot required for HLS, but I'm hard-pressed to understand why the commercial LEO destination version of this would be different from the HLS version. And this is only the PDR, not the actual full-up test. If this date is right, then we could expect something like:1) Depot/tanker fueling tests: Q1-Q2 20262) Lunar Starship landing test: Q4 2026 - Q2 20273) Artemis 3 as currently specified: Q4 2027 - Q2 2028?It does provide some clarification for why Free is making comments about an Arty 3 that doesn't go to the lunar surface. This is getting to the outer edge of the envelope for when the SLS pipeline would start to be jammed up by leaving the Arty 3 core sitting on the ground.
Note that this is just a review of development status. Milestone 10 is similar for review of ascent, entry and landing concept in Q2 2027. That technology should be very mature by then.
Quote from: ThatOldJanxSpirit on 09/03/2023 01:11 pmNote that this is just a review of development status. Milestone 10 is similar for review of ascent, entry and landing concept in Q2 2027. That technology should be very mature by then.A PDR isn't usually a development status review. It's where the rough design is approved. Usually, tech isn't very mature at that point.I assume that the dates in the SAA came from SpaceX. They're not exactly known for sandbagging their schedules.
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 09/03/2023 06:44 pmQuote from: ThatOldJanxSpirit on 09/03/2023 01:11 pmNote that this is just a review of development status. Milestone 10 is similar for review of ascent, entry and landing concept in Q2 2027. That technology should be very mature by then.A PDR isn't usually a development status review. It's where the rough design is approved. Usually, tech isn't very mature at that point.I assume that the dates in the SAA came from SpaceX. They're not exactly known for sandbagging their schedules.Agreed that is what I’d expect from a PDR but the the wording is that they will “… review the development status of various efforts …”.I mentioned Milestone 10 because that covered a ‘concept review’ for crewed ascent, entry and landing that would be very mature in some aspects because they would be expected to complete an unscrewed ascent, entry and landing for Milestone 4 nearly three years earlier.
