Author Topic: Blue Moon Lunar Lander  (Read 31562 times)

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18432
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 6524
  • Likes Given: 889
Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
« Reply #60 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 Ė Blue Originís lunar lander capable of bringing several metric tons of cargo to the Moon. The companies will collaborate on a payload on board Blue Originís 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".
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Markstark

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 153
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 39

Offline Markstark

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 153
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
« Reply #62 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.

Online matthewkantar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 961
  • Liked: 725
  • Likes Given: 781
Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
« Reply #63 on: 01/08/2019 06:47 pm »
Ten thousand pounds cargo, or total?

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22545
  • Liked: 890
  • Likes Given: 312
Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
« Reply #64 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/

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28701
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8773
  • Likes Given: 5698
Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
« Reply #65 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.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

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

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22545
  • Liked: 890
  • Likes Given: 312
Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
« Reply #66 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?
« Last Edit: 01/12/2019 01:00 pm by Ronsmytheiii »

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28701
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8773
  • Likes Given: 5698
Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
« Reply #67 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.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

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

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
« Reply #68 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.


Online ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1255
  • Liked: 526
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
« Reply #69 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.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5010
  • Liked: 2904
  • Likes Given: 1497
Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
« Reply #70 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.
« Last Edit: 01/15/2019 08:57 pm by envy887 »

Online ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1255
  • Liked: 526
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
« Reply #71 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.
« Last Edit: 01/15/2019 09:27 pm by ncb1397 »

Offline GreenShrike

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 180
  • Liked: 182
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: Blue Moon Lunar Lander
« Reply #72 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.
TriOptimum Corporation            Science
                                      Military /_\ Consumer

Tags: