Request Artemis landers

barrygolden

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
936
Reaction score
291
Points
78
Location
North of Houston
I hope you guys get to see what a super job gattis did with Alpaca it looks super and its a same it wasn''t choosen .

Not to sure about this but it is better than it was. Yes it will need a transfer stage as with all except Moonship but you have to refuel it with 6 to 10 flights I think I heard, how os that cheaper ? It is a fully reuseable lander but still way to tall so will be restricted to where it can land. looks as if you have to be a billonaire to get a NASA contract. can''t wait to see more of this thing . I guess thats a docking port on the left side but I see no RCS on it as of yet.
 

barrygolden

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
936
Reaction score
291
Points
78
Location
North of Houston
I wonder what NASA was thinking. The Angry Astronuant is right to be angery . I don't see a way for a late abort with this thing and it's 5 stories tall and will be pretty top heavy. It does have a billonaire to foot the early cost so when Artemis is canceled NASA won't pay any thing for this , well they will be sued but what does that matter all these people will be gone and living on Fisher Island, should have some houses open up from the 1986 NASA guys living there who are dying off. None of these companies have proven they can''t biuld anything in 10 years so 2033 for Artemis 5.
Alpaca seemed a safer and if they would have gotten the first contract might been able to land in 2025. Landing a 5 story building in a rock pile on a slope in poor lighting seems challenging. Alpaca and a cargo version could have been used to build a surface base and deliver the SEV but NASA goal is to land the first woman and person of color then if they pull that off then Artemis is done. No mention of a lunar base or other sites to explore. a launch every year or 2 is a waste of time . the Altair lander and the Locheed Martian one would have beed much better choises
 

gattispilot

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
8,636
Reaction score
2,613
Points
203
Location
Dallas, TX
So something that needs help. Is the exit eva point. At Brighton beach the guy exits fine. But at the south pole. It is distorted.
void SpiderLEM::StartEVA(int idx) { double rt = oapiGetSize(GetSurfaceRef()); double moon_circ = rt * 2 * PI; double each_deg = moon_circ / 360; VESSELSTATUS2 vs2; memset(&vs2, 0, sizeof(vs2)); vs2.version = 2; GetStatusEx(&vs2); vs2.status = 1; vs2.vrot.x = 0.9; double z_pos = -3; double x_pos = -1.5; //-1.382466 2.73635 -3.464572 double correction = 90 - abs(vs2.surf_lat * DEG); correction /= 90; correction += tan(abs(vs2.surf_lat)); double d_lat1 = (z_pos * cos(vs2.surf_hdg)) / each_deg; double d_lng1 = (z_pos * sin(vs2.surf_hdg)) / each_deg; double d_lat2 = (x_pos * -sin(vs2.surf_hdg)) / each_deg; double d_lng2 = (x_pos * cos(vs2.surf_hdg)) / each_deg; vs2.surf_lat += ((d_lat1 + d_lat2) * RAD*correction); vs2.surf_lng += ((d_lng1 + d_lng2) * RAD * correction); MATRIX3 rot1 = RotationMatrix(_V(0 * RAD, (90 * RAD - vs2.surf_lng), 0 * RAD), TRUE); MATRIX3 rot2 = RotationMatrix(_V(-vs2.surf_lat + 0 * RAD, 0, 0 * RAD), TRUE); MATRIX3 rot3 = RotationMatrix(_V(0, 0, 180 * RAD + vs2.surf_hdg), TRUE); MATRIX3 rot4 = RotationMatrix(_V(90 * RAD, 0, 0), TRUE); MATRIX3 RotMatrix_Def = mul(rot1, mul(rot2, mul(rot3, rot4))); vs2.arot.x = atan2(RotMatrix_Def.m23, RotMatrix_Def.m33); vs2.arot.y = -asin(RotMatrix_Def.m13); vs2.arot.z = atan2(RotMatrix_Def.m12, RotMatrix_Def.m11); OBJHANDLE new_leva; char cbuf[256]; if (idx == 0) { new_leva = oapiCreateVesselEx(cdr_name, "ARTEMISNEWEVA1B", &vs2); sprintf(cbuf, "%lf %lf %lf", (float)(100), 0.0, 0.0); crew1_on_board = 0; } else { new_leva = oapiCreateVesselEx(plt_name, "ARTEMISNEWEVA1C", &vs2); sprintf(cbuf, "%lf %lf %lf", (float)(100), 0.0, 0.0); crew2_on_board = 0; } oapiSetFocusObject(new_leva); VESSEL4* v = (VESSEL4*)oapiGetVesselInterface(new_leva); v->clbkConsumeBufferedKey(COMM_START_LEVA, false, cbuf); }

If I don't have the correction the exit point is at 0,0

I wonder about the eva guy size He is 1.55M tall from the ground to top of the helmet
 

Attachments

  • evaexit2.jpg
    evaexit2.jpg
    80.3 KB · Views: 7
  • evaexit1.jpg
    evaexit1.jpg
    83.7 KB · Views: 7
Last edited:

barrygolden

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
936
Reaction score
291
Points
78
Location
North of Houston
I think it was called by Jim Mcdivet an ungainly beast but it really flew. The Apollo guys got it right both the CSM and the LM. Alot of great ideas and big plans for future LM's and cargo. I don't think this Artemis aproach will come any where near that. A CSM that can't place itself into lunar orbit and get back to Earth and this new lander is a crash waiting to happen. The big issue I see with Artemis seems like no long term goals and a flight once every 1 or 2 years for a week of surface time , no this looks like a dead astronaunt walking.. We don't seem to have learned any thing from the Augustine report . Look at the Sally Ride part of that and show me those grafts she used and you''ll see like me this has crashed on the drawing boards before it has even blasted off.
 

francisdrake

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
1,060
Reaction score
864
Points
128
Website
francisdrakex.deviantart.com
I think the Blue Origin Lander is quite an interesting design and has its merrits:

Landing abort: Yes, you cannot fire up an ascent engine if things go haywire.
But with two BE-7 engines running, it can abort at any time during landing.
With only one good engine the acceleration is about the Moons gravity, so a single-engine abort needs some good descent planning.
The lander will have at least 2 BE-7 engines. 2 engines @44.5 kN each give an acceleration of 2 m/s for a 45 ton lander.

Center of gravity (CoG) and tipping over in rough terrain:
The CoG is not as high as it may look. The upper tank is filled with Hydrogen, which has a very low density. So the CoG is lower than halfway up.
Just before landing about half of the fuel is already burnt. The tanks are half-filled only, so the CoG is even lower.
Would say about 1/3 up the vessel height.

Access to the Lunar surface:
Here the Blue Origin Lander has obviously an advantage.

Overall size and re-fuelling:
As cool as Starship is, I think it is an overkill for Lunar landings. It will need 8 tanker flights in LEO to fill it up.

If it should be re-used, it needs another 8 Starship tankers in Lunar orbit. To send a single tanker to Lunar orbit, each tanker must first be refilled with 8 tankers in LEO. You can multiply the number of launches.

The BO Lander will also need refuelling, but the amounts of fuel are much smaller (29 ton vs. 1000 ton).
Centaur-derived tankers and tugs can be used for that.

** Sorry for the wordy post. 😅 Here is a pic to compensate a little. **

0122m.jpg
 

gamer19

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
224
Reaction score
355
Points
78
But it got the job done...

Personally, I think the Apollo LM looks pretty good, actually... ;)
To me, it looks like a picture of engineering perfection. As light as possible, no unnecessary components.

Wdym? It is never ugly to me, even the LK:hailprobe:
couldn't agree more guys
to me it's the prettiest spaceship of them all. and I'm not exaggerating at all
I was asking that question in regard to this Artemis lander
and my question had nothing to do with @gattispilot work, this baby have a rough start right form a blueprint :(

but hey... guess we'll get used to it. they were saying all #### things about LEM too :rolleyes:
actually... to prove my point I think it's perfect time for one screenshot
last one was a long time ago 😌
 

Gargantua2024

The Desktop Orbinaut
Joined
Oct 14, 2016
Messages
1,050
Reaction score
1,257
Points
128
Location
San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan
What I like about the Artemis landers is that the proposals are embracing partial or full reusability in mind, of which even the redesigned Blue Moon HLS apparently does now
 

barrygolden

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
936
Reaction score
291
Points
78
Location
North of Houston
I was near JSC yesterday and at a book store found a 1988 NASA book about Moon bases. In the 80's lot of talk about a Smythii sea base and this book really told why that was a good spot, looking to read and study this more.
It made me think back to the last Apollo days where " No Bucks no Buck Ridgers" came to light and a flight ready Saturn 5 for Apollo 19 and 2o sits on its side. Sad

Out of all the Landers proposed since Apollo these two seem to be the worst way to tall and cost way to much to reuse, how many refueling flights 8 for Moon Ship and 2 for this BM lander at what cost. I saw this picture back in the 1990's and look in the back ground at all the desent stages there. Why not land and just leave the desent stage launch a new fully fueled and supplied one for each mission sence only one landing per year.
 

Attachments

  • 1992-THE-PROBLEM-illustrated-This-image-is-from-a-joint-study-McDonnell-Douglas-in-the.png
    1992-THE-PROBLEM-illustrated-This-image-is-from-a-joint-study-McDonnell-Douglas-in-the.png
    455.6 KB · Views: 10

francisdrake

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
1,060
Reaction score
864
Points
128
Website
francisdrakex.deviantart.com
BO_Cabin.jpg
Out of interest I looked into, what may fit into a 5 m diameter (20 m²) cabin of the Blue Origin lander. The space looks sufficient to provide a vestibule, where 4 astronauts can don and doff their EVA suits. This vestibule could serve as a 'dirty area', where the Moon dust is kept, or even better could be pressure sealed and become an airlock.

The bunks would be 2 x 2 stacked beds. A washroom is provided, although not too spacious. The front part of the cabin would be shared by the flight controls and a working zone to analyse samples, etc.

The ECLS would be located in the dome above the cabin (not shown). The water provides some shielding against cosmic radiation.
Other provisons like food would be stored in boxes under the floor tiles.
 
Top