Updates Artemis Program Updates & Discussions

[Thunder Chicken]

Without way to actively cool the propellant, I don't think the HLS will go anywhere. Even just sitting on the lunar day side for hours would be wasteful then.

Of course, you need to determine the needed power of that cooling unit....

The Blue Moon lander also includes such a feature.

Blue Moon is closer to "right sized" for the moon landing mission. Even if boil-off wasn't an issue, Starship needs so much fuel simply to haul its overly large inert stage mass from the Earth to the moon and then up and down to the moon surface. Add in the boil-off (TBD but definitely not zero) and subject the whole mess to the tyranny of the rocket equation and it is simply a ridiculous exercise. Musk is dreaming that he can leverage HLS to get the taxpayer to pay for his fleet of Mars Starships, but I think physics will thwart his efforts.

 

[dennis.krenz]

Well, SpaceX HLS has the advantage that it isn't a special spacecraft, but one out of a similar family of spacecraft. Economically, it could really be more viable than Blue Moon.

Technically...yeah, lets not talk about how its even making von Brauns Nova look like a sane way to explore the moon.

SpaceX HLS would have been more interesting, if the rear of the lander could have been used for putting base modules on the ground (similar to a proposal from the early 2000s).... instead of putting oversized rocket engines there. Or have a special HLS version that could lift fuel produced on the moon into lunar orbit - instead of hauling the fuel from Earths surface.

 

[GLS]

One trainer landed at JSC...

https://twitter.com/x/status/2052778241425907983

 

[GLS]

Full video just dropped:

 

[Buck Rogers]

So it remains a Heinlein wet-dream, and yes it may someday in the future become (more) viable. But even with a lunar fuel supply the LEO requirements will still be a nightmare, without DeltaGlider ISP it's not going to be much fun.
If the plan is long-term anyway than for future Cis-Lunar and beyond operations I think something like A. C. Clarke's 2001 tech would be a better way to go (modular and step-by-step). Till tech can support a true Heinlein design (new materials, propellants), Starship looks more like an expensive detour? Although currently probably the quickest way for human expansion into space? And in the time it would take to build all the infrastructure maybe Starship would evolve into a true Heinlein machine! Both would be good, but it looks like the copy-cat trip rules and we'll see Starship vs Starship copy! May the best Starship win...
I'm for spaceplanes and more nukes in space!

 

[dennis.krenz]

Heinleins rockets were always heavily nuclear, maybe thats an way out of Elon.....

 

[Buck Rogers]

Heinleins rockets were always heavily nuclear, maybe thats an way out of Elon.....

I was thinking nuclear Raptors too, but the surface to LEO thing is bad, Nukes in space all good(?). The great thing with spaceplanes is you can use the atmosphere for oxidizer, lift, braking, and landing. Got to be the most economic "clean" way to do it, at least till we have a space elevater?
Of course when it's up and running like clockwork with several launches a day being able to get up to 200t of payload on a quick turn-around to LEO would be pretty impressive, as long as fuel is "cheap" and the rocket reusable I guess it pays off.
As for the next Artemis missions a tanker version in combination with other hardware is probably best.

 

[dennis.krenz]

You can use nuclear thermal rocket engines as first stage engines.... You just need a RFK jr. as minister of health. Gives people near the launch site this healthy green glow.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Full video just dropped:

Assuming the thing can actually get to the moon's surface, I also can't help but think about being out on an EVA in a pressurized moon suit and the elevator back up to the flight deck malfunctions. The height of Starship would also allow one to accidentally fall to their death on the moon. From 150 ft up, even under the moon's gravity, you'd hit the ground at about 30 mph or 45 km/h. Landing on the moon already has some elements of risk; adding needless fall and stranding hazards doesn't seem like the best design practice.

 

[Buck Rogers]

You can use nuclear thermal rocket engines as first stage engines.... You just need a RFK jr. as minister of health. Gives people near the launch site this healthy green glow.

Rather leave that to the Kerbals, at least they're already green.

 

[dennis.krenz]

Looks like politics won over engineering, again.

Moon Base - NASA

www.nasa.gov

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Looks like politics won over engineering, again.

Moon Base - NASA

www.nasa.gov

Looks like insanity won over engineering, again.

Step 1: Now - 2029: Secure reliable access to lunar surface....

For some value of "reliable". They rather need a human rated lander that actually works and doesn't kill anybody by then. Maybe, but good luck with that.

Step 2: 2029 - 2032: Establish initial moon base operating capability...

Good thing they are pushing for NASA budget cuts. Otherwise they might have money to do part of this...

Step 3: 2032 - Beyond: Establish semi-permanent crew presence...

Just a quick moon base up in less than six years, easy-peasy. How hard could that be? /s

"Semi-permanent"? Is that like saying 50% of the time it's permanent 100% of the time?

This looks less like a practical plan than a PowerPoint hallucination.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

With the explosion of New Glenn yesterday (and damage to LC36 and destruction of the transporter erector), that means the Blue Moon lander may not fly for a long while yet. If the BE-4s are implicated in the explosion, that might affect ULAs Vulcan.

Starship as HLS is insanity, and Blue Moon won't have a way to get to the moon for a while as it needs New Glenn's lift and fairing capacity. It might have fit on a SLS Block 2, but that has been cancelled, and probably wouldn't be ready before New Glenn gets flying again anyway.

Bleh. What a mess.

 

[dennis.krenz]

Can I see the unreliable and expensive Space Shuttle again?

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Can I see the unreliable and expensive Space Shuttle again?

Artemis hasn't killed 14 astronauts (yet). Careful what you wish for.

 

[dennis.krenz]

Artemis hasn't killed 14 astronauts (yet). Careful what you wish for.

Just wait until Starship and New Glenn fly manned.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Here's some imagery of LC36 from this morning:

https://twitter.com/x/status/2060360281662857565

Looks like a multi-kiloton explosion happened, which it was. One lightning protection tower is down, transporter erector is wrecked. The tower and deluge tank and other lightning protection towers and civil structures all took a similar blast to the face and I would be surprised if there wasn't significant structural damage on them as well. The assembly building (just out of frame to the lower left in the linked picture) might have taken some blast damage as well.

 

[GLS]

Here's some imagery of LC36 from this morning:

https://twitter.com/x/status/2060360281662857565

Looks like a multi-kiloton explosion happened, which it was. One lightning protection tower is down, transporter erector is wrecked. The tower and deluge tank and other lightning protection towers and civil structures all took a similar blast to the face and I would be surprised if there wasn't significant structural damage on them as well. The assembly building (just out of frame to the lower left in the linked picture) might have taken some blast damage as well.

IMO, this thread should be just for the discussion of the post explosion "incident" future of the Artemis program, leaving the "what happened" to the existing New Glenn thread.

 

[Frilock]

Artemis hasn't killed 14 astronauts (yet). Careful what you wish for.

All of that was preventable. That was entirely on NASA ignoring the known limitations of Shutttle. Which puts that on NASA, not the hardware. Which is why I have zero faith we won't see it again with different hardware.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

All of that was preventable. That was entirely on NASA ignoring the known limitations of Shutttle. Which puts that on NASA, not the hardware. Which is why I have zero faith we won't see it again with different hardware.

Agreed. Hence why I said "yet". It's not even a NASA thing. Vladimir Komarov died because Soyuz 1 had to be launched on the Politburo's schedule, not when the engineering punch list was finished. Any national space agency has these political pressures.