OHM Deep Space Crew Dragon

Max-Q

99 40
Addon Developer
Joined
Jul 5, 2021
Messages
342
Reaction score
447
Points
63
Location
Cislunar Space
Website
www.orbithangar.com
Deep Space Crew Dragon (moon).pngDeep Space Crew Dragon (asteroid).pngDeep Space Crew Dragon (venus).png

OrbitHangar Download Link:
https://www.orbithangar.com/showAddon.php?id=60d2023a-cf6e-4f69-8c87-1b0a0a79bcdd

This addon is a variation for the excellent DM-2 Crew Dragon spacecraft by BrianJ.
It is a standard Crew Dragon with a powerful main engine in the trunk section using hydrazine fuel and either CTF(!!!) or NTO oxidizer.
This provides about 2000-2400m/s dV depending on oxidizer for deep space or high earth orbit work.
ALMOST ALL OF THE CODE BELONGS TO BRIANJ!!! I ONLY ADDED THE MAIN ENGINE! (and a few tweaks here and there to allow the MFD to work right)
Many thanks to the FOI team for the main engine mesh and textures.
francisdrake, good idea suggesting NTO oxidizer instead of CTF in the original version of this addon.
The exhaust textures for the main engine are from NASSP with slight modification.

Required addons: (Only if you don't want CTDs...)
DM-2 Crew Dragon
Crew Dragon Inspiration4
Falcon Heavy
Falcon 9R

(Strongly) Recommended addons:
OrbiterSound 5.0
LC-39A SpaceX
Lunar Transfer MFD & IMFD
 

barrygolden

Active member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
656
Reaction score
90
Points
43
Location
North of Houston
I think it would be fun to create a Dragón that could land on the Moon. It would need Solar panels to track the sun some kind of legs, The door would need to fold down and deploy a ladder and some form of a HGA or lazar for coms. the nose cone would detach and a propulsion unit could get into Lunar orbit ,the solar panels need to retract for fight operations This Deep Space Dragon could be used to to trans port from LEO to LO and a cargo dragon could bring up a fully fueled service module or refuel the lander for future missions. the legs could replace the wings with legs like the F9 or short legs. the super Draco's would do the landing burn could do the deorbit burn and the ascent burn
 

Attachments

  • abc abc.png
    abc abc.png
    253.3 KB · Views: 11
  • 0190_cr.jpg
    0190_cr.jpg
    81.2 KB · Views: 10
  • abc abc.png
    abc abc.png
    253.3 KB · Views: 9
  • 0190_cr.jpg
    0190_cr.jpg
    81.2 KB · Views: 12

Max-Q

99 40
Addon Developer
Joined
Jul 5, 2021
Messages
342
Reaction score
447
Points
63
Location
Cislunar Space
Website
www.orbithangar.com
Why? A purpose built lander would be much lighter and more cost effective. For a lunar lander, you don’t need a heat shield, parachutes, a structure that can handle 4+ Gs, acceleration couches for the crew, a streamlined hull, etc, etc. This is the same reason the Apollo CSM didn’t land on the moon. A much better mission architecture would be to park a purpose built lander in lunar orbit and send the crew separately. In general, when you try and use a spacecraft (or aircraft or car) for an application it was clearly not intended for, you end up with at best an inefficient mission. Just my two cents! ;)
 

barrygolden

Active member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
656
Reaction score
90
Points
43
Location
North of Houston
Yes I agree about the cabin for the lander , no heat shield or reentry gear so more room for fuel or supplies . I liked the idea that Lockheed Martin had by using a version of Orion as the ascent cabin. This makes more sense and a Falcon heavy could send a fueled decent Stage to dock with the ascent stage for reuse.
I worked on the Constellation program and the plan and cost seemed to be feasible but sadly was not funded properly. Lets see Artemis , 6 refueling flights per every landing, land a 10 story building in a rock pile, And we're at least 10 years if at all to see that happen and its not funded as well. With the cost of the SLS I doubt it will fly more than once and a mission every 5 years is a dead man walking and I'm sad about that. I did watch the Apollo program and was hooked on manned spaceflight and Have spent time working in it. I did see a video from Robert Zubrin about a moon base with 4 Falcon heavy flights and using Falcon 9 for the manned flights to return to the Moon.
I agree with the lander cabin would look more like Gateway supply ship or some form of that. I still think it would be cool to create in orbiter something like that in orbiter
 

Attachments

  • lander cabin.jpg
    lander cabin.jpg
    52.2 KB · Views: 13
  • Lm lander ascent.png
    Lm lander ascent.png
    121 KB · Views: 13
  • 4740698-6236465-image-a-11_1538588298101.jpg
    4740698-6236465-image-a-11_1538588298101.jpg
    99.7 KB · Views: 12
  • How-to-build-a-lunar-base-in-four-years.png
    How-to-build-a-lunar-base-in-four-years.png
    446.3 KB · Views: 13

Max-Q

99 40
Addon Developer
Joined
Jul 5, 2021
Messages
342
Reaction score
447
Points
63
Location
Cislunar Space
Website
www.orbithangar.com
Now that mission, I would like to see in orbiter as well. I just assumed you were talking about trying to land a basically stock crew dragon on the moon.
 

francisdrake

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
834
Reaction score
312
Points
78
Website
francisdrakex.deviantart.com
Lets see Artemis , 6 refueling flights per every landing, land a 10 story building in a rock pile, And we're at least 10 years if at all to see that happen and its not funded as well.
Barry, I confess to fully agree with you. I would really like to see Artemis becoming a success story.
But Starship did not fly in a year. The size and concept of the Starship moonlander is so big, I think it is an overkill for a NASA-type Moon mission.

I would support if we make an Orbiter project on an 'alternative future' commercial Moon lander program. Just separate it from Max-Q's Deep Space Crew Dragon. His addon is marvelous by itself, we should not swamp this thread with other discussions.
 

Max-Q

99 40
Addon Developer
Joined
Jul 5, 2021
Messages
342
Reaction score
447
Points
63
Location
Cislunar Space
Website
www.orbithangar.com
The astronauts would probably enjoy a small hab module for a Venus round trip 🙂
I considered this long and hard. Also would be nice for the asteroid mission. Still haven’t given up on the idea, but the dV just isn’t there. Sigh… dV, always about dV. I will test it out and see if I can “find” some extra dV somewhere, or maybe a few extra kgs won’t affect stuff as much as I think. :unsure: :sneaky:
 

N_Molson

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
8,762
Reaction score
2,428
Points
203
Location
Toulouse
Maybe an inflatable module ? Well that's probably a bit risky outside Earth's magnetosphere but anyways a round trip to Venus is for hardy 'nauts only 😎
 

Max-Q

99 40
Addon Developer
Joined
Jul 5, 2021
Messages
342
Reaction score
447
Points
63
Location
Cislunar Space
Website
www.orbithangar.com
Space Radiation? There is no such thing in Orbiter! ;)
Something like the BEAM module on ISS now. If we assume that by 2031 something like that can be made smaller and lighter, it might weigh in around 1000 kg and be possible to fit it on top of FH underneath Dragon, then do an Apollo style T&D once you are on your way. dV cost would be about 250m/s at 1000 kg. Will test out some stuff tonight.
 

barrygolden

Active member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
656
Reaction score
90
Points
43
Location
North of Houston
From the movie "The Right Stuff " made a comet of no bucks no Buck Rodgers. The Apollo guys figured that out so thats how Apollo was built. The Geldman commission had Sally Ride show charts of how Constellation would fail and if we saw those same charts for Artemis you would see that it's a " dead woman walking"
Lets Look at "Gateway" 4 to 6 launches at what cost , it will never get off the ground . In the 90"s this deep space station was shown. Looks like 1 SLS launch so if Gateway is really needed here you go. If I under stand what I heard 1 Falcon 9 could launch a Crew Dragon with 6 tons of fuel to refuel the lander. That might be if the lander returned to LEO, not sure but a Falcon Heavy could send the fuel and a Dragon to LO. Even if a FH was used to fly a new descent stage fully fueled and a F9 to send the crew.
Gattis had done a lot of work on this lander but when it was tossed out he quit.
Yes I would like to see some form of this mission work for Artemis would be cool to fly.
 

Attachments

  • nasa-moon-outpost-1.jpg
    nasa-moon-outpost-1.jpg
    59.6 KB · Views: 8
  • Lander 6.jpg
    Lander 6.jpg
    48.4 KB · Views: 8

Max-Q

99 40
Addon Developer
Joined
Jul 5, 2021
Messages
342
Reaction score
447
Points
63
Location
Cislunar Space
Website
www.orbithangar.com
So I did some testing on the HAB thing. That 250 m/s loss really makes things tight, and to compound matters, you can’t use the fwd bulkhead dracos when docked to something… so all MCCs need to be done with the attitude thrusters or main engine. Also, an extra 1000 kg really eats into prop margins for the Falcon Heavy earth escape burn.
New idea: Make a small HAB section in the trunk, Gemini/MOL style! I mean, really small. Like maybe a meter tall and the diameter of the trunk. That way, you could pack it with supplies at the start of the mission, and as the crew eats their way through consumables, they would have more space. It would also serve as a shelter for solar flares. Plus, that would let you keep the cupola. (If I am going all the way to Venus, I sure want a good look at it!) The huge disadvantage would be you need a hatch in your (deep space rated) heat shield.
 

barrygolden

Active member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
656
Reaction score
90
Points
43
Location
North of Houston
gattis did a version of the " octopus " that might would work however it would dock to the front. this hab also has fold out solar panels. Could also be used for a mission to an asteroid and dock with it
 

Attachments

  • Docking module.png
    Docking module.png
    688.4 KB · Views: 8

barrygolden

Active member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
656
Reaction score
90
Points
43
Location
North of Houston
Ok just asked guys down the hall and they said it will take about 20 Starship fuel flights to do a lander mission. So Artemis is dead. maybe just keep paying for SLS but don't use it. here's a couple of landers that might work. Both could do a direct flight back to Earth
 

Attachments

  • thFG9ZT15T.jpg
    thFG9ZT15T.jpg
    12.8 KB · Views: 10
  • 1980 lander.jpg
    1980 lander.jpg
    11.4 KB · Views: 10
  • s88_33647.jpg
    s88_33647.jpg
    92.1 KB · Views: 10

N_Molson

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
8,762
Reaction score
2,428
Points
203
Location
Toulouse
Ok just asked guys down the hall and they said it will take about 20 Starship fuel flights to do a lander mission. So Artemis is dead. maybe just keep paying for SLS but don't use it. here's a couple of landers that might work. Both could do a direct flight back to Earth

I think a lot of Orbinauts already figured that out. It was always the problem. There's no way around Tsiolkovsky's equation.
 
Top