When @SpaceX sticks a #Starship landing (SN15?) then the HLS selection will become more real & attention is going to drift toward SpaceX. Its going to be up to @NASA to catch up with that shifting trend toward new ways of thinking about #Artemis or risk becoming less relevant. pic.twitter.com/R6UpFcqME0
No it is not. Cargo, passenger, refueling, and lunar all are variations on a common design based on reusability which leave earth with the help of Super Heavy.
To some extent. SuperHeavy will be identical, the engines would probably be three vacuum versions of the Raptor not three sea-level and three vacuum versions, etc. But what they’re currently testing isn’t the final Starship design either. In a sense, their reusable LEO launch vehicle and their Mars spaceship are substantially different designs from the prototypes they’ve currently testing. Aside from the belly flop descent, what they’re currently testing is common to both what they’ll need for their existing plans and what they’ll need for the lunar lander.
Well, aside from the belly flop descent, modified engines, and the engines ( at least some of them) being at the other end of the spacecraft, and different landing gear… One is meant to land on a prepared surface on Earth, the other on an unprepared surface on Luna.
Not doing a belly flop isn’t a design change. It’s operationally deciding not to do something the vehicle is capable of.
The engines aren’t modified. The production version of Starship would have three vacuum Raptors. For the lunar version, they’d keep those but probably remove the three sea-level Raptors the production version would also have.
The current landing gear are more of a place-holder than anything else. For one thing, they’re not reusable; they crush on landing to reduce the load on the vehicle. So replacing them with something else is already planned. And the plan is for the production version is landing on an unprepared surface on Mars, not a prepared surface on the Earth, so the production and lunar versions’ landing gear may be the same.
One has to wonder re: Keith’s point…will NASA minders now be breathing down the necks of all those Space X folks who have been yielding results at Boca Chica? How might that influence progress? Will FAA wrinkles be smoothed out or made worse?
Also surprised by the choice, but given what has been described regarding the other bids…perhaps the choice was the only option available.
Hmm… Falcon Heavy for 1st Gateway launch and supply services, Super Heavy for HLS delivery… SLS (pushed into existence substantially by the incoming administrator) looks even more the redundant albatross now.
Stunned.
First, NASA has the cajones to risk the ire of Congress with this pick.
Second, sole source. True, they awarded a low bid they could afford (Blue’s bid was insanely high).
Third, they’d go for such an ambitious “go big” design.
Yeahbut…
The Artemis lander is a completely different design than the Starships currently being tested…
No it is not. Cargo, passenger, refueling, and lunar all are variations on a common design based on reusability which leave earth with the help of Super Heavy.
To some extent. SuperHeavy will be identical, the engines would probably be three vacuum versions of the Raptor not three sea-level and three vacuum versions, etc. But what they’re currently testing isn’t the final Starship design either. In a sense, their reusable LEO launch vehicle and their Mars spaceship are substantially different designs from the prototypes they’ve currently testing. Aside from the belly flop descent, what they’re currently testing is common to both what they’ll need for their existing plans and what they’ll need for the lunar lander.
Well, aside from the belly flop descent, modified engines, and the engines ( at least some of them) being at the other end of the spacecraft, and different landing gear…
One is meant to land on a prepared surface on Earth, the other on an unprepared surface on Luna.
Not doing a belly flop isn’t a design change. It’s operationally deciding not to do something the vehicle is capable of.
The engines aren’t modified. The production version of Starship would have three vacuum Raptors. For the lunar version, they’d keep those but probably remove the three sea-level Raptors the production version would also have.
The current landing gear are more of a place-holder than anything else. For one thing, they’re not reusable; they crush on landing to reduce the load on the vehicle. So replacing them with something else is already planned. And the plan is for the production version is landing on an unprepared surface on Mars, not a prepared surface on the Earth, so the production and lunar versions’ landing gear may be the same.
One has to wonder re: Keith’s point…will NASA minders now be breathing down the necks of all those Space X folks who have been yielding results at Boca Chica? How might that influence progress? Will FAA wrinkles be smoothed out or made worse?
Also surprised by the choice, but given what has been described regarding the other bids…perhaps the choice was the only option available.
Hmm… Falcon Heavy for 1st Gateway launch and supply services, Super Heavy for HLS delivery… SLS (pushed into existence substantially by the incoming administrator) looks even more the redundant albatross now.
Interesting times, indeed.