Why Blue Origin's Lunar Lander Is A Radical Rethink
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 05. 2023
- Blue Origin's National Team won a $3.5 billion contract to develop and deploy a lunar lander for the Artemis program, this is for landings after Artemis III which is currently supposed to be handled by SpaceX's Starship.
Blue Origin's lander won over 3 other options with only the Dynetics Alpaca lander coming close.
Blue Origin is the leader of the National Team which includes Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Draper, Astrobotic and others. It's a 16 meter tall 100% reusable lander with the propellent tanks placed above the crew module, allowing the crew to be close to the ground upon landing.
While we don't really know that much about the vehicle, that does give me a perfect excuse to play with it in Kerbal Space Program 2
Follow me on Twitter for more updates:
/ djsnm
I have a discord server where I regularly turn up:
/ discord
If you really like what I do you can support me directly through Patreon
/ scottmanley - Věda a technologie
Breaking: NASA has decided to go with Scott Manley's design instead of BlueOrigin.
Make it so…
Equally as likely to go to the moon...
Manley Space
After adding a "kilt" to protect the cryogenics of the upper part from radiative exhaust heat (or some such contrived reason).
@@tygerbyrn Mr Laforge engage.
"the first flight of the Saturn V was 18 months before Armstrong landed on the moon"
Apollo never ceases to blow my mind.
Yeah, most of the Apollo gear was tested in LEO where the Saturn 1B launcher was enough.
What blows my mind is how easily public opinion was turned against putting people on the Moon, immediately after putting people on the Moon! Today's technology is 500 years behind what it would have been had it continued.
Get in the rocket Shinji.
They were fast, probably faster than spacex.
@@shubhamkumar6689 Apollo was fast, but we should not forget they also had a far higher risk level compared to space travel in the 21st century. The risk level which was acceptable back then (Apollo was cutting edge and at the limit which was possible) wouldn't be accaleptable any more today. At the end the Apollo program had a better safety record than originally expected.
I wonder if NASA has considered requiring a standardised interface for refuelling.
The refuelling equivalent of the international docking adaptor?
It would make siphoning fuel off of someone else's spacecraft easier.
I just realized that what I typed could be a plan for a crime...
I understand that the IDS standard includes provision for the fitting of fuel/air/liquid umbilicals around the docking mechanism, but actual specifications are up to individual programs for now
@@MonkeyJedi99 space pirates doing space siphoning
I'd like to think the specs would be made international so that if needs must craft from different continents could assist each other in a tough situation. NASA's non-cooperation pact be damned.
@@Geekofarm That was my thinking, imagine being in space with a BO craft and the only accessible fuel is in a Starship tank..
This is a MUCH better lander than the previous national team pitch. Plus, single fuel hydrolox system means the entire lander can be refueled on the lunar surface with the suspected ice water on the surface. Hope we see this through
No longer suspected ice water! *Confirmed* ice water!
Eh, not wild about using such a precious resource as fuel. The mass of ice you would need to pick up only to throw it all away? Not great. Rather use it as in situ atmosphere for permanent base construction.
Blue Origin rocket: still not ready
Blue Origin engines: still not ready
Blue Origin lander: still just fancy marketing posters
how many years has it been now?
@@SoloRenegade sTarShIp Is bETtEr
Dynetics Alpaca 🦙 would have been a much better choice. Shackleton crater will now be sure to be in the CCP's hands.
I'm really excited that this return to the moon could actually produce and test new technologies in spaceflight. It that's the case it might actually be worth the cost.
The way I look at it maybe the money could go to better purposes, but it could also go to far worse purposes.
Artemis 1 tested all sorts of things.
I agree. Orbital refueling of cryogenic fuels and oxidizer is going to be huge. Plus, the more we learn about how to utilize resources that don't come directly from Earth, the better. Mars will have plenty of differences, but the less we have to ship in, the better. They're still both barren rocks with little or no atmosphere and magnetosphere. It will still probably be a hundred plus years until either are truly self-sustaining. I'm talking to where if Earth just vanished, they'd be fine
@@garreth629 My only concern with ISRU is that *the one rock with some extremophile goop on it* will **get fed into the excavator and melted down**
A Bit Paranoid, but i almost wish there is a “Investigate before ISRU” policy or something lol.
“Gonna Dig, Gotta Call…even in S p a c e”
We have a valid reason to return to the Moon to stay. The ice in the polar craters is supposed to be an archive of Earths climate and life, that reaches eons further back, than anything down here. There even can be samples of the proto life.
While I like the Starship, I am glad that there will be two teams working on solving the key problems that the Artemis mission profile calls for, namely refueling in orbit.
Expect the national team won't be flying anytime soon in the next 10 years. That just how it is
Also if one fails hopefully the other won't and Starship in 2023 comes off more as an uncrewed cargo transport/ base builder while this design is more crewed lander/ short term habtat.
@@LeftOverMacNCheese True but hopefully the AI driven design process being tested on the B-21 raider and gen 6 USAF fighter would be used to speed up this lander development.
@@GreenBlueWalkthrough it's Boeing and Blue origin. What did you expect
@@LeftOverMacNCheesestarship doesn’t even have a way to lower people to the surface. It’s an absurd design.
Haven't gotten through the video yet, but Blue's new design really makes me wonder what they were thinking with the first one. With this they've shown they're clearly capable of coming up with a decent modern design, so what was with the previous Apollo-but-worse design?!!?!
The first one was a cash grab.
This is trying to justify the existence of New Glenn.
Once starship is operating there’s not going to be a good reason to use New Glenn for normal rocket launches so they need a specific application it exists for.
This gives them the breathing room required to build an actual starship competitor.
If you see the first design was very similar to Apollo landers...It's logical Northrop Grumman was on board at the time...they were really good designing the Apollo landers...but this time NG is not on board....maybe this design is more risky but probably it works better
SpaceX opened the door of in-orbit refueling. The new BO lander is re-engineered to take advantage of that.
@@javierderivero9299 NorGru was building the tug module for the first design, the part that LM is building in the new design.
@@737smartin going to be very tough to do with Hydrogen. I hope they make it work.
I've been making landers in KSP like this for a while because not only is it easier for landing and egress, but I often make the command pod into a dettachable rover. This way I can take a large rover all the way to the mun or duna and bring it all the way back to Kerbin with tons of science and recovering the expensive rover components.
We are going to the mun again. The what ?. The satellite orbiting earth. Ahhh the moon ?.
Yes the Mun 😂
Honestly, I don't see the appeal of bringing back a rover. There's plenty of vehicles on Earth, and they're cheap to build here (or on Kerbin). Better to leave the rover where you can use it again, even if you need to have a small ferry mission to move it to the new site.
Haha this is brilliant. I used to just make a huge tanked lander for biome hopping. But a rover command pod can reduce hopping by a lot if you keep landing on biome borders.
@@absalomdraconis It's not about bringing back a rover. It's about saving on mass by converting the command pod in to a rover. I do see the appeal of leaving behind equipment. Even if you don't use it. You can always recycle it for resources on a future colony.
@@absalomdraconis Why build anything in ksp? Sure there are other mission architectures with their own respective benefits. But why reutrn the rover? First of all, because it's fun, it's just fun to add the additional constraint that the mission must be fully reusable. Second of all, because in carreer mode sometimes the price of those science parts adds up on the rocket, so you can save money by bringing them back.
Thanks for this. My heart sank when I heard the National Team had been selected, because their last effort was so dodgy. This seems a much better concept.
I am still utterly convinced that between Boeing and Blue Origin the chances of this flying, or being able to deliver the goods promised, within a reasonable timeframe or budget are slim to none.
Keep your fingers crossed Space X can make Starship work, I have a feeling the Artemis program will need quite a few of their lunar landers ...
Good thing its fixed firm price rather than cost plus.
Yeah Dynetics was the better choice
@@land_and_air1250 The alpaca was not as good as this design. It is ok to be honest. A few posts have mentioned that BO needed this deal, so bezos likely funded a few billion on top of the government's price. A design with a bunch more money should be better. It sucks for dynetics, but the best design still has to win.
It will end up being like commercial crew. Without SpaceX we would still be flying on Soyuz today.
So you are willing to cross your fingers for SpaceX but not blue origin? Biased much? 2 predictions, SpaceX will not meet budget and blue origin will.
I'm still a fan of Dynetic's concept, but this new one from Blue is looking very nice. I do hope it works out.
RIP ALPACA 😢😢😢
@@RawSauce338 i don't think ALPACA has been cancelled?
@@absalomdraconis No, but in the absence of anyone paying for it, it doesn't have much future...
Why? No seriously, why? The design was half done and already had a negative payload mass fraction. Meaning it can deliver no payload to the moon. I mean it can but it can't get back into orbit. The fuel tanks would run dry on ascent.
So why are you a fan of a lunar lander that failed the MOST BASIC requirement of making it to the moon and back.
ALPACA was a PP presentation. Not even functional on paper. Even the Russians paper rockets at least work in theory. You and I could do better than handing in a failed project. "Hi, so I had no idea, this is my homework, I'd like a failing grade please".
Oh and ridiculously overpriced. 6 billion for the engine to run dry half way to orbit. Then an awkward 10 minutes or so, while the astronauts fall back to the moon.
Ah yes, what a design. It's actually the cheapest. It costs nothing and we're not going back. Artemis is cancelled. The money will go towards SLS, which will not be cancelled. It will become the new ISS access. The full upper stages will be left in orbit for future use.
@@user-lv7ph7hs7l all of this was fixed in the appendix p submission. Same capabilities as the blue design with a lower project cost and com. Equipment which actually meets the requirements and a schedule which doesn’t have “multiple contradictions”
I only wish jeff would show what’s going on at blue origin or at least post an update every once in a while. Just imagine so many more young people getting hooked to spaceflight
or to point out possible design errors.
Hopefully the fixed price contract will motivate management to get things done instead of just scheduling preliminary design meeting and BS all day for decades.
Well that worked with Starliner... oh wait... Seriously though between Boeing and Blue Origin, this thing will cost three times what they bid and will not be ready 16 years from now. Bezos will have to sell some stock to cover the losses.
Originally, Blue complained about Starship needing on-orbit refueling and a massive elevator. I feel like once they got the chance to redesign for take two, they decided that refueling was doable, even with hydrogen, but that the elevator could never be made to work.
They needed complementary advantage, since they lost the "one" competition; stealing from ALPACA's playbook was quite natural.
And, of course, it's to their merit that they learned from their mistakes, instead of just pushing the lobbying fan into overdrive.
@@timemachine1944 Nothing is simple tech when required to work flawlessly on the moon far away from help. It adds an extra mission critical component of moving parts that can break down and render the mission impossible to complete. Elevators on earth break down all the time!
@@Nethian78 It's a winch and a basket. Backup? Second winch. Backup? Block and tackle, hoist yourself up. Probably a little crank handle you can turn to manually ascend like on some service elevators. Just crank 500 times and you'll get there. But yeah a simple elevator is very low tech. Doesn't even need electricity for the last backup.
@@neniAAinen they instead chose to lobby in the proposal by bidding a price to NASA that they admit is half of the cost that it’s going to cost blue undercutting Dynetics who’s lander was cheaper in total cost but more expensive to NASA as they don’t have bezos bucks
@timemachine194 The elevator itself works fine once you've added redundancies with backup motors and whatnot, it's just that all that weight for the winch and basket to carry the crew is mass that can't be used to carry payload to the lunar surface. All that extra mass needs fuel to get it to the lunar surface and then back up into orbit to rendezvous with Orion, so that means there's that much less science payload that can be returned because you have to schlep the elevator back up with you. It's not a technology thing, it's a mass thing. Blue Origin solves that problem by putting the crew at the surface and eliminates the elevator altogether.
With all the hydrogen leaks on SLS when on the pad with many available engineers with torque wrenches, it'll be interesting to see how that works on an automated system...
In space!
So far NASA have managed to demonstrate keeping cryogenic methane cooled on the ISS...for four months until the chiller broke. (Which meant they couldn't test actually transferring it between tanks.)
So, keeping hydrogen chilled is probably doable, but it's going to take a few more years of testing before there's any useable hardware I think.
Interesting is one word for it...
@@phuzz00 Keeping it cool is only the first of a long list of problems H2 presents.
specially when they can't fix them.
Can't wait to see how close you got it Scott!!
Well done Sir, facts and details as usual. Thank you Dr. Manley.
Although my faith in BO isn't super high, I'm really hoping they'll be able to see this through all the way to the moon and back.
Even if they fall short, it's good to have some competition for SpaceX. And the insights & experience engineers will get with hydrogen will be incredibly valuable in the coming decade on earth as well, considering it has some role to play in energy transition plans of many countries.
Love how a bit of info can be turned into a somewhat accurate representation of the actual craft in KSP/KSP2.
Thanks Scott for keeping up with all of this no matter what is decided it is an exciting time we live in.
Thank you for including peripheral engines. I was in a distinct minority on this on some forums. Yes, I think the bulges we see are partially buried engine nozzles. There's even a hint of hoops on them.
I'm wondering if they'll be canted outward slightly to reduce the area of plume that hits directly below the lander - to reduce the amount of regolith kick up.
Exactly like the original STARSHIP submission.
If they are peripheral engines and canted out, then could they be placed further up near where the fuel tanks are located or would this make it hard to fit in the fairing. This is what people thought the original Starship illustration was doing. Maybe Blue will change the design again and put the tanks and engines on the side like the Alpaca. They could have two Blue Moon cargo versions connect to the sides of a Blue Moon crew version to make a single lander.
@@mannyalejo772 That's exactly what I was thinking they might do. This is an early render. Having the landing rockets up higher near the fuel tanks makes all kinds of sense: less intrusion into the crew cabin below, less excavation of regolith upon landing. For a 45 to 60-ton lander, exhaust excavation will probably become a serious issue (unlike the lighter landers that can just plop down on top of their engine bells)
If there's anything we've learned about crew safety, it is that it is better to put people on top of propellent than anywhere else.
There is an Airbus concept drawing of a new airplane with liquid hydrogen tanks over the passenger cabin. All I could think of is, go screw yourself, Airbus. And I've never flown.
I'm curious. What example of crew under fuel systems have there been in the past?
@@TheEvilmooseofdoom Ditto. I can't think of one.
The dynetics lander still looked like a better option to me. This thing just looks top heavy.
In HLS Option A, the Alpaca was too heavy to fly. In Appendix P, it had more problems than the Blue Moon lander. NASA really likes the low-slung Alpaca, so if they had been closer in development, NASA may have picked Alpaca instead. Maybe Dynetics can pick up one or more CLPS contracts for delivering cargo to the Moon.
@@steveaustin2686 Well considering New Glenn has not even launched, I fail to see how they can have something ready before SpaceX, I thought SLS or some other rocket would initially be launching their lander initially anyway.
@@nzoomed NASA wanted 2 landers for the HLS Option A contract, but the 2020 Congress gave NASA ~1/4 the funding. Otherwise, if NASA had got the HLS Option A funding that they wanted, the Blue Origin ILV would already be the second lander. This Appendix P competition was NASA getting the second lander that they wanted in the first place.
SpaceX was the top bid in HLS Option A, so they are doing the Artemis III landing and the Artemis IV landing under the HLS Option B contact. The Appendix P contract for Blue is for the Artemis V mission. So hopefully SpaceX will have flown the HLS Starship 3 times to the Moon before Blue has to fly their lander twice.
Both Blue and Dynetics were going to use the Vulcan Centaur for HLS Option A, as it was supposed to be flying this year anyway. Both of those HLS Option A landers would have multiple launches to get the landers to the Moon.
The Vulcan Centaur is 5.4m in diameter and the new Blue Moon lander is almost 7m, so Vulcan Centaur may not have a fairing for it. The New Glenn is 7m in diameter, so it is planned to fly their lander. NG is supposed to fly in 2024 and if it does, it should be ready in time for Artemis V in 2029.
The NASA IG is expecting the Artemis III mission to slide into at least 2026 and Artemis IV to slide out of 2028, so Artemis V could slide as well.
Your explanations are allways great. You a realy a gift to us spacenerds 😊. Thanx a lot!
Reminds me of a concept lander I thought of with a torus habitat around a center engine with the propellant above. The propellant would act a shielding while on the surface. The engine hidden up inside would allow for a lower profile and being more compact and having a lower center of gravity in my design. Then at that less outward structure of landing legs would be needed. All contribute to making a lighter craft.
With the recent delivery record for Boeing and Blue Origin, what do you think is the probability the lander will reach the moon with a manned mission before 2030? 2035v 2040? 😬
Give it 10 year. Maybe 15 now that Boeing is here. You know Blue Origin is no good either and they plan to launch it in New Glen rocket so give it another 3 years.
Yes, in a crying Jeff bozos designed nuclear-powered craft of any type !!
Scheledued for 2029. Honestly, i have a feeling they have a better chance of making it, than starship making it for Artemis 4 in 2028
@@_mikolaj_ how does that make any sense. Starship already flown and Blue origin lander and the rocket to transport it doesn't even exist yet.
And considering Blue origin and Boeing recent reputation on accomplishing their time goal BE-4 engine and Starliner..
@@LeftOverMacNCheese beacuse BO has made a lot more progress in developing New Glenn, and many of Lunar lander elements, than spacex has with starship.
Sure spacex did launch an outdated abomination to catch investors, but imo it just shows how immature starship program is at the moment.
In Kerbal 1 this is how I generally did landers, with the descent engine and fuel tank above the crew and with small engines on the side at an angle. So that way you could ditch it on the surface and have a much lighter ascent stage, without having the crew way high up off the ground. (More stable, too)
I always wanted to do this, but didn't because I assumed it wasn't realistic - otherwise why didn't they try it in real life. I guess I assumed wrong!
Solid Scott, Thank You!
I always felt like it was ridiculous for NASA to choose only SpaceX. Even leaving behind the fact that they had planned to choose two companies, their decision basically made the Artemis Program dependent on Starship, which (while a very promising piece of technology) was (and still is) by no means guaranteed to be viable within the timeframe that Artemis is shooting for. Having multiple potential lunar lander systems seemed like a great idea. Not putting all the eggs on one basket, so to speak
Originally NASA didn’t have the money to select two concepts for the lander. Then afterwards the money was added back in and NASA was forced to award another contract. But NASA is still cash strapped, so who knows if they’ll actually able to afford two landers.
At least spacex has hardware under actual development. How much of the BO proposal is starting from scratch?
@@Hibbidyhai It's my understanding that the Artemis missions through Artemis V are funded by Congress. So HLS Starship does 2 and Blue Moon does 1. Further Artemis missions from Artemis VI onward, have to be funded. IF China decides to not go to the Moon, I can see Congress pulling funding. IF China is going to the Moon, I don't see Congress not making sure Artemis is there too. Especially since Artemis is a multi-national program, so cutting Artemis loses face for America. Not something some in DC would care about though.
@@TheEvilmooseofdoom Blue has hardware in development. Some of which is not as far as long as NASA would have liked for Artemis III under HLS Option A. With the Appendix P contract for Artemis V, that may slide further than NET 2029 with Artemis III and iV expected to be delayed, Blue has some time to work things out. Bezos said that he wanted to speed up Blue Origin development, so this will be the time to show that, if he can.
They didn't want to only select SpaceX. just that there was no MONEY available for anything else.
To me, this is a much more elegant design for a lander than Starship.
I love this space race not only between countries but between private companies
Agreed, Starship for Artemis 3, Blue Origin Lander for Artemis 4+, refueling at an international lunar gateway station - I love how messy everything is. Variety and competition is gonna help so much in the long run.
The moon should NOT be a bloody trading post for private enterprise …
One faction within America is already privatizing another celestial body with neoliberal capitalism on behalf of the whole planet.
Tell them NO
Try searching anything from economist Michael Hudson or critiques of neoliberal ideology and you’ll get a sense perhaps for why some people like me are so steamed.
China and India are In the race.
Europe ... Let's not talk about it.
Godspeed, Default Name-2.
Thanks for giving us a sneak peak at what it might be like. My favorite part is when the astronaut popped out on the lunar surface. Lots to do before any of our latest and greatest get to the moon!
even funnier when you realize it looks like a Bart Simpson.
I made a lander much like that once, only it had the engines at the top. Great video as always!
I actually thought it had engines at the top and the radiators were shields protecting the craft from the plume.
The top makes more sense in terms of not digging a crater.
NASA has $3.5 billion that they’ll pay for that!
@@gasdive did the Apollo missions dig craters?
@@gasdive Oh, I WAS playing KSP, btw! So take that under advisement! 😁
@@icaleinns6233 I'm beginning to suspect that there's a lot of spitballing happening in Kerbal these days. Like "what if we tried this?"
Those tanks look thoroidal to me. This leads me to think that there is a docking hatch also on top and a crew transfer tunnel in the middle.
Interesting and informative. Thank you.
Great video, Scott.
2:14 that made me chuckle
Ok I love this lander! Mainly because it will be testing some Ideas I've had forever mainly liquid hydrogen everything all the time! So I'm excited to see how this devlops!
It's Boeing and Blue Origin. That means 12 years from now they will still be trying to launch this thing with buggy software and stuck valves.
Thanks Scott!
This was a wild design. I love the competition.
Those strange things you refer to as radiators strike me as deflectors if the engines were positioned in the slots at the top of them. This would have the Starship HLS's advantage of keeping the concentrated exhaust plume away from the surface.
Very interesting possibility! I hope you're right. Exhaust excavation will probably be a problem with such a massive lander. Unless they clear and sinter a landing pad ahead of time...
The SpaceX lander makes the most sense since the moon is known for it's completely smooth and flat surfaces.😂
@@timemachine1944
Hey Elon. Read a history book for once. Apollo 11 almost ran out of fuel trying to avoid rocks.
Every day I check my phone for the day's weather and new Scott Manley posts
Interesting to use the press image as the basis for a Kerbal model to guess what it might be like.
one big advantage this has in the long term over starship and alpaca (both use methane) is that hydrogen can eventually be produced on the surface and then no refueling in space has to be done (if they manage to store it long enough between landings) because they can refuel enough for an ascent and another landing just on the surface alone. also it might be useable as a hydrogen transport system for a nuclear powered ship that is constucted unfueled in lunar orbit, even more if down the road they make a version that replaces the crew cabin with another hydrogen storage tank
75% of all known asteroids are carbonaceous, so I'm wondering if they might find carbon under the Moon's surface, and might be able to synthesize methane from carbon and hydrogen. Perhaps not though. The carbonaceous asteroids are clustered toward the outer edge of the main belt where the sun's heat doesn't affect them too much.
@@eekee6034 The one thing we don't actually have is a good survey of what is and is not actually available on the moon.. on IN the moon.
Hydrogen is difficult enough as it is to handle on Earth, let alone in orbit or on the Moon. But at least they've sorted out the ludicrously long ladder. To me, the Alpaca seemed to be the ideal solution, ticked all the boxes. It probably came down to which design would give jobs to enough people in sufficient states.
While I like Alpaca and NASA evidently loves the low-slung Alpaca design, Dynetics has apparently had a lot of problems making it work. It was too heavy to fly in the HLS Option A competition and had more problems than Blue Moon in the Appendix P competition per both Source Selection Statements. Hopefully, it will be like Dream Chaser and get a cargo mission for futher development. The Commercial Lunar Payload System (CLPS) program is for cargo delivery to the Moon, so maybe the Alpaca can get a CLPS contract or two.
Forgot to mention that Alpaca was using hyrogen as well.
Glad to see you are getting similar fps as I do :D
Scott, have you ever done on a video on the reaction engines design, and pre cooler. That's a efficient bit of kit for chilling.
Much improved lander than previously proposed, but concerning about LH transfer. Good luck.
Another downside of hydrogen: It makes steel and other metals brittle.
It does, but i feel i need some data on how serious hydrogen embritlement really is.
@@ravener96 From what I know, that risk is seriously overblown in most discussions. Its extremely cold nature is the main problem when considering material interactions
@@HalNordmann I happened to be looking at gas pumps today, the company had an entire line dedicated to H2 pumping. Just using different materials and such to resist it. So it's not a new thing and solutions are out there
Thermal/structural spacecraft engineer here. It’s not that serious of a problem.
YOU ALMOST LOST ME AT YOUR FROOTY CAP SHUL NIGEL, BUT U WON ME BACK WITH DEETS. GOOD WORK.
You called it. Blue Moon's been officially verified as having 3 BE-7s.
You mention a paper in the New Glenn fairing. Does it give an inside diameter, the usable payload space? On F9 and Atlas V this is 0.4m less than the outside diameter. I'm trying for a good figure for the crew quarters. If the legs don't fold completely underneath then it'll be be barely 6m, right? A little more otherwise.
Someone at Blue Origin scratching his/her head. "Damn, we only provided an artist impression and this Scottish guy reverse engineered all our specs!" 😊
Or: "we can't work out the numbers". "Just do a press release with a pretty looking lander and Scott will do the math for us" 😉
Hi Scott. Thx4up, I hope you're fine.
we will be watching maybe things will work as planned or not
If you have multiple engines for redundancy, you probably want them close to the center. You want to be able to fire just two without creating a large moment.
And the solution is to angle them the right way. Look at the angle of the Space Shuttle Main Engines … they are not along the shuttle , but point roughly through the combined shuttle/fuel tank centre of mass, which means no angular momentum. That is also how you make a single booster for a rocket work.
Assuming they actually figure out how to handle cryogenic fuels in deep space (trasport, store, transfer), I think this might be a little bit more interesting than the Starship lander which is really only interesting in that it can land rather enormous payloads (albeit several dozen meters above the surface that they then have to traverse with cables or whatnot). There are hurdles on both sides, of course, but this design, what little we can see of it, seems like it could be the more useful of the two.
@timemachine194 The most important metric is cost per mission.
@timemachine194 Really? Last I checked, the mission barely got back to NRHO with the "baseline" payload (which is the same for both). Having a high dry mass, low Isp fuel and a all-up design does that.
@timemachine194 Well, the HLS concept mission, to be precise. Numerical analysis of it.
I like Starship for its potential, but whenever I see it pictured on the moon, I get worried about it falling over! :) Lower gravity changes the balance of forces in a landed vehicle in such a way that tall landers get somewhat more likely to fall over. It's not a huge effect, but Starship is very tall for a lander. It might be better if it had landing legs in the style of the Falcon 9. As pictured, I think it'll need active landing gear to have any chance of staying upright, though I am, of course, making assumptions about the center of mass. Perhaps there will be a lot of propellant low down.
@timemachine194 Misleading indeed, yes! :)
Stil like the Dynetics design the best ...
It would be nice if Scott covered WHY nasa is suddenly pulling away from SpaceX. But then he'd stop getting invitations to the boca Chica parties. 😂
45 Tons was the propellant mass 16 tons was the dry mass making a total mass of 61 tons.
Dynetics has a total mass of 62 tons for same payload capacity as blue meaning that they gain nothing from the hydrogen and maybe less than nothing since they have a tug which provides support for delta v.
Also the Dynetics lander is also 1 fuel using methane in the rcs thrusters which they’ve already tested and using a main engine which has been tested and both work. Dynetics has engine out capability as well as heavy shielding to protect the crew and tanks from rocks and debris from the lunar surface and landing legs which seems absent from the blue design
This design is better than the first one. Dynetics lander was cooler.
Yeah and Dynetics fixed the problems they got dinged for in the first one and have a more mature design now with tested methane engines and methane rcs
I think it’s exciting no matter how you look at it. It’s going to be a long, hard road because this time, we’re going back to stay.
0:19 That pressurized section looks like a back-woods Liquid Propane tank! LOL
Space gas station food is really going to suck.
The upside is that a case of the worms can make you a better person.
You're not looking forward to space nachos??
Is there anyplace around the lunar south pole that is as flat as the landing site depicted in your KSP animation?
I'm sure that mod is based on the best data available, but also they might want to keep the poly count from getting too high. So I'd answer your question with "probably, but not definitely."
EOR (Earth Orbit Rendezvous) was one of the methods considered for Apollo (including mating several parts and refuelling) - the SM engine is the size it is, I understand, because it had to be capable of landing and taking off from the moon.
Only very late, after being shown how much less fuel LOR needed, did they consider that and ultimately switched to the separate lander unit and a single rocket to launch it all in one.
So refuelling in space is not exactly a radical idea nowadays.
Potential problem - that docking port is going to get pelted with lunar regolith on landing and take-off. Docking adaptors are extremely finicky things that can be made to malfunction if foreign debris gets in the mechanisms, or gets stuck between the two docking rings as they interface.
This might be easily fixed though. Just put a protective cover over the docking port when its not in use, a bit like the Crew Dragon's nose cone.
How would it get pelted? Things tend to move away from the source of pressure, not towards.
@@TheEvilmooseofdoom Yes, but some of the rocks will bounce off each other or the ground and go off in unexpected directions. (Look at the papers on the weird plume shapes from the DART impact, for example. Also consider why an upright pressurized bottle can jump upward from a solid surface when its lid is opened.) Also, a small portion of the expanding gas will expand upward, even if most of it goes sideways, and carry a few rocks that way.
Mighty tall order for a amusement ride company.
Scott: A serious question here. Does your mockup include the ability to pivot the engines well away from the vertical, in order to direct dust and debris away from the vehicle on landing? And do you think BO has the design freedom to do this? This is one thing I loved about the Dynetics lander, that it had a better solution to this problem.
It was too fat to get into orbit though. Didn't have the delta V for the mission. It's like saying you like your cars seats but the engine is busted.
@@user-lv7ph7hs7l Did you catch the interview with Dynetics done by Angry Astronaut about a year or so back? It went thoroughly into this. Basically, their original bid was based on what could be done within a short time frame. They also said that the design would be considerably improved - to the point of being able to start from Earth orbit, land on the moon, return to lunar orbit and then refuel. In any case, my question to Scott had more to do with whether the BO lander might be able to angle the thrust well away from the vertical - which is going to be necessary given the nozzles are so close to the surface. I'm not sure a kerbal mockup has that freedom of design.
I hope the New Glenn ship launch pad isnt too close to Starship Raptor 3.0 (kidding). This vehicle would be incinerated in 2 seconds. If Starship can easily takeoff and land on the moon, this lander will look like the LEM by comparison. As Chris Simms says “size is a skill”. I guess we will end up with whichever option can “FLY SAFE”! Thanks for your consistently great work Scott.
A much better concept design than the single-use 'Apollo LM on steroids with a suicide ladder' model. Great animation in Kerbal!
That concept was pretty much just their variant of the NASA "Reference" design. Did exactly what was asked of it, and nothing more.
Well, its all nice, but first I would like BO to become a space company, that is launch something to orbit. Anything! I feel at their rate they will land on the Moon sometime after 2050.
When I originally heard they won, I was disappointed. However, I wasn't aware that the design was different from the original one. The original design was terrible sense it wasn't reusable. And the ladder.
This design seems to be a big improvement. Hopefully they move quicker than blue orgin and Boeing have with there rockets and capsules however. To many of there products are years behind schedule. Admittedly SpaceX may take a while on there's as well but it's capabilities are asking the moon 🌙 of a lander. Pun intended.
*since *their *too *their *theirs *its
The starship HLS is not reusable either tho
@@originalmin And with its concept of operations, it is unlikely to be reusable on the future
@harbingerdawn and no one cares.
@originalmin If I remember correctly, it's planned for at least two missions. The starship lander should be reusable for multiple missions in theory only requiring refueling. If full reusablity isn't in the cards for any of these missions eventually funding will be cut and will end up like Apollo.
I found your channel with your series KSP Interstellar....Once KSP2 gets to that point, would you be interested in doing another series like that...Given there will be other solar systems?
This sounds like something actually futuristic!
I wonder if the Blue Origin lander can rotate on its landing gear, or if the planned lander missions are planned to be short enough to not need reorientation to the sun while sitting on the ground near one of the poles.
That's my first thought, too. The moon rotates once a month and the first missions are to the south pole.
It cannot
If there's enough propellant, it could rise, rotate, and land again. It hardly has to rise, but I'm sure it'll be more efficient to just increase the solar panel area.
I was curious if maybe the radiators and solar panels would be rigged at the top in such a way that they can rotate - but that still wouldn't address the fact that for a week or so every month the month the sun would be blazing in directly through the windows
@@minikawildflower The windows have shields, similar to those on the ISS.
Scott, now that Spacex has developed raptor 3, could they put 6 sea-level and 3 vacuum engines on a starship and go SSTO or just slightly sub-orbital to Hawaii.
I think SpaceX wants to test as much of the whole system (Super Heavy & Starship) as possible. I wouldn’t be surprised if SpaceX went all the way to orbit on this next one and brought it down after 3 orbits a la John Glenn in 1962…
@@TraditionalAnglican I suspect they'll stay with their original flight plan until they succeed at it. No point in adding yet another problem by trying for full orbits.
here is hoping those 3b usd goes to good use, it seems on paper a better lander than a starship (wich would be still a viable cargo and refuling craft)
What does Kerbel say about Thunderbird 3, given that you have the head to body ratio just sbout right for the astronauts?!
I'm all for reusable landers to help cut cost. My one main issue with it, though, is maintenance. From my understanding, SpaceX's rockets require a fair bit of servicing between each launch. With this lander, are they going to have to service the rockets while in orbit in between each attempt? Has anyone ever done servicing on a rocket engine and associated machinery in space before?
the forces and stresses involved with moon landing/takeoff are not comparable to a vehicle taking off from Earth. This will lessen maintenance needs a lot
@@marcogenovesi8570on the other hand, lunar dust will probably increase maintenance, due to just how destructive it can be
I think you're talking about the Falcon 9 which uses RP-1 that burns a lot dirtier than methane. Though, I don't know all the details of turning a falcon 9 booster around between launches.
I agree with your point, I think while it's the ultimate goal to have reusable landers it's just too big of a challenge right now. A big part of reusability is inspections, as well as of course maintenance. Doing that in space is currently nearly impossible, as it requires developing a lot of capabilities that are still in their infancy. Things like the Hubble servicing missions were a training ground and many more will be needed before they can land a Starship on the Moon, launch it back to lunar orbit, refuel it, then safely land it again with crew. For now they will likely be used only once.
Although I can see them eventually landing them for a second time uncrewed to provide extra storage or habitation space for a lunar base. In other words a particular Starship would land at a lunar base with crew, then launch back to lunar orbit with the same or a different crew, then land back at the base uncrewed to be used for other purposes. Inspecting the vehicle while in lunar orbit won't be as critical since the second landing would be without crew.
Reusable cargo landers will likely come first, although I suspect the early versions of cargo landers will also be expendable, they will just land with their cargo and remain on the lunar surface. Eventually they are going to have quite a rocket garden on the Moon!
@@marcogenovesi8570 IT is even less than about half what it takes for Mars.
What's happened to Lockheed vehicle after refueling the lander in NRHO? Discarded?
Goes back to LEO where its refueled by 2 or 3 NG launched tankers and heads back out to NRHO for the next mission
@@odysseyvoyager2354 Since to go back to LEO would require massive dV or aerobraking with robust heatshield, I think that would be impossible.
I thought they would just discard it, but I don't think they've mentioned it, at all.
Okay , so watching this little space pioneer had me wondering. Boot thrusting rockets or space marine jump packs? Is one more efficient on a low gravity moon ?
I have to admit... I am surprisingly impressed with this design. Massively distributed development systems are usually ridiculously unbalanced and clunky. (Look at Orion and their stupidly under powered European Service Module). This is packed with interesting and innovative NEW technologies. (Who would have guessed that even possible, coming from Boeing and Lockheed?)
I particularly like the low-slung habitation and cargo module.
Refueling at or near the Lunar Gateway is intriguing. Remote, robotic refeuling, 1 km or so from the outpost, might be wise. But, I can see this concept being extended to reprovision and reequip a reusable lunar lander from the gateway.
All in all, nice job 👍
So nuclear engines need hydrogen as reaction mass? I'd thought xenon etc would be better... I guess more thrust, but less specific impulse (time).
Nuclear Thermal wants hydrogen, Nuclear electric wants xenon.
to add to what Scott said, solid core nuclear reactors can't generate as high temperature as chemical reactions can, so in order to achieve higher efficiency they need the lightest exhaust particles possible, which is molecular hydrogen. chemical rockets' lightest exhaust particle is water molecules, which is why hydrogen-oxygen is the theoretically most efficient propellent
Shouldn't Blue Origin get to LEO first ?
Fly True Scott!
Part of the issue I always see for people that are hyper analytical is they can’t understand how to dream and that’s where simulation comes in very handy. You should practice more times and simulation because if you’re just looking at objective outcomes, you can believe that you’ve predicted the correct one however, in actuality, you’ve just been paying attention to specific outcomes over and over and over rather than testing possible scenarios. In other words dreams that’s why video games like Körbel Two can really come in handy for you!
Hang on, wasn’t extra earth refueling one of the big arguments Blue Origin used against spacex’s bid when they threw their little tantrum?
"Immensely complex and high risk"
It was mainly about the number and size of refueling flights. This thing needs only about 2 refuels per mission (so a total of 3 flights, same as their ILV) - the SpaceX one needs 16 of them, on a superheavy launch vehicle to boot.
Great video! Could you make a video addressing SpaceX's HLS apparent stability upon landing? It looks as if it'll fall over if just one landing leg finds a soft spot in the Lunar surface. Soft surface + high center of gravity doesn't bode well.
I think Spacex will sweep the landing site with a starship touch and land the real starship after the dust has settled.
I don't imagine the moon's surface would have enough variation that one leg would sink substantially more than others, but it looks like there are some quite large "feet" on each leg that would distribute the load. They already need to make the legs extend/retract to be stowed for launch, so I would expect that they'd just use the same mechanism to adjust each leg to keep the rocket level upon landing.
Why would it fall over? SX SS is bottom heavy. This BO lander looks way more difficult to balance.
@@agerrgerra1361 It isn't just a matter of sinking, but also of slopes. If I recall correctly, if it landed at a similarly tilted slope as one of the Apollo landings, it would tip over
as shown by multiple impacts of landers and probes, the surface of the moon is not soft after all, it is mostly bassalt.
Some new details, lots of speculation and dreams of the future. Keep us dreaming, Scott.
Nice to see the lander design I used in KSP 1 becoming reality.
Bo: space x had unproven methods
Bo: does untested methods
Blue Origin rocket: still not ready
Blue Origin engines: still not ready
Blue Origin lander: still just fancy marketing posters
how many years has it been now? still hasn't put Anything in orbit.
Good for BO. They need to innovate and they’re starting to do so.
@mdscott6...How many laps does Starship have again?
@@SoloRenegadesomeone tell this guy that its normal to do things indoors where people cant see it.
And that ironically the "posters" kinda show the reality of things with HLS
@@_mikolaj_ yeah, and it's also normal to actually deliver working product on schedule too.
how many other rocket startups have already flown and are even flying customer payloads?
BO has been around how long and has YET to standup a rocket capable of orbit. They are years behind schedule and contributed to the downfall of a partner company.
Children make concept art that looks realistic online. where is the actual hardware?
@scottmanley I'd be very interested in your take on the "it's tall and tilty" arguments being bandied around for both the Blue Origin and SpaceX proposals.
Good to see that mush had competition now.
feels like they for the first time thought a bit about the design instead of just putting 3 different legosets on top of each other and calling it done. much better than the previous one. maybe even the best design so far for this mission.
Hi Scott, 3 engines for a lander do not provide redundancy. Four might do the trick, but 3 could never be balanced on the center of mass in case of one engine failure.
It's still fine. You can land. Might be a bit tricky but offset thrust is nothing new. You would just come in at an angle, kinda like an aircraft in heavy cross wind, straighten out as the wheels/landing legs touch. Plus you can always shut the engine a second or two early and use RCS on the way down to land upright. It's the moon a few seconds won't accelerate it that much.
But yeah, Space Shuttle had a super duper offset thrust vector. The center of mass was in the ET just around where the tank and orbiter connect. It's why the engine are offset so much. They fire through the center of mass of the stack, not the Shuttle itself. Similarly with 1/3 out you'd have them angled a little. Starship sometimes lands with 2/3 engines to. I believe SN15 landed on two engines and they tried some on one.
What about RCS? Wouldn't that be able to counteract the rotation?
@@user-lv7ph7hs7l no you couldn’t you would just crash and burn because the thrust vector wouldn’t go through your cg inducing a spin and making it completely uncontrollable.
This lander looks *great!*
I'm very surprised that no-one came up with a lander like this *sooner* (apart from the Apollo missions!).
It's more streamlined than the Apollo landers but it definitely has a bit of Apollo in its looks - the landing-legs give it that look.
Best of luck to Blue Origin as they work towards getting this on the Moon!
Funny thing is, one "Space Tug - lander derivative" concept from the 70s looks pretty much exactly alike
Dynetics already had this concept a few years ago and threw it out in favor of alpaca. Those people then were scouted and blue pulled them and surprise suprise blue has the same layout as the Dynetics tiger team design
streamlining is useless on the Moon.
It’s good to have a second development process to that of Space X.
You mean that it would be... unfortunately this ain't it.
@@schmetterling4477 🙄 There were 3 serious bids for the Artemis lander and they finished in this order;
SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Dynetics. Since NASA wanted 2 landers, that means that SpaceX and Blue Origin are the top 2, so they got the contracts.
@@steveaustin2686 How does the viability of a program follow from the fact that NASA is funding it? Besos hasn't launched as much as a fly into space, yet, but he has already crashed a human rated rocket hopper on Earth. Now he wants to fly people to the lunar surface? That's laughable.
@@schmetterling4477 🙄 Grumman had never been to space, yet they built the LM for Apollo. Blue at least has experience with crew and propulsive landings. Yes, their NS3.9 booster blew an engine, but the science capsule aborted safely. They have never lost a payload. It's not only Blue Origin though. The initial National Team was Blue Origin (descent stage), Lockheed Martin (ascent stage), Northrop Grumman (transfer stage), and Draper (avionics). The new team with one lander stage, is Blue Origin, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Draper. All companies with long histories in aerospace. Although Boeing shot themselves in the foot with the McDonnell-Douglas merger in the late 90s, so now they have to rebuild their reputation.
Yes, Blue has historically, a LONG, SLOW development cycle. In the end, they make good equipment, based on the New Shepard. ULA likes the BE-4, although they wish they had it years ago. I like SpaceX. They are the top of the launch game and have done things as a new company that others did not. But tribalism just blinds you to reality. Blue has the more straight forward technical problem, but long dev cycles. SpaceX has short dev cycles, but the more challenging technical problem. SpaceX had the better bid, which is why they won the first contract. Blue beat out Dynetics in both bids, so they got the second contract. No shenanigans needed.
And Blue has to perform, as all the lander contracts are firm, fixed-price contracts. So any cost overruns are on Blue, NOT NASA. Just like Boeing has been paying for the Starliner fixes, as the Commercial Crew contracts are also firm, fixed-price contracts.
@@steveaustin2686 You are clearly triggered by the fact that Besos is faltering in his efforts to compete with Elon Musk. And you want me to buy that you are not a tribal fanboy? Dude. Let's get real here. ;-)
Genial animation Scott!
However, I'm concerned with the docking port on one side: When Apollo 13 went by, it was ultimatelty important that the engine thrust vector ran through the gravity axis of the stack. to avoid a force's moment of rotation. If the National Team lander had to work as a lifeboat, in case of Orion's main engines incapacitation, they'd be forced to carry Orion at least back for being the only one that has heat shield available... so, Orion would be a real dead weight hanging on one side in case that Lander engines were to save the day. At least, I'd add a capture point (not necessarily with an acces on it) for Orion down in the center and outside the lander cockpit's floor, so, I'd be sure to have all the stack's mass aligned in the same Thrust vector in case it would become necessary.
The HLS Starship and Blue Moon lander go to the Moon unmanned. Orion launches afterward and returns the crew to Earth. NASA made sure that Orion is ridiculously redundant. Besides, after the surface mission is over, both landers need to be refueled if they wanted to go back to Earth anyway. So neither will be a lifeboat how the LM was. With Orion being WAY more redundant than the CSM, it likely won't need a lifeboat.