Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by requerdanos on Friday January 15 2021, @09:32PM   Printer-friendly

NASA Will Soon Choose One of These 3 Landers to Go Back to the Moon:

America's going back to the moon. It's been over 50 years since the Apollo missions, when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first people to walk on the moon in 1969. Both NASA and the current administration have decided it's high time people walked on the moon again—this time, importantly, those people won't just be men.

[...] In April 2020, the agency awarded a total of $967 million in contracts to three different private companies, giving them less than a year to come up with a lander design. Now the time has almost come to pick one of those three. Here are the contenders.

Blue Origin [...] The vertical crew cabin would require astronauts to descend to the moon's surface on a long ladder, which could be seen as an advantage because the crew is safer being high up.

Dynetics [...] Dynetics' is a single module with thrusters and propellant tanks on either side. It's specifically designed to be reusable for repeated exploration of the moon, and it's the only one of the three contenders with a horizontal crew cabin. [...]

SpaceX [...] the biggest and flashiest lunar lander. It's so tall, in fact, that astronauts would use an elevator to get from the crew cabin down to the moon's surface.

[...] NASA's Artemis program will be the core of its spaceflight and exploration endeavors for the next decade, covering low-Earth orbit, the moon, and Mars. In Greek mythology, Artemis was the twin sister of Apollo, for whom the first moon missions were named; NASA chose the name Artemis as a gesture of inclusion, intending to land the first woman on the moon.

Incoming President Joe Biden has a lot on his plate[.] [...] The space program may end up being low on his priority list, especially in the near term. But the wheels have already been set in motion for another American journey to the moon—and we'll soon have a way to land on it.

Previously: NASA Selects SpaceX, Dynetics, and Blue Origin to Develop Manned Lunar Landers


Original Submission

Related Stories

NASA Selects SpaceX, Dynetics, and Blue Origin to Develop Manned Lunar Landers 10 comments

NASA Names Companies to Develop Human Landers for Artemis Moon Missions

NASA has selected three U.S. companies to design and develop human landing systems (HLS) for the agency's Artemis program, one of which will land the first woman and next man on the surface of the Moon by 2024. NASA is on track for sustainable human exploration of the Moon for the first time in history.

The human landing system awards under the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP-2) Appendix H Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) are firm-fixed price, milestone-based contracts. The total combined value for all awarded contracts is $967 million for the 10-month base period.

The following companies were selected to design and build human landing systems:

  • Blue Origin of Kent, Washington, is developing the Integrated Lander Vehicle (ILV) – a three-stage lander to be launched on its own New Glenn Rocket System and ULA Vulcan launch system.
  • Dynetics (a Leidos company) of Huntsville, Alabama, is developing the Dynetics Human Landing System (DHLS) – a single structure providing the ascent and descent capabilities that will launch on the ULA Vulcan launch system.
  • SpaceX of Hawthorne, California, is developing the Starship – a fully integrated lander that will use the SpaceX Super Heavy rocket.

"With these contract awards, America is moving forward with the final step needed to land astronauts on the Moon by 2024, including the incredible moment when we will see the first woman set foot on the lunar surface," said NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine. "This is the first time since the Apollo era that NASA has direct funding for a human landing system, and now we have companies on contract to do the work for the Artemis program."

Announcement video (2m14s).

Also at NASASpaceFlight, Space News, BBC, NYT, Ars Technica, cnet, and The Guardian.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 15 2021, @09:44PM (3 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 15 2021, @09:44PM (#1100846) Journal

    They drove it a few miles, and parked it. Why don't they just dust it off, and use it again?

    Oh, wait. It was probably built for leaded gas, and all we have is E85 today.

    Do I really need a /sarcasm tag here? Yeah, probably so . . . .

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @09:58PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @09:58PM (#1100856)

      Lander not Rover.

  • (Score: 2) by Mojibake Tengu on Friday January 15 2021, @10:29PM (7 children)

    by Mojibake Tengu (8598) on Friday January 15 2021, @10:29PM (#1100875) Journal

    Blue Origin: long ladder is vulnerable to accidents. Why not stairs? Incapacitated person cannot ascend the ladder even when carried.

    Dynetics: wanting reusable capability sounds funny in situation when you have no capability at all yet. Cheap options are dangerous in space.

    SpaceX: what happens to poor men if elevator malfunctions? Camping under?

    I consider all those engineers incompetent for space industry.

    --
    Respect Authorities. Know your social status. Woke responsibly.
    • (Score: 2) by Frosty Piss on Saturday January 16 2021, @12:17AM (1 child)

      by Frosty Piss (4971) on Saturday January 16 2021, @12:17AM (#1100922)

      Blue Origin was included simply because Jeff Bezos ego lobbied for them to be included. But overall, like Richard Branson’s toy space company, Blue Origin really can’t be taken seriously except as a vehicle for very rich men to go into low earth orbit to drink champagne.

      • (Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday January 16 2021, @03:32AM

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday January 16 2021, @03:32AM (#1101019) Journal

        Blue Origin is producing BE-4 rocket engines for United Launch Alliance. Not toys.

        New Shepard is pretty much a toy, being a suborbital rocket aimed at tourism (with some NASA experiments), and everything else sounds great... on paper.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2021, @01:54AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2021, @01:54AM (#1100977)

      Blue Origin's design is the least capable, but they partnered with other companies that actually do things (and are in the right Congressional districts). They are getting $579 million, or 60% of the total funding.
      Dynetics' is actually fairly reasonable for a reusable moon lander and is what NASA actually wants. $253 million (26%) is headed their way.
      SpaceX's entry could be used to deliver parts, equipment, supplies, and prefabricated sections for a moon base. A freight elevator seems prudent under those circumstances. And they threw Musk a $135 million bone (14%).

      What I expect to happen is that Blue Origin will get the contract due to their partners' political connections, Dynetics will be unfairly obstructed and eventually forced to quit, and then SpaceX will do theirs anyway at a fraction of the cost of the winning design.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Saturday January 16 2021, @03:37AM

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday January 16 2021, @03:37AM (#1101022) Journal

        Dynetics opens advanced rocket-testing complex in North Alabama [madeinalabama.com]

        “Dynetics’ new Aerospace Structures Complex represents an impressive new asset in Alabama’s dynamic space community,” said Greg Canfield, secretary of the Alabama Department of Commerce.

        [...] “The strategic location and partnership with Dynetics provides ULA with advanced testing capabilities that will benefit the Vulcan Centaur program,” said Mark Peller, vice president of major development for ULA.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynetics_HLS [wikipedia.org]

        The Dynetics HLS scored highest of the proposed landers in NASA's initial technical review. The biggest issue identified according to NASA is its advanced experimental thrust structure and that it could pose a threat to the development time as it relies on immature technology.

        Dynetics has more political backing and a better chance than you may have expected.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday January 16 2021, @04:53AM (2 children)

        by Immerman (3985) on Saturday January 16 2021, @04:53AM (#1101043)

        Yeah, I see both SpaceX and Dynetics ALPACA (gotta love those solar "ears") having something valuable to offer as we begin to explore and develop the moon. Blue Origin is just... kind of yesterdays technology. What good is a lunar lander that can only be used once? To say nothing of that ridiculously tall ladder... no thanks.

        SpaceX is the obvious choice if they're serious about wanting to build a moonbase. It's a frigging miniature container ship with a capacity of roughly 16 40' shipping containers worth of cargo by volume, and almost 4 by maximum mass. You could just outfit it as a temporary moon base for medium to long term missions, easily reaching 3000 to 4000 square feet (250-380m^2) of habitat across 4-6 floors or more. Not to mention the potential to eventually retire it as a permanent addition to lunar or orbital infrastructure - cutting doorways through the inner bulkheads between fuel tanks would almost triple the livable pressurized volume, greatly exceeding that of the ISS.

        It does consume massive amounts of fuel though. Which is where the smaller RV-sized Dynetics ALPACA seems like it would have a lot to offer for more fuel efficient scouting and small, short-term missions. Especially looking at their long-term objectives, where the "payload cylinder" can separate from the "rocket gantry" and operate as a wheeled "lunar RV" expedition vehicle which can then reattach when ready to return to orbit. I imagine it would also work well for suborbital flights from a lunar base. Perhaps even using a temporary Starship base camp to refuel. Using the same propellants greatly increases the collaborative potential of the two.

        If I were making the call, I think I'd go with ALPACA - just because SpaceX is going to happen anyway. A moon-optimized version might be delayed, but a normal Starship would get the job done in a pinch, even if it did kick a bit of debris into Earth orbit.

        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday January 16 2021, @05:33AM (1 child)

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday January 16 2021, @05:33AM (#1101057) Journal

          even if it did kick a bit of debris into Earth orbit.

          I think you mean lunar orbit.

          The modifications to the Starship design to make it appropriate for Moon landing/takeoff don't seem that difficult. There will be no significant Moon activities by 2024, so plenty of time to get it done too.

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday January 16 2021, @03:15PM

            by Immerman (3985) on Saturday January 16 2021, @03:15PM (#1101161)

            Actually, no - lunar orbit wouldn't be such a big problem since anything you kick up would return to the surface a couple of hours later, after one orbit - all ballistic orbital paths return to the same point they started from (though a different patch of lunar surface will have rotated into that point in the meantime). With only a few things in lunar orbit, careful timing should make it possible to avoid peppering them with debris.

            A more long-lived problem is that Raptor exhaust velocity is higher than lunar escape velocity, so it could potentially kick debris completely free from lunar influence and into Earth orbit. And once it's orbitting Earth, on a different trajectory from the Moon, the difference means it's unlikely to hit the Moon again for a very long time, creating a long-lived navigation hazard. Make a habit of such landings and launches, and the moon would become embedded in a ring of debris around the Earth.

            On the bright side a nice sturdy concave landing pad that redirects exhaust clear of the surrounding ground should mostly eliminate the problem, once you have a moonbase with enough industrial capacity to build one. But that doesn't help when landing in undeveloped areas on the moon.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2021, @12:23AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2021, @12:23AM (#1100927)

    it's high time people walked on the moon again—this time, importantly, those people won't just be men.

    lolwut? Human beings walked on the moon before I was born. I'm stoked that human beings will walk on it again _during my lifetime_.

    I do not, under any circumstances, give a single fuck what their gender was/is/will-be, be it binary or non.

    This time, Importantly? It couldn't be less so.

    Less bullshit-feelz, more awesome-engineering, pretty please.

    • (Score: 1) by unauthorized on Saturday January 16 2021, @02:19AM (1 child)

      by unauthorized (3776) on Saturday January 16 2021, @02:19AM (#1100986)

      Ah yes, I love how the "female liberation" feminist movement is all about telling women what they should be doing, which always seems to be prestigious positions men have traditionally excelled in, yet feminists are oddly silent on the gender inequality among garbage collectors or sewer workers. Truly we live in a terrible society which hates women so much that it gatekeeps them from fixing leaking shit water pipes.

      • (Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Saturday January 16 2021, @06:27PM

        by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Saturday January 16 2021, @06:27PM (#1101210)

        TFA says nothing about women. It simply says "this time, importantly, those people won't just be men." For all we know, they could be planning on bringing a pet dog along and walking it on a leash in its own doggy spacesuit. Amusingly, it could be called Pluto.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Snotnose on Saturday January 16 2021, @12:39AM (1 child)

    by Snotnose (1623) on Saturday January 16 2021, @12:39AM (#1100935)

    Cuz I would totally donate to that cause. I'd pay extra if the life support mysteriously failed.

    --
    Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2021, @03:55AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2021, @03:55AM (#1101029)

      You would need to add an escalator.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by istartedi on Saturday January 16 2021, @05:40AM (3 children)

    by istartedi (123) on Saturday January 16 2021, @05:40AM (#1101058) Journal

    From a layman's perspective, the Dynetics lander somehow looks best. It's like a baby Space: 1999 lander. The stairs are reassuring and simple somehow. It actually looks like something that could also be landed via remote control and used to build up a habitat.

    The Blue Origin lander just looks like an overgrown LEM, and SpaceX seems ridiculous. Why build an aerodynamic vehicle for use in a place with no air? I'm willing to be proven wrong of course; but I'm initially rooting for the underdog I've never heard of, simply because it looks like something I'd want to land in and/or come home to after a hard day of whaling on the Moon with my harpoon.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Saturday January 16 2021, @11:35AM (2 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday January 16 2021, @11:35AM (#1101127) Journal

      Starship is actually not an aerodynamic vehicle in the same way that a spaceplane is. It doesn't have wings, it has "fins" used as control surfaces to stabilize it while doing the belly flop maneuver. Although there is essentially no atmosphere on the Moon, if they want to return that Starship safely to the surface of Earth, with a few tons of Moon rocks inside, it will end up doing the belly flop.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @01:20AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 17 2021, @01:20AM (#1101337)

        The moon-rated Starship won't have fins or a heat shield because it isn't coming back. The idea is that it can be reused for Lunar STO duty, just like the Dynetics vehicle. What I'd like to see is the Dynetics vehicle used for crew and exploration while the Starship is used to deliver a prefab moon base.

(1)