SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
NASA, Blue Origin Partner to Bring Lunar Gravity Conditions Closer to Earth
At one-sixth that of Earth, the unique gravity of the lunar surface is one of the many variable conditions that technologies bound for the Moon will need to perform well in. NASA will soon have more options for testing those innovations in lunar gravity thanks to a collaboration with Blue Origin to bring new testing capabilities to the company's New Shepard reusable suborbital rocket system.
Currently, NASA can approximate the Moon's gravity on parabolic flights and in centrifuges on suborbital vehicles – both invaluable options for maturing promising innovations. But these methods provide only seconds of lunar gravity exposure at a time or limit the payload size, compelling NASA to explore longer-duration and larger size options. Blue Origin's new lunar gravity testing capability – projected to be available in late 2022 – is answering that need.
New Shepard's upgrades will allow the vehicle to use its reaction control system to impart a rotation on the capsule. As a result, the entire capsule essentially acts as a large centrifuge to create artificial gravity environments for the payloads inside. Blue Origin's first flight of this capability will target 11 rotations per minute to provide more than two minutes of continuous lunar gravity, exposing the technologies to this challenging but difficult-to-test condition.
Also at Space News and SYFY Wire.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Immerman on Saturday March 13 2021, @06:04PM (9 children)
So what exactly do they hope to accomplish with this?
Two minutes isn't exactly long enough to test much of anything equipment wise, and it seems like a safe bet that any equipment that works both on Earth and the ISS would work fine under Lunar gravity. If they really want to test things under Lunar gravity without going to the moon, how about we finally build the centrifuge module for the ISS that was abandoned years ago? Or, you know, spin the existing Dragon capsules in exactly the same fashion, providing hours of continuous lunar pseudo-gravity on their way to and from the ISS. Or almost indefinitely if they launch a dedicated mission.
My guess is that this is mostly an excuse to funnel some money into Blue Origin to keep them interested in working with NASA. Hopefully it's not a sign that NASA is actually leaning towards using their horrid worst-of-all-worlds lunar lander.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday March 13 2021, @06:40PM (8 children)
Did Blue Origin's "Blue Ball" design get replaced by the Integrated Lander Vehicle [wikipedia.org]?
I expect that to be picked because of the National Team. Hopefully Starship is also picked.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday March 13 2021, @07:59PM (7 children)
I believe the "Blue Ball" design was what evolved into the bottom stage of the ILV - there wasn't exactly any room for people in it. (Unless you're talking about something I missed)
And it's the 2020s, the stated goal of the Artemis program is to prepare for establishing a viable long-term outpost on the Moon's surface. Investing anything in a single-use disposable landing vehicle that will need to be replaced after every landing just makes no sense. The fact that it's even being considered in the face of the two other reusable systems would seem to speak of institutional corruption.
If it were up to me, I'd go with the Dynetics Alpaca, reasoning that it's an excellent scouting vehicle designed to be mostly reusable immediately, and fully reusable once there's enough infrastructure on the lunar surface to reclaim the discarded tanks. And it's actually quite complementary to the massively larger Starship, which will be developed anyway, uses vastly more of the same fuel, and doesn't actually need a special lunar edition so long as there's appropriate landing pads on the moon to avoid the risk of launching debris into co-lunar* orbit. Pads which could be built with little trouble using the Alpaca lander.
*debris launched into lunar orbit wouldn't actually be too big of a problem early on, since it would crash back to the surface after a single orbit. Not ideal, but some careful timing could greatly reduce the risk of hitting the few satellites in orbit. But since the Starship exhaust exceeds lunar escape velocity, debris could be launched into an orbit around Earth that intersects the moon's orbit, creating a persistent navigation hazard that would randomly pepper Lunar space with micro-meteorites for decades to come.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 13 2021, @10:29PM (6 children)
ILV isn't just being considered it is receiving the bulk of the funding, nearly 2/3 IIRC. Between the three the Alpaca is what NASA actually wants and needs, Starship is looking to be useful when it comes time to build a full scale base but is too big for general exploration and research operations, and ILV is an overpriced and under-performing mockery of the original Apollo lander. If Bridenstine was still in charge I expect he'd take the Alpaca and keep Starship on retainer for future expansion but the new administration looks like it will stick with the ILV/SLS boondoggle, and maybe we'll actually see a manned moon landing in my lifetime and maybe we won't, but the moon base they could have (and should have) built before I was even born and could be building even now isn't going to happen.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday March 13 2021, @11:35PM (3 children)
>but the moon base they could have (and should have) built before I was even born and could be building even now isn't going to happen.
It would be a real shame if the Russia/China alliance built theirs first, but I suspect we'll get ours. Even if it's the result of just one or two ILV scouting missions before they're abandoned and a few Starships get a base established before the Asian moonbase establishes itself as the "definitive" Moonbase.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 14 2021, @12:40AM
Competition with China and Russia might provide the political will to make it happen but the US is on the wrong side of the economic cold war this time and is happily spending itself into oblivion with nothing to show for it. See F-35 and SLS for examples. It will take a major change in leadership to pull out of that death spiral and there is a lot of money in all the wrong places riding on not fixing things. For all of its faults and failures the Trump administration was a drunken stumble in the right direction on a few issues, but the Biden administration seems set on putting the gravy train back on track.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday March 14 2021, @02:04AM (1 child)
I don't see the shame, beyond making the U.S. look slow and inefficient which is old news at this point. All nations should cooperate on the Moon. The U.S. should find a way to drop the exclusion policy, if only to allow the most basic levels of cooperation. Send all geologists on lunar field trips.
https://futurism.com/china-and-europe-may-build-a-moon-village-in-the-2020s [futurism.com]
There could be a Mars race... a race for second place.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Sunday March 14 2021, @04:45AM
Perhaps we have different definitions - I've always heard "It would be a shame..." used as roughly synonymous with "It would be disappointing...", no actual shame involved.
That said, I agree, cooperation would be great - but I'm not sure how realistic it will be. Even if we cooperate for a foothold on the Moon, as the space race takes shape over the next few centuries I suspect capitalism will become the driving force, with nationalism not far behind. Nationalism being an excellent tool for capitalists to avoid scrutiny, liability, or any other semblance of responsibility that might hurt their bottom lines.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday March 14 2021, @01:29AM (1 child)
It's initial design and development funding, and the larger amount doesn't necessarily mean they will win the main contract. SpaceX has a habit of asking for less and getting what they asked.
The breakdown is National Team $579m (60%), Dynetics $253m (26%), SpaceX $135m (14%). Up to two will be selected and given far larger contracts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System [wikipedia.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Sunday March 14 2021, @04:48AM
I know which two I would pick.
Hint - they use the same fuel and very effectively address opposite ends of the payload spectrum...