You are not logged in.
We've had some conversation on this forum about landing methods for the lunar lander.
Here's a fairly interesting YouTube discussion about landings and how to carry it out.
Here's a short video which is one of several on this topic:
IMHO, this should be investigated for the upcoming trip to the Moon as it would provide a demonstration of concept. I didn't go back to my original concept to get a Mars mission using what i called a "modular approach" with some throwaway hardware such as kick stages that could be consigned to the Sun after use. I've been thinking about a stepwise journey to get bigger after getting it done once or twice.
Russia's Proton had a hypergolic "Kick stage" in it's architecture. My initial ideas about 7-8 years ago involved building hypergolic throwaway stages for LEO departure and inclusion of an landing stage.
I'm posting a new update to what, at the time originated, generated a LOT of interest and intelligent commentary.
Recently there has been a spate of "new ideas" which seem to be someone newly rediscovering some of the topics in this thread. I proposed many years ago what I now would call a "Kluge together" model." Use as many OTS components available and get our butts to Mars.
Just reposting here to get this thread active and incorporating the STUBBY STARSHIP concept suggested by Tim Dodd.
To briefly summarize what we have functioning at this time for use:
(1) Dragon capsule which has been used for missions to the ISS and several private multiday missions.
(2) A now well tested Falcon Heavy.
(3) More experience using Methylox as a propellant.
(4) The Centaur rocket from ULA.
(5) A single flight of New Glenn fro Blue Origin.
(6) A new and tested space suit from SpaceX.
I'm sure there are more that I could include but let's get brainstorming in the light of this new STUBBY STARSHIP concept!
Ground systems Oxygen leak. Try again this late afternoon; same time window.
GW--
Here's the latest AngryAstronaut YouTube presentation, which supports your post #2110:
I've ben keeping up with the evolving story about IFT 7 the latest engineering info I've seen has pointed the finger at a massive vibrations problem--some 5X greater than the test stand results. Vibrations --> metal fatigue and cracking, which apparently caused the fuel leaks, leading to the RUD.
The Thursday flight on 3/6/2025 was earlier announced, but there was a damaged part during the stacking which may result in another day or 2 delay. WAS!!
Here's new information that indicates a subsurface ocean.
kbd512-
I agree with you on most , nearly all of your above statements.
The lone exception is regarding hydrazine based propulsion, and you gave the "cost of manufacture" as the primary reason for abandonment of N2H4 as a viable fuel. WRONG! Hydrazine is simple to manufacture and at one time was easy to purchase up until around 1990. The most expensive portion of using hydrazine was SAFE SHIPPING! I was using 55 gallon drums of Hydrazine Hydrate in some of my manufacturing processes routinely, and the major expense was needing 5 barrels of Sodium Hypochlorite to safely dispose of the waste. Mixed with enough bleach, hydrazine was completely destroyed and diluted with water, it could go down the sewer system without any quibbles from the EPA.
Shipping Hydrazine by truck freight became almost impossible--nearly overnight.
Anhydrous Hydrazine was another story, and was always heavily regulated by ICC and shippers.
There have been several recent posts on YouTube regarding the possibility of Boeing laying off a load of workers in anticipation of cancellation of the SLS main stage. I've seen nothing more since last week, however.
Thomas; I edited my post and it was corrected by eliminating the colon immediately preceding the actual URL.
Rodger
There are 2 YouTube videos at present;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddMiC2lY-OM, which I posted earlier, and a second one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yeay2n … 4g&index=2
I'm moving this link here from Human Spaceflight; this is a short program by Angry Astronaut.
Here's a YouTube regarding the BO booster landing attempt:
Bob-
I don't have a specific reference, but many different posts on a number of YouTube presentations can confirm this ~80% power rating. I'm sure they will need to increase the chamber pressure and exhaust velocity to get the needed performance to not waste fuel in the liftoff stage and ensure enough payload to orbit.
GW-
According to various reports I've seen, the BO BE-4 engines are running at about 80% of their design pressure limits to extend their lifetimes; so--that accounts for the lower performance and lots of fuel burn overcoming gravity in the early stages of flight. I suspect that they will need to increase the chamber pressures to take advantage of the undoubtedly better performance (which IS available) needed in later flights.
According to comments by Scott Manley, the second stage of IFT-7 was veering off course due to the loss of steering capability, and probably triggering the flight termination system. Of all the usual live space website analysts, he undoubtedly does the most thorough and scientific reporting.
I just saw an update re: Ship 33; the Starship 33 experienced an onboard fire thought to involve leaking Oxygen and methane which was initially detected by onboard cameras. There was a massive RUD over the Turks and Caicos Islands and there are some very cool photos of the debris reentering the atmosphere. There is also a call number provided so that anyone finding debris can notify SpaceX for it's recovery. Thankfully there has been no report of any injuries, since the RUD and debris fallout occurred within the designated exclusion zone for possible reentry.
Here's a link to Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfVm4DTv6lM
An amazing "day," although I slept quite a time between the Blue Origin launch and SpaceX flight 7!
My observations: Both ships had beautiful liftoffs and easily cleared their towers; the BO "New Glenn" was a lot slower in it's acceleration, probably due to, a much lower T/W ratio. Scott Manley did a reverse engineering type estimate of maybe a 1.16-1.2 thrust to weight ratio, whereas Starship has power to spare and got outta Dodge a lot faster, in spite of carrying an additional 300 tons of propellants in the new Version 2 Starship. Both boosters performed beautifully up to and through stage separation, and second stages initially looked to be in great shape. The Glenn BE-3 engines seemed to do a very good job and did the necessary relights in vacuum, thereby propelling the upper stage into an initial orbit successfully. The SpaceX booster, or Super Heavy, did a beautiful flip and boost back burn, on course for Starbase, and completed a spectacular tower catch. New Glenn first stage did a boost back burn successfully, but according to BO, telemetry was lost and the stage was presumed lost while attempting to land. I was already in bed when BO second stage completed it's high orbit insertion.
SpaceX began seeing the velocity increase begin slowing and engine out indicators, leading to loss of the second stage and a failed recovery.
BO was finally successful in launching New Glenn, but the landing attempt ended in failure.
See my comment on the earlier BO flight thread.
Very early this morning Blue Origin successfully launched New Glenn and achieved orbit. Unfortunately the attempted booster recovery ended in failure. They undoubtedly learned a lot; especially SPACE IS HARD!
I stayed up and watched the entire launch, which accounts for this rather late report.
The liftoff was impressive but the acceleration was a lot slower than I would have expected, but since they are deliberately restricting the thrust output for longer engine life, this could explain the very slow performance.
Given the amount of time and money spent on Artemis II to date, it's unconscionable for the contractors to green light a faulty heat shield, as well as the administrators. I would think that Jared Isaacman will tell the contractors to FIX THE HEAT SHIELD! I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the next NASA administrator, who will be under pressure to get this damned thing flying around the moon!
They are saying that it will take a year to made a new shield, but I suspect that it could be done by someone other than Lockheed Martin in a significantly shorter time by working 24/7 in order to maintain the schedule?
The BO New Glenn has finally had a successful STATIC FIRE! Initial test flight scheduled around 6 Jan 2025!
I wholeheartedly agree with GW in regards to sending "settlers" to Mars before there are at least two Hohmann transfer cycles to a pioneer base fully functioning and reporting back to Earth about what works and more importantly, what DOESN'T WORK! I'm of the opinion that the Starship as presently designed is too big and needs to have a scaled down version for the first crew landing. The larger ones are OK for cargo missions and we need a huge amount of prepositioned foodstuffs and adequate power. I Believe that attempting to rely on solar power 100% would result in loss of everyone. A 250 KW nuke would allow a margin for error and still make enough LOX and CH4 for a smaller return vessel to operate, but this would also allow for testing of some solar power for base uses.
We need a drill system to drill deep enough, as GW stated. Not the "self-driving nail" that was a failure.
I would encourage SpaceX to revisit the Red Dragon concept with two vessels per Hohmann transfer window; one devoted 100% to a REAL drilling rig, and a second being a small but dormant nuclear reactor. These could be robotically controlled at a given site and would be pretty reassuring to an initial manned mission. These are strictly experimental steps that need to be taken first.
Here's a YouTube segment that purports to reveal the joint plan between NASA and SpaceX for the colonization of the Red Planet.
I watched the entire thing before deciding to post this link here. Not terrible, but thin on details. I found the description of the first manned mission to Mars involved a crew "between 10 and 20 astronauts." That sorta supported my 17 man crew concept from a couple years ago.