posted 04-16-2021 10:29 PM               

Please use this topic to discuss the SpaceX Starship human landing system being developed for NASA's Artemis program and the return of astronauts to the moon's surface.

posted 04-16-2021 06:30 PM               

I was amazed that their winning bid was 2.89 billion dollars. Just think of how many billions have been spent on Orion alone (which I realize is, at least in part, a jobs program).

posted 06-05-2021 01:58 PM            

It also means that the Starship HLS must leave Earth orbit with enough propellant for "TLI" and "LOI" and the descent burn and the ascent burn. In Apollo terms it will be S-IVB, CSM and LM ascent and descent stages combined. (I wonder what John Houbolt would have made of that?)

All of the above looks very daunting, although we have often seen SpaceX do daunting.

Although the Starship HLS will initially be an integral part of a "Lunar Orbit Rendezvous" mission concept, it looks to me that after that demonstration lunar landing, SpaceX intends to abandon LOR in favour of a sort of Earth Orbit Rendezvous mission profile, with the muscle provided by what sounds rather like the old "Nova" booster.

posted 06-05-2021 08:33 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blackarrow:
but that means developing not only a flight-rated Starship but also a flight-rated Super Heavy.

---

What requirements SpaceX will have to provide for launch abort would be nice to know, as well as the magic numbers required to satisfy authorities that they consider the system safe to carry crew.

posted 06-05-2021 10:18 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blackarrow:
I wonder what John Houbolt would have made of that?

---

Super Heavy and Starship are not designed to achieve that singular goal. They are designed to for a different profile. Super Heavy is designed to lift great mass to space, be it cargo, crewed vehicle, or fuel.

Starship is designed as an interplanetary transport vehicle, and a cargo version has also been suggested. SpaceX has always said that Mars its main priority, going to the moon just happens to also work.

The requirement for having to launch a spacecraft on one launch, and fuel supply on another, can't be compared to the Apollo Saturn days, because the SpaceX design reuses the heavy launch vehicle. In fact, the same launch vehicle could be used for both launches using the SpaceX design. The spacecraft can also be reused, which is a paradigm shift in thinking compared to Houbolt's day.

Imagine standing at the Saturn V Centre in Florida, looking at the mighty Saturn V launch vehicle, knowing that all but the small capsule at the top is either lost to the ocean, to space, or smashed on the Moon. SpaceX plan to use the whole thing again and again.

Imagine every time you drive your car, catch a bus, or ride the train to work, you had to buy an new vehicle. Want to go to the shops, but a new car. Want to go on a holiday, buy a new car. Take the kids to school, buy a new car, forgot something at the shops, you guessed it...

posted 06-06-2021 10:26 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by oly:
SpaceX plan to use the whole thing again and again.

---

posted 06-07-2021 08:43 AM            

For the first four shuttle flights, the two astronauts had ejector seats for limited protection. After that, the seats were immobilized or not present at all. Flight 51L showed the nature of the risk, but NASA flew another 110 shuttle missions without further launch failures, and without any "launch escape system."

I'm not aware of any plans SpaceX might have for some kind of LES during the "pioneering" phase of Super Heavy/Starship crewed development, but I assume the ultimate goal will be to achieve the level of reliability seen in modern airliners, where catastrophic launch accidents are considered sufficiently rare for passengers to be flown with no parachutes or other means of escape during a launch accident.

* I suspect, in retrospect, some might challenge the use of "reasonable" for the risks on STS-1!

quote:

---

Originally posted by oly:
...Houbolt, like others, determined that with the capabilities America had at the time, LOR was the best way to achieve the goal of putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade.

---

However, the key words in your post are "...with the capabilities America had at the time." As I recall, NASA's proposals for Mars landings in the 1980s would have employed "MOR" as have subsequent proposals or pipe-dreams. But SpaceX seem willing to embrace entirely new concepts, and the key to that seems to be new technology and modern computing power, none of which Houbolt could reasonably have predicted.

posted 09-22-2022 12:07 PM            

1. I think that the center of gravity (or center of mass) is too high. Wouldn't a landing vehicle with a lower profile be more stable?

2. Are we really thinking that the landing crew will egress down an elevator to get to the surface? It seems like low hanging fruit on the tree of failures that the elevator would get stuck/damaged/not work.

3. Fueling/Refueling the HLS in space. A concept that has not been proven yet, am I right?

posted 11-21-2024 10:36 AM               

These artist's concepts show SpaceX's Starship Human Landing System (HLS) in operation on its journey to the Moon.

Before astronauts launch in NASA's Orion spacecraft atop the agency's SLS (Space Launch System) rocket, SpaceX will launch a storage depot to Earth orbit. For Artemis III and Artemis IV, SpaceX plans to complete propellant loading operations in Earth orbit to send a fully fueled Starship HLS to the Moon. Starship HLS will then dock directly to Orion so that two astronauts can transfer from the spacecraft to the lander to descend to the Moon's surface, while two others remain in Orion. Beginning with Artemis IV, NASA's Gateway lunar space station will serve as the crew transfer point.