Artemis Moon programm

[Grump Martian]

I remember following the Apollo moon landings. When the luna module landed the flight controller would ask all the managers 'Stay,no stay' This was because the lander may have landed at such an acute angle that there may have been a danger of it toppling over.

Moving on to current plans to use the Space X Starship as the luna lander. Am I the only one who feels that starship is too long and unstable in size and shape to land safely? The are no preformed flat,smooth landing platforms. The moon is bumpy and full of rocks. Are they inviting trouble?

 The Blue Origin lander looks a far safer design.

Edited January 1 by Grump Martian
Spelling

[Nik271]

I guess the legs on which the rocket will sit can be adjusted to keep it vertical on a variety of possible slopes.

But yes to me it seems an unnecessary extra complication, incluidng the elevator the astronauts will need to get off and on.

I suspect by the time the rocket  becomes operational and ready for human passengers it may look a bit different from the promotional pictures.

[Alan White]

I agree with the concern.

As Nik says above, the artist impression will likely be nowt like the final lander.

The lift and bits feels like Musk promo fantasy, but who knows.

 

[Mogster]

The more recent Starship HLS images have more LEM style legs and pads on the base. The legs are supposed to be self levelling. I seem to remember that the Raptors aren’t going to be lit for lunar landing, Space X are going to use Dracos at the top of the stack in similar fashion to the Dragon capsule. So on lunar landing Starship will be hanging from the Dracos at the top rather than balancing on the Raptors at the base.

https://www.nasa.gov/reference/human-landing-systems/

It’s also worth considering that the Raptor engines are very heavy and at the bottom. Starship probably isn’t as top heavy as it appears at first glance. Maybe…

[Grump Martian]

3 hours ago, Mogster said:

The more recent Starship HLS images have more LEM style legs and pads on the base. The legs are supposed to be self levelling. I seem to remember that the Raptors aren’t going to be lit for lunar landing, Space X are going to use Dracos at the top of the stack in similar fashion to the Dragon capsule. So on lunar landing Starship will be hanging from the Dracos at the top rather than balancing on the Raptors at the base.

https://www.nasa.gov/reference/human-landing-systems/

It’s also worth considering that the Raptor engines are very heavy and at the bottom. Starship probably isn’t as top heavy as it appears at first glance. Maybe…

Interesting points you raise. On first looks it does appear to have a very high center of gravity. But this becomes lower with the points you raise.

Edited January 1 by Grump Martian
Spelling

[DaveS]

The rejected Dynetics Alpaca looks like a much better design for landing on an unknown and possibly irregular surface.

[Mogster]

2 hours ago, DaveS said:

The rejected Dynetics Alpaca looks like a much better design for landing on an unknown and possibly irregular surface.

I think NASA remarked that they liked the “low slung lander” Alpaca design concept. However they didn’t like the lack of detail in Dynetics bid, and the lack of convincing answers to clarifications raised. Thats possibly more of a management issue though, Elon and Bezos do have lots of money to throw at these projects. Dynetics were relying on SLS (and other paper concept hardware) which increasingly looks like a dead end, Starship has its own transport, as will the Blue Origin offerings potentially. Starship and its booster are real and flying.

Alpaca looks more like a multi use Lunar dormobile. A vehicle that you’d use to transport people and stuff across the Lunar surface. A vehicle like that may very likely be of use at some stage in the future but we really aren’t close that point yet.