Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Bewaretheicespiders t1_jaahkxr wrote

Unveils a concept. Its a bit like Dynetics, but stages vertically instead of horizontally. Its meant to ditches the first stage shortly *before* landing on the moon.

14

OralSuperhero t1_jaauved wrote

So they land just in time to have the last stage splash through the landing zone? I know, I know... just my first thought

6

Bewaretheicespiders t1_jaaybl8 wrote

Lots of people wondering that. I mean, we've all done worst in KSP, but that sure would be messy. But again, China dumps toxic hypergolic stages on its villages without a second thought.

3

Arcosim t1_jab8g8r wrote

> China dumps toxic hypergolic stages on its villages

Not anymore, all these launches are taking place at the Wenchang Spacecraft Launch Site on Hainan Island since 2020.

14

Bewaretheicespiders t1_jabaj8b wrote

Guess I missed that news, thanks. TBF there were other news coming out of China in 2020.

6

KiwieeiwiK t1_jac2wfz wrote

There's 6 Apollo descent modules still sat on the moon's surface. Debris is routinely crashed into the moon to get rid of junk floating around. This isn't really that weird

8

[deleted] t1_jacfdwn wrote

[deleted]

2

wgp3 t1_jadmog4 wrote

No it definitely does not. The stage that is dropped is guaranteed to hit the ground before the lander. That's simple physics. The top continues to slow its descent while the bottom portion accelerates under lunar gravity towards the ground.

There's not much concern about it landing in the landing zone either. There's nothing to move the dropped stage off course. It's a simple ballistic trajectory. They'll plan a path, drop the stage so it follows that path, then continue their controlled descent which will use a different path to the surface.

This is exactly how nasa does it with landing on Mars. The heat shield is jettisoned and allowed to fall to the surface. It's done in a way that will keep it out of the final trajectory, and landing site, of the rover. There's no risk of it landing on top of the rover either, since the rover has a slower descent.

The main risk with the propulsion stage over a heat shield jettison is that the propulsion stage will still have residual fuel. Their main concern will be making sure it can't send debris flying over vast distances that could cause problems for either the lander or existing infrastructure.

If we get to the point of planning around existing infrastructure then it will likely mean they will have a set landing area. Stages dropped off will likely aim toward a "debris field" where they drop them towards an area far away and not planned for human visitation. Then the landers will land in the landing zone. Where they also will then take off from clearing the way for additional landers.

7

gerkletoss t1_jacvjdf wrote

Plus now the ascent stage has to use its engine twice unless I'm missing something. I'm really not seeing the benefit compared to Apollo-style.

2

Stardustquarks t1_jaaj23k wrote

So when do we start the real space race with China??

3

Topsyye t1_jaam9xp wrote

Kinda already begun tbh. especially with this counter starlink constellation stuff they recently set up.

6

rocketsocks t1_jaaxtzr wrote

People need to get out of the Space Race mindset. It doesn't fit what's going on right now and it's also not a good model to follow in terms of robust space exploration and human spaceflight.

The "omg, a Space Race! how lovely!" reactions remind me of this tweet:

https://twitter.com/afraidofwasps/status/1177301482464526337?lang=en

> Guy who has only seen The Boss Baby, watching his second movie: Getting a lot of 'Boss Baby' vibes from this...

0

Basedshark01 t1_jabj9kb wrote

There doesn't need to actually be a space race going forward, but rumors of one happening are productive towards keeping US congresspeople in line for guaranteeing budgets for manned spaceflight programs.

5

bookers555 t1_jaeampu wrote

You missed the SLS launch a few months ago? That rocket would have never taken off if it wasn't for China.

0

AdSpecialist4523 t1_jadachu wrote

We already won it over 53 years ago. I've heard a lot of talk lately about China's lunar conquest ambitions but wake me up when they actually visit for the first time.

−3

bookers555 t1_jaebv2i wrote

I hope it all goes well to them, competition is needed to get NASA and ESA off their ass.

3

longhegrindilemna t1_jaaj16h wrote

At least NASA can say they are relying on Boeing, ULA, and Blue Origin to get Americans to the moon, and relying on Collins Aerospace to build a new spacesuit.

The ability of NASA to ignore SpaceX and continue handing over hundreds of millions to low-yielding subcontractors spread across different congressional districts, is amazing.

Just to be clear: /s

1

Bewaretheicespiders t1_jab2mxf wrote

Boeing sucks, but SpaceX's Starship is Nasa's only authorised lunar lander at the moment, so its not really fair to say Nasa is ignoring SpaceX to go to the moon.

9

bookers555 t1_jaeb1n8 wrote

>The ability of NASA to ignore SpaceX

They aren't, they need SpaceX for the moon landing. The whole plan is to get the SLS to launch a crewed Orion spacecraft to the Moon, rendezvous with the lunar lander variant of Starship in Lunar orbit and use it to land.

3

Decronym t1_jac4wp3 wrote

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |ESA|European Space Agency| |KSP|Kerbal Space Program, the rocketry simulator| |ULA|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|

|Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |hypergolic|A set of two substances that ignite when in contact|

^(4 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 21 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8632 for this sub, first seen 28th Feb 2023, 11:02]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])

1

Ok-Bit-6853 t1_jachimm wrote

Getting them back alive is still being worked on.

−2