Dynetics Lunar Lander Dependent Upon Fuel Depots, Multiple Vulcan Centaur Launches
by Douglas Messier
Managing Editor
Dynetics’ proposed Human Landing System (HLS) depends upon fuel depots and multiple rocket launches to achieve NASA’s goal of landing two astronauts on the moon in 2024, officials said during a webinar earlier this week.
“Our lander is unique in that we need lunar fueling to accomplish our mission. In the next couple years, we will take in-space cryogenic propellant refueling technologies from the lab to [technology readiness level] 10 and operational,” said Kathy Laurini, payloads and commercialization lead for Dynetics’ HLS program.
Dynetics is in competition with SpaceX and a team led by Blue Origin to develop a lunar lander for NASA’s Artemis program. The space agency awarded development contracts to the three companies earlier this year.
Laurini said Dynetics’ mission would involve three launches of United Launch Alliance’s new Vulcan Centaur booster, which is set to make its maiden flight next year.
The first launch will carry the landing system, with the other two providing for the required fuel for the mission. The lander will dock with NASA’s Orion spacecraft or lunar Gateway, pick up two astronauts, and take them to the surface, Laurini said.
Dynetics believes the depot technology would enable it to develop mining operations on the surface for the production of liquid oxygen for use as fuel.
“These technologies will enable a cis-lunar fuel depot,” Laurini said. “We will be engaging partners to make them a reality. We’d like to be able to buy propellant from a commercial depot around the moon. It also serves other customers, such as other human or robotic landers.
“The ability to fill our liquid oxygen tanks on the lunar surface could enable new mission classes like hopping around to other parts around the moon to accomplish some key science objectives,” she added.
Beginning in 2026, Dynetics’ reusable lander would be able to take four crew members to the surface, Laurini said.
The company also plans to develop a reusable cargo version of the lander to deliver rovers and other equipment to the moon.
13 responses to “Dynetics Lunar Lander Dependent Upon Fuel Depots, Multiple Vulcan Centaur Launches”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Propellant depots???
Hallelujah!!!
Marcel
it has a far better chance of working then the monstrosity that Blue etc are building
These crewed lunar lander concepts are still very much concepts at this point. I think that actual competition is a good thing. I really hope NASA scrapes up enough cash to fund two of these landers. As with both Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew, it would be quite advantageous in the long run to have two dissimilar landers from different providers.
I agree with you. Dynetics and Spacex could be the two winning projects. Now I’m really curious what the Spacex concept will look like. 🙂
Search engines are your friends.
Basically a Starship without heat shields or fins since it won’t be returning to Earth.
Actually I expect there will likely be numerous versions of Starship. A cargo version designed to return to Earth or land on Mars, a passenger version designed to return to Earth or land on Mars, a tanker version designed to return to Earth or Mars to fill up a tanker Starship converted to an orbital fuel depot for Earth and perhaps Mars. Then your deep space versions without fins or heat shields and with only the space version of the Raptor for cargo and crew that won’t return to Earth or go to Mars once they reach space.
Thanks for the directions but I meant what the 50 meter tall mock-up of SpaceX’s lunar lander will look like. I’m curious to see the inside of the mock-up.
It would be even more useful to have two dissimilar landers that can use a common propellant infrastructure. The Dynetics lander, like SpaceX’s much larger proposed design, is apparently a methalox vehicle. The SpaceX architecture calls for methalox propellant depot versions of Starship to operate in LEO, but one or more could also be placed into lunar orbit and serve both SpaceX’s heavy Starship-derived lander and the Dynetics lightweight lander/surface hopper. Both vehicles are excellent designs and each would reinforce the other if both were to be deployed.
If I could wave a wand, and order NASA what to do, a combination of Starship and ALPACA is close to what I would order.
I think the SpaceX Human Landing System as currently described is near ideal for use as a lunar-surface base and as a lunar-orbital base, but it is also overly large with excessive dry mass for a reusable human lunar-lander. So for the reusable-lander job, that’s where ALPACA fits in.
In fact, the job of the Gateway station in lunar NRHO could be assumed by using one of the SpaceX HLS spacecraft as the Gateway station. One giant habitat, power station, logistics station, and refueling depot, all in one shot!
The primary drawback (or benefit?) of my ALPACA+Starship plan is it would cut out many elements that international partners like JAXA might supply, such as modules for Gateway or for a lunar surface base. On the other hand, it would give the partners great opportunities to provide their dying launch vehicle industries useful makework, by delivering cargo to Gateway.
You are certainly correct anent the very small crews contemplated for the early Artemis missions. But once one needs to have a few dozen or a few hundred people cycling to and from the Moon regularly, the Starship design with the cargo bay given over to crew accommodations makes more sense. What ALPACA’s long-term role should mainly be is a long-range surface point-2-point expedition/exploration hopper. It’s almost ideally designed for the purpose and would be completely reusable in that role. The heavy resupply and mass crew transport portfolios can be left to SpaceX.
I agree, but at the same time, the moon could support a LOX/LH2 lander with in situ propellant a lot easier than it could support a LOX/liquid methane lander.
It’s not yet clear to me how much weight to give in situ propellant from the moon though. While there are lots of supporters for going this route, I just feel that generating enough LOX/LH2 on the moon to support a lander is going to be *a lot* harder that supporters think. This is doubly so if aerospace engineers design the hardware (low mass mindset) rather than, say, a company that already makes earth moving equipment for use on earth (longevity midset).
Yes.
Looking long term with full ISRU, the Blue Origin approach has greater potential to reduce the cost of lunar landings by focusing on hydrogen fuel rocket engines.
Short term the low slung methane fueled ALPACA is the better approach, simplifying propellant transportation from Earth and propellant storage in space.
NASA might get the best combination by funding both Blue Origin and Dynetics. Everyone would then have a piece of the pie, considering the SpaceX win of the Gateway cargo contract with the Dragon XL.
Funding both Blue Origin and Dynetics would provide NASA with essentially six different spacecraft for the price of two Human Landing Systems. Not a bad return on investment!
ALPACA gets NASA both a HLS and a reusable unmanned cargo lander, two for the price of one.
The three elements of the Blue Origin HLS are three independent spacecraft, each of which could be repurposed for jobs other than as a human lunar lander, so that’s four spacecraft for the price of one.
Much better approach than any other put forth, and this is what we should have been working on since Bush VSE speech