Your drawing looks like a mosquito's sting scaled up. It should work. Some of the details provided by @Michel Van could be added, it depends on how much into the gruesome you'd want to go.
I want to go pretty gruesome, like I have thought of a scene where the player can actually see it happen rather than just listen to it in the curate scene.
 
As an aerospace engineer, of course I do.
Ok match my work the NASA Technology Readiness Levels ?

next_moonlander_concept-jpg.711502


next-launcher-studies-jpg.735012
 
Since the only specific technology element explicitly identified in the lander (let alone for the launch vehicle concepts) are the RL-10 rocket engines, and there are claims that the RL-10 was experimentally used with Methane, most likely in a ground test, the TRL would be 6.
Pratt & Whitney tested modified RL-1A-1 with Methane/Flox (Fluorine 82,6% rest Lox) in 1969 under NASA Contract NAS3-7950
it burn Methane quite well. i took Methalox since it give 60 day storage time in orbit for refuel mission.

For Launch rocket
I look into Nexus SSTO Hydrolox and the Middle version what use Kerolox / Methalox.
Nexus would simple in launch, landing, refurbishment. but Hydrogen does terrible thing to tanks.
Middle has higher launch and recovery cost, and refurbishment of Kerolox engine...
for more on this i would prefer we the discus on this matter Here:
 
Last edited:
Since the only specific technology element explicitly identified in the lander (let alone for the launch vehicle concepts) are the RL-10 rocket engines, and there are claims that the RL-10 was experimentally used with Methane, most likely in a ground test, the TRL would be 6.
The same process would apply in analogous fashion to all other system technologies and elements, such as structures, subsystems, etc..
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom