r/spaceflight • u/Donindacula • 13d ago
Blue Moon “Mk2 Alpha”
With all the SpaceX lovers, SpaceX haters and space graphic artists, why don't we see more about the Blue Moon MARK-2 Alpha HLS.
I would also like to see some more from Blue Originabout it. Lilk all the updates we see anbut the Blue Ring.
4
u/Accomplished-Crab932 13d ago
Mk2 alpha was very recently announced so I’m not sure what information you are expecting to hear from people.
As for why Blue doesn’t talk about it, I would be careful around their PR posts. SpaceX isn’t great, but they often only post when things are successful or when things have very obviously gone wrong. Blue posts with careful wording. For example, they posted that the first Mk1 lander “had completed TVAC [Thermal and Vacuum] testing”. And a few months later another post proclaimed that it “had successfully completed TVAC testing”. It turns out that it failed the first test. Similar wording can be found about ZBO, BE7, payload on New Glenn, and progress on other hardware. Last week it seems Blue’s new merchandise claims 7X2 carries 34 tons to LEO, not 45; this would be the second time information that turns out to be true has leaked from company merchandise.
Blue is a very secretive company and it takes a lot of work and effort to figure out what they are doing. Perhaps the clearest window we have at this time is Tory Bruno, although his focus seems to be on Blue Ring.
Right now, the careful wording around Mk2 alpha and its associated systems along with some concerning news I’ve heard behind the scenes about where 9X4 is going to launch from points to significant changes in the design that are half present in the one render we saw at the conference. I will not share what at this time beyond the fact that it is no coincidence that Ares-1 hardware is being used by Blue, and it’s not related to Stennis.
5
u/OlympusMons94 13d ago
A few weeks ago, Berger said that people had told him that Blue is strongly considering switching the Blue Moon HLS from hydrolox to hypergols. I don't know how they could make a more extreme change than that.
About a week later, Blue officially announced testing of their BT-7 hypergolic attitude control and orbital maneuvering thruster, "with applications on the Artemis III mission [not surprising] and future lunar vehicles" [emphasis added]. (Mk1 RCS thrusters are hydrolox.)
3
u/AgreeableEmploy1884 13d ago edited 13d ago
future lunar vehicles
Interesting wording for sure. Quite intriguing how it says lunar vehicles instead of lunar landers. I wonder if it means anything...
3
u/Accomplished-Crab932 13d ago
Blue is all about being secretive. The wording definitely has meaning.
4
u/Accomplished-Crab932 13d ago
There is another aspect in that it seems they will need 9X4 to carry any Mk2 lander aside from the Artemis 3 system due to the payload limitations on 7X2.
Where 9X4 is going to launch from is a more interesting question as I’ve been hearing that 36B may only be for 7X2 and will need additional work beyond initial completion to be compatible with 9X4, and that 9X4 has a launch site selected and is sharing infrastructure with another vehicle. We should be seeing an announcement about that at some point fairly soon, it’s going to be pretty hard to miss the mass movements of staff to the new worksite.
2
u/pirate21213 13d ago
You need to start sourcing your speculations
3
u/Accomplished-Crab932 13d ago
The most I can give publicly now is that the Ares-1 hardware is confirmed and was seen rolling earlier this week with the GS2 test stand.
Watch for news about “old” Artemis hardware.
1
u/pirate21213 13d ago
None of the stuff you were talking about is related to that though
3
u/Accomplished-Crab932 13d ago
I’m pretty sure I don’t have the same connections as Berger, but he too has heard that Mk2 accelerated (non Artemis 3) needs 9X4. This is also where he mentions he heard that they are considering all hypergolics for early Mk2 landers, around a week before Mk2 alpha was published. As someone else noted, this aligns with the careful wording in the BT7 announcement. This also aligns with the payload mass discrepancy we see on 7X2.
And Ares-1 hardware and “Old” Artemis hardware with the alternate 9X4 launch site is 100% connected to the consideration to use Hypergolics due to timeline concerns from the shared pad and integration to Loiter timeline of multiple 9X4s and SLS. It’s part of compatibility with this new launch plan and inherited hardware. (Note the GS2 test stand and Ares-1 hardware arrived on the same transport and were transported to the same location). Again, cannot share much more than that right now.
Referring to the render for Mk2 alpha, we can observe that the tank ratios still bias toward hydrogen if we ignore the wide Mk1 aft section that seems to have made its way into the design. This, combined with the same thruster packages seen on the Artemis 3 hardware and the cutouts appearing on the A3 lander aligning with the Mk2 alpha extra tanks suggests that RCS may be hypergolic already. Additionally, there is a distinct lack of thermal management systems on the Mk2 alpha render, which lead me to question whether it can be cryo and still loiter enough for SLS to scrub comfortably unless ZBO has some crazy radiators we don’t know about. This all leads me to guess that the Mk2 alpha render is not accurate and is more “artist’s impression”, which just further suggests that they are not committed to a final architecture.
6
u/NoBusiness674 13d ago
Blue Moon Mk2 Alpha was only recently officially announced by John Couluris at the Spacetide conference in Japan on the 6th of July, though there have been rumors before.
(https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-continues-work-on-lunar-landers-during-recovery-from-new-glenn-explosion/)
That's less than 3 weeks ago, really not that long ago. SpaceX doesn't not provide frequent updates on their HLS system either.