The Exploration Company and Nyx Spacecraft

[Michel Van]

The Exploration Company

A Europeans team want to build Nyx Spacecraft a 12 ton space Capsule, that later to be Manned
launch by Ariane 6 or Falcon 9
main as Cargo provider for ISS, Lunar Gateway or private Space Station or bringen Crew to them.
Also to use as Lunar lander (with Lox/Methane engine).

The Exploration Company

www.exploration.space

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHLSNQpfBqE

 

[TomcatViP]

It smells like Buckling:



Notice that in the rendered sequences, there isn't a single frame sourced from of a descent CAD software. Most seems to be pure CGI (cheap). It's amazing that today you can meet a serious space agency criteria to, apparently, back you up to seek the market for investment when only a bunch of hours were spent on... Something like Pov-Ray.

Is today EASA = EA$$A ?!...

 

[Archibald]

A well designed capsule should be able to do a crapton of different missions - crew and cargo and lunar lander and lifeboat and free flyer (from the top of my head).

 

[Byeman]

A well designed capsule should be able to do a crapton of different missions - crew and cargo and lunar lander and lifeboat and free flyer (from the top of my head).

No, lander is not part of a "well designed" capsule. It is an outlier requirement.

 

[martinbayer]

A well designed capsule should be able to do a crapton of different missions - crew and cargo and lunar lander and lifeboat and free flyer (from the top of my head).

I'm doubtful there's enough market/mission space available for yet another crewed ballistic capsule newcomer.

 

[RanulfC]

A well designed capsule should be able to do a crapton of different missions - crew and cargo and lunar lander and lifeboat and free flyer (from the top of my head).

No, lander is not part of a "well designed" capsule. It is an outlier requirement.

I think he means "landing" as in "back on Earth"

A well designed capsule should be able to do a crapton of different missions - crew and cargo and lunar lander and lifeboat and free flyer (from the top of my head).

I'm doubtful there's enough market/mission space available for yet another crewed ballistic capsule newcomer.

Probably not but given more launch vehicles, (since SpaceX is never going to allow a Dragon on anything but the Falcon 9) options are going to be nice.

Randy

 

[Byeman]

A well designed capsule should be able to do a crapton of different missions - crew and cargo and lunar lander and lifeboat and free flyer (from the top of my head).

No, lander is not part of a "well designed" capsule. It is an outlier requirement.

I think he means "landing" as in "back on Earth"

He said lunar lander.

 

[Archibald]

Yes, as in "Early Lunar Access". https://space.nss.org/lunar-base-studies-1993-early-lunar-access-ela/

Where an Apollo-like capsule goes on top of a lunar lander for direct reentry from the lunar surface, no LOR at least on the way back.

 

[RanulfC]

Yes, as in "Early Lunar Access". https://space.nss.org/lunar-base-studies-1993-early-lunar-access-ela/

Where an Apollo-like capsule goes on top of a lunar lander for direct reentry from the lunar surface, no LOR at least on the way back.

So in this case BOTH types of lander

Randy

 

[Byeman]

Yes, as in "Early Lunar Access". https://space.nss.org/lunar-base-studies-1993-early-lunar-access-ela/

Where an Apollo-like capsule goes on top of a lunar lander for direct reentry from the lunar surface, no LOR at least on the way back.

Doesn't make any sense to do that in this day and age.

 

[Archibald]

Well that's your opinion...

 

[Byeman]

Well that's your opinion...

Not an opinion but an engineering reality. There is no reason for a lunar lander to return to earth.

 

[RanulfC]

Well that's your opinion...

Not an opinion but an engineering reality. There is no reason for a lunar lander to return to earth.

Which of course is often at odds with Political and Fiscal reality we have to admit

And I agree, but it WAS an official concept from both the US and USSR at some time.

Randy

 

[Archibald]

Well that's your opinion...

Not an opinion but an engineering reality. There is no reason for a lunar lander to return to earth.

Which of course is often at odds with Political and Fiscal reality we have to admit

And I agree, but it WAS an official concept from both the US and USSR at some time.

Randy

Yes. As in L3M (Mishin 1972) LK-700 (Chelomei) and Glushko lunar plans of 1976 and 1988.
Chelomei VA capsule was to be versatile across many LEO and lunar missions. All the way from TKS to LK-700.
That's what I had in mind. Historical examples of a multirole capsule.
Mark Hempsell has similar concept as complement to Skylon. Published multiple papers over the last 30 years.

 

[RanulfC]

Yes. As in L3M (Mishin 1972) LK-700 (Chelomei) and Glushko lunar plans of 1976 and 1988.
Chelomei VA capsule was to be versatile across many LEO and lunar missions. All the way from TKS to LK-700.
That's what I had in mind. Historical examples of a multirole capsule.

Arguably though a "multi-role" spacecraft isn't needed for any practical mission in modern context. What you need is actually a dedicated and optimized Surface-to-Orbit transport meeting the goals of low cost and operability. And then a separate deep-space "command module" or optimized deep space vehicle, (you arguably don't need an actual 'command module' given networking today) with the same goals. But you'll note we're essentially still going with the "one-vehicle-for-the-entire-mission" game plan and part of this (a big part I'd say) is to avoid orbital on in-space infrastructure.

Sure there's plans for ISRU and maybe orbital refueling but in both cases it's putting the infrastructure for supporting both on planetary surfaces instead of space.

Mark Hempsell has similar concept as complement to Skylon. Published multiple papers over the last 30 years.

I'm going to point out that Skylon is exactly the opposite of what you are advocating in that it was ONLY a surface-to-orbit transport In fact it needed a 'second stage' to actually service anything other than LEO.

Randy

 

[Archibald]

Yes. As in L3M (Mishin 1972) LK-700 (Chelomei) and Glushko lunar plans of 1976 and 1988.
Chelomei VA capsule was to be versatile across many LEO and lunar missions. All the way from TKS to LK-700.
That's what I had in mind. Historical examples of a multirole capsule.

Arguably though a "multi-role" spacecraft isn't needed for any practical mission in modern context. What you need is actually a dedicated and optimized Surface-to-Orbit transport meeting the goals of low cost and operability. And then a separate deep-space "command module" or optimized deep space vehicle, (you arguably don't need an actual 'command module' given networking today) with the same goals. But you'll note we're essentially still going with the "one-vehicle-for-the-entire-mission" game plan and part of this (a big part I'd say) is to avoid orbital on in-space infrastructure.

Sure there's plans for ISRU and maybe orbital refueling but in both cases it's putting the infrastructure for supporting both on planetary surfaces instead of space.

Mark Hempsell has similar concept as complement to Skylon. Published multiple papers over the last 30 years.

I'm going to point out that Skylon is exactly the opposite of what you are advocating in that it was ONLY a surface-to-orbit transport In fact it needed a 'second stage' to actually service anything other than LEO.

Randy

Not Skylon but the MRCA - Multirole Recoverable Capsule (I have the papers somewhere, will try to link them)