[HN Gopher] SpaceX wins contract to develop spacecraft to land a... ___________________________________________________________________ SpaceX wins contract to develop spacecraft to land astronauts on the moon Author : sbuttgereit Score : 290 points Date : 2021-04-16 17:49 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com) | why_Mr_Anderson wrote: | get ready for (random weird maneuver) | | all system nominal | | boooom | | looks like we have a slight issue in the (weird peice of hardware | bolted to the capsule), oh well, we have to make adjustments in | the next iteration | | oh and we should remove microphones from the crew module in the | next flight, the screaming after explosion was very unpleasant | | _edit: apparently my attempt to make a joke was too | sophisticated for some people_ | bpodgursky wrote: | You might be shocked to know how many rockets NASA blew up | before they put people on them. | BigMajestic wrote: | How many actual missions SpaceX failed? | toiletfuneral wrote: | how well does Tesla autopilot work? | ben_bai wrote: | This is not the site for jokes, sarcasm, snark comments etc. I | learned the hard way. Only serious facts and discussions... | why_Mr_Anderson wrote: | yeah...right... ;) | skissane wrote: | People occasionally get away with jokes here if they are | exceptionally clever - something which the grandparent | comment was most definitely not. | ctdonath wrote: | "Joke" is in bad taste. I remember that day. | maxharris wrote: | It's obviously time to stop burning all that money on SLS, which | costs over $2 billion per flight because it's not reusable. The | sunk cost fallacy only hurts more the longer you run with it. | kilroy123 wrote: | Sure, but sadly that's not up to NASA. Congress insists on | forcing them to keep this bloated jobs program in place. | Alupis wrote: | Is this even a problem anymore? I mean, we just threw hundreds | of billions behind all sorts of congress-critter pet projects - | what's $10 billion (or even $100 billion) for a few moon | landing missions? | hermitsings wrote: | Y'know Washington Post tries too hard to show that its | independent journalism. One time I saw it saying some -ve about | Amazon. | bryanlarsen wrote: | The biggest news IMO is that there's only a single winner. There | was a lot of pressure to make Commercial Crew a sole contact to | Boeing, and it now appears that Boeing is going to deliver | Starliner two years later than SpaceX delivered Crew Dragon. So | going with two winners saved NASA's bacon. It's surprising to see | them only choose a single winner here. Yes SpaceX may be | considered a safe bet, but ten years ago it was Boeing who was | considered the safe bet. Things change over years. | aerophilic wrote: | I am also surprised, and somewhat heartened by this decision. | They are basically saying they are committed to going to the | moon... they aren't going to "give it up". However, they are | implicitly saying it is _not_ going to be a place they are | going to spend a ton of cash. This is no longer a job shop, but | instead a steps to making real progress. | zlsa wrote: | This is probably largely due to NASA's Congress-specified HLS | budget not being enough to support two companies. | williesleg wrote: | SpaceX rocks! Elon is the man! He knows how to get things done. | Boeing is so compromised, like General Electric and General | Motors. Anything GE/Boeing/GM is destined for China. | rtsil wrote: | The reason is that NASA doesn't even have the budget to afford | a single winner, and SpaceX agreed to update its payment | schedule to make the contract work. | rst wrote: | Which is... slightly baffling. Blue Origin doesn't have much | of a track record actually getting stuff into orbit, but with | Bezos's backing, you'd think the one thing they _would_ have | is flexibility on the payment schedule... | nickik wrote: | BO might have that, but the other companies, LM and NG | didn't. Even for Bezos its a tall order to spend billions | for the LM and NG systems. | | I think he would rather spend that money on BO to develop | whatever he wants to develop next. | | I don't think you want to be a commercial costumer of LM | and NG, that doesn't sound fun. | bryanlarsen wrote: | That normally isn't a show stopper. For example on commercial | crew, Congress asked NASA to do Commercial Crew but didn't | give them enough money to do it. Being forced to make an | impossible choice, NASA awarded the contract, and the | schedule shifted right until the money was available. | | I expect Congress expected them to do the same thing here, | but then SpaceX forced the issue by coming in under the | skimpy budget Congress gave. This forced NASA's hand, giving | them almost no choice but to award the contract to SpaceX. | | Congress will be furious, both because they didn't award two | contracts and because their golf course buddies didn't get | the contract. But NASA played the hand that was dealt. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | Ten years ago Boeing was already riding a string of mismanaged | and failed contracts. They can't accomplish anything dependably | since the MD merger. | kitsunesoba wrote: | It's risky to select just a single winner, but I can't help but | think this is the appropriate response to Boeing's pressure. It | sends a clear message that the typical "old space" tactics will | no longer be tolerated and that if these companies want to | remain in the game, it will need to be by way of their | competitive merit. | bryanlarsen wrote: | Boeing wasn't part of this competition. They didn't make the | top three in the first selection round. | skissane wrote: | Boeing's bid was eliminated in the first selection round | because it failed to properly address NASA's stated | requirements. Maybe that's the arrogance of thinking you | don't need to offer what the customer is asking for, you | know what's good for them better than they do? | | Maybe, Boeing forgot that their bid was addressed to NASA | not Congress, they put stuff in there like launching on SLS | which certain people in Congress would like, and thought | that would be enough to overcome the fact they'd ignored | some of NASA's stated requirements. | | A former senior NASA manager, Doug Loverro, is under | criminal investigation, accused of illegally trying to help | Boeing resubmit its bid to make it actually conform with | the requirements. | runawaybottle wrote: | To add to this point, I think we're seeing a clear | recognition that space travel and infrastructure is shifting | out of the Defense sector and into the private sector. | sneak wrote: | I think for at least a generation or two, most of the | defense sector _is_ the private sector, no? | | Or did you mean something else? | | This will still be a NASA mission, with NASA astronauts | with their standard US military ranks, et c. | greesil wrote: | Only because of Elon and team, and a huge brick of money | that NASA gave them. | CydeWeys wrote: | Those huge bricks of money aren't going anywhere. SpaceX | (or anyone else) aren't flying missions for the | government for free! | briffle wrote: | Which doesn't seem as large, when you calculate it out in | number of shuttle launches you could do with that cash. | kitsunesoba wrote: | Or compare it to how much has been spent on SLS, which | has yet to net any return aside from keeping people | employed (which probably could've been accomplished on a | much smaller budget). | simonh wrote: | The basic ability to get people to and from the ISS was a | critical capability, so it was sensible to want redundant | options as long as it was affordable. The moon is IMHO more of | a nice to have. If this option doesn't pan out fine, try | something else. | | I feel bad for the Dynetics lander though, I thought that was a | really interesting design but relied on expendable launchers. | bryanlarsen wrote: | I was also a big fan of Dynetics. It sounds like they | primarily lost out due to cost -- SpaceX was the only | proposal that could fit within the budget Congress gave NASA. | | https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/status/1383125840184115203 | jandrese wrote: | I wonder if for the first time in history one of these | space programs can deliver on the original budget? That | would be a serious coup for SpaceX. | vkou wrote: | Focusing on the budget is doing the wrong thing. | | 1. Ambitious space programs require solving unknown | unknowns. You can't accurately budget for that. | | 2. Well, yes, you can budget for that by adding a large | fudge factor to the cost of your program. | | 3. Which will mean that your program will not get funded. | | NASA generally does a good job of being in the ballpark | of its budget for its _ambitious_ goals. Which, ever | since Apollo, have been its unmanned programs. | | The manned space shuttle, and the ISS, as well as all the | hoop-a-la around getting people to the ISS are on the | other hand not particularly ambitious, and are also a | bottomless money pit (Ballpark cost of ISS was ~160 | billion dollars. The ballpark cost of a rover mission to | Mars is less than 3 billion dollars.) | ncallaway wrote: | > hoop-a-la around getting people to the ISS are on the | other hand not particularly ambitious, and are also a | bottomless money pit | | While this was at one time true, I don't think it's fair | to say anymore, given that the Commercial Crew contracts | issued were fixed price contracts, and have been | delivered by SpaceX on that fixed price contract. | skissane wrote: | I think part of why it is going to fit in its budget is | because SpaceX is willing to fund some of the development | costs out of its own pockets, to an extent that other | bidders were not. | | SpaceX is designing a multi-purpose architecture in which | the lunar lander is just a variant of a craft intended | for other commercial purposes (Starlink launches, | commercial launch customers, space tourism, etc), so it | can share development costs between the lunar lander and | its own commercial investment - the other bidders were | proposing bespoke vehicles with little potential for | other commercial uses. | | SpaceX is also a young company with a high-risk strategy | of betting the company on massive growth in the space | industry-which is another reason why it is more willing | to invest its own money (or its private investors money) | than trying to get the taxpayers to carry 100% of | development costs. Its competitors are mostly older | companies with a far more conservative, financially risk- | adverse strategy. (Blue Origin is in a kind of odd | position, of being not much older than SpaceX, yet | seemingly having a culture more in common with those old | conservative firms.) | [deleted] | ncallaway wrote: | > I wonder if for the first time in history one of these | space programs can deliver on the original budget? | | I don't think it would be a first, since previous | contracts (such as COTS and Commercial Crew) were both | awarded as fixed price contracts. | | To my knowledge, SpaceX didn't go back and ask for more | money beyond the fixed-price contract. So both of those | were already delivered (or are being delivered actively) | on budget. | | But, this award is following in those footsteps to use | fixed-price contracts as a way to control costs and | ensure the programs don't run wildly overbudget. | Tuna-Fish wrote: | SpaceX already did that with commercial crew. The program | is set up as a fixed-price contract. SpaceX missed on the | dates, but is delivering the services that were promised | inside the original budget. | NotSammyHagar wrote: | Although there must be almost completely different training | between the Boeing capsule and the spacex one, ultimately they | had a good sync point to connection to the space station's | "international format docking port". An arbitrary astronaut | could ride in either, or at least without that much trouble. | But LEO to the moon is going to be so different, and the | landers were different. I'm sure there'd be no 'standard | controller" so you could put lander from company A with | transport to company B. | | I worry more about spaceX's ability to land starship on the | moon. Not because they won't get it right eventually in texas, | but the moon isn't smooth. I know they will have a plan to deal | with that, but getting a few ton lander with 4 legs to not tip | over and handle tilted land is vastly easier than a long and | spindly and heavy starship - how will they handle that? | skissane wrote: | > I worry more about spaceX's ability to land starship on the | moon. | | I'm sure they will land it on the moon multiple times before | they put any people on it. (And the other choices like | National Team or Dynetics would have done the same.) | | What's amazing is that Apollo 11 landed on the Moon with | humans on it the first time. And the Space Shuttle had | astronauts on-board its maiden flight. People took risks with | human spaceflight back then that they don't any more. | Computers are so much more advanced now, you don't need | astronauts to fly things. Even the Space Shuttle, technically | could have been fully automated, but NASA had a culture of | wanting to put a human in control. And a few deadly disasters | have changed the attitude around risking astronauts' lives to | become more risk-averse. | bryanlarsen wrote: | The live announcement[0] just announced that the SpaceX bid | includes an uncrewed test flight. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6BqZrs0x4E | throwaway6734 wrote: | >What's amazing is that Apollo 11 landed on the Moon with | humans on it the first time. | | In no small part due to Neil Armstrong's ability to act | under pressure. | kiba wrote: | Somehow I am picturing only 1-3 tests for other | competitors. SpaceX can do this because their launch | platform is so cheap. | mmcconnell1618 wrote: | Yes, Apollo 11 had humans on the first actual landing but | they previous Apollo missions included "dress rehearsal" | flights that did almost everything but touch down. It was | not just launch and land the first time with people. | Incremental steps along the way. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_10 | dnautics wrote: | To be fair, the capability for autonomous computing back in | those days was far more constrained, especially given | launch lift costs and the mass of computing, so you _had_ | to have humans | skissane wrote: | What you say may well be true for Apollo. But for the | Space Shuttle, even from the first mission back in 1981, | most of the flying was done by the computers. There were | only a few steps which had to be done by humans - one of | which was flicking the switch to lower the landing gear. | NASA could have fully automated it, but they made a | decision not to. Part of the reason was a culture which | wanted to keep a human in the loop rather than having | everything under computer control. | | It was only after the Columbia disaster that they | actually enhanced the Shuttle to enable it to be fully | autonomous and perform landing and re-entry without a | crew. If the Shuttle was damaged and re-entry was too | risky, then the crew would shelter in the ISS and the | Shuttle would attempt to re-enter and land without the | crew onboard - best case scenario, the Shuttle lands | intact; worse case, it breaks up on re-entry while the | crew remain safely behind on the ISS. They never had to | use this autonomous re-entry/landing capability, however. | WalterBright wrote: | I wish I could buy stock in SpaceX. I don't even care if it goes | bust, I just want to be in on it! | | (I bought stock in Tesla as a sort of consolation prize because I | couldn't buy SpaceX.) | hourislate wrote: | I always thought that if NASA chose another company, by the time | they sent astronauts back to the moon they would be greeted by a | small group of SpaceX colonists. There really is no competition | at this point. Bezos is a joke when it comes to the Space Race in | my opinion, he should stick to what he's amazing at like selling | groceries and things on Amazon. | _Microft wrote: | The official announcement [0] will be broadcoast at | http://www.nasa.gov/live at 4p.m. EDT (20:00 UTC). Livestream on | Youtube is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6BqZrs0x4E | | [0] also see: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to- | announce-selectio... | bryanlarsen wrote: | More news from livestream: this contract covers two landings. A | test landing and a single crewed landing. A new competition is | opening immediately for subsequent landings. | | SpaceX will have a huge leg up on the competition for the next | competition, but if the Senate ponies up with more cash we might | get two companies selected for the next contract like was desired | for this one. | AndrewGaspar wrote: | Why in the title (not reflected in HN title) is it "Elon Musk's | SpaceX" rather than just "SpaceX"? I could imagine the | distinction being relevant if he had just taken the helm and this | was the company taking some new direction because of it (e.g. | "Patrick Gelsinger's Intel"), but it doesn't seem to make a lot | of sense given Elon Musk has been the CEO since its founding. | | Even the subhead betrays how weird this journalistic formulation | is: "The company beat out Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin and Dynetics, a | defense contractor". Like, ok, who is the CEO of Dynetics? Is it | just some "public person" standard - because readers will say | "Oh, that guy!"? Or is it because they're the majority | shareholders in their respective companies and they do this for | any company with a singular majority stake? | | Just seems like a weird tic to me. | [deleted] | FredPret wrote: | Because his name is like a magnet for clicks and eyeballs in | exactly the way that "Patrick Gelsinger" isn't | kiba wrote: | Who's the CEO of Dynetic? I have no idea who they are. | | Jeff Bezo and Elon Musk are very well known public figures. | skissane wrote: | It is trying to make the article meaningful to the average | person (which most people here are a fair way off being.) | | The average person knows who Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are, | because they are two of the richest men in the world-and Musk | is prone to saying controversial things too, which helps stick | him in people's minds. They might not remember who SpaceX are | (even if they heard about Crew Dragon, they might just think | that's NASA). They very likely have no idea who Blue Origin | are. | | Musk and Bezos are household names, even among the hoi polloi. | The average person has never heard of Patrick Gelsinger, or of | David A. King (CEO of Dynetics) | marsven_422 wrote: | Because Elon is SpaceX, there is no one else capable of | creating SpaceX. | bane wrote: | My bet is that in the next couple of years we're going to see | SpaceX start to move into in-orbit infrastructure: habitats, | refueling depots, servicing stations, orbital assembly yards and | so on, all the way up to massive mining systems. | | Having infrastructure in orbit for say, refueling, reduces | potential costs for certain space activities significantly and | nobody else really has a good story for lifting the mass needed | to build that stuff. Heck, spent Starships might even make decent | core components for some of these facilities. Why deorbit them | and shipbreak them after their serviceable lifespan when they | could be kept up in orbit and comfortably house a dozen humans? | throwaway_isms wrote: | Everyone thinks Elon was pumping Doge as he keeps saying Doge is | going to the moon soon, he was, but this is what he was really | talking about the entire time. | schoen wrote: | I wonder if he will actually put some kind of cryptocurrency | mascot aboard a lunar mission as a kind of follow-up to | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk%27s_Tesla_Roadster | nickik wrote: | Don't for a second think that Doge to the moon was not | literal. This is his whole thing, 'say crazy stuff on | twitter', actually do it. | cwkoss wrote: | He should fire an array of hundreds of impact resistant | dogecoin cold wallets (maybe privkeys engraved in metal | plates then surrounded by a balloon or similar) from lunar | orbit to scatter bounties to explore the moon all over the | surface. | | Put $1000 in each of them - if dogecoin price goes to the | moon it could partially fund future lunar exploration | missions. | throwaway_isms wrote: | Concurred! As we release extraordinary amounts of CO2 | supporting cryptocurrency, we must consider the moon just | watching us from afar feeling left out and begin missions | to the moon to scatter garbage across the face of it, | simultaneously the politicians can take credit for | investing in future jobs for janitors to go to the moon and | clean it all up. | orblivion wrote: | Create maps for future space pirates. | bryanlarsen wrote: | More information: | | "Blue Origin's Total Evaluated Price was significantly higher | than [SpaceX's], followed by Dynetics' Total Evaluated Price, | which was significantly higher than Blue Origin's." | | https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/status/1383125840184115203 | aero-glide2 wrote: | Urgh, sole source contract. Maybe they should take some of that | military budget for a second contractor. Starship is my favourite | but this could reduce competition. | jandrese wrote: | What? The announcement here was the result of three different | bids from three different companies. The exact opposite of a | sole source contract. This is textbook competitive bidding. | themgt wrote: | This is really huge news. Starship has in about 18 months gone | from a Elon standing next to a steel grain silo duct-taped into | the shape of a rocket, to all the eggs in NASA's moon basket. The | thing I kept thinking - and I have to believe was considered | within NASA - is given the rapid progress SpaceX has been making | along with the delays in Congressional funding, SLS, BlueOrigin's | other projects etc ... if NASA _hadn 't_ selected SpaceX there | was at least some chance they'd go ahead and do their own private | Moon landing mission before NASA's, a massive egg-on-face moment. | | There are still major risks with the Starship program so I don't | think anyone should be 100% confident they can pull this off, but | the massive side benefit is if they do NASA will have proven out | a generic system, fully reusable and with orbital refueling, that | can with minimal modification cost-effectively send humans to | Mars and much of the rest of the solar system as well. A Model T | or 737 in space. The original Artemis plan never made much sense | as a Mars "proof-of-concept", but it actually does now. | | If at some point say 2025, NASA says to the President "we can get | the first human on Mars in 4 years for $15 billion" I have to | imagine any American president being eager to sign their name on | that accomplishment and give the JFK speech, "We choose to go to | Mars in this decade, not because it is easy, but because it is | hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the | best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one | that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, | and one we intend to win" | | To me that's the real takeaway here: this is implicitly a huge | NASA bet not just on the Moon, but Mars and the rest of the solar | system. Finally. | jk7tarYZAQNpTQa wrote: | > The original Artemis plan never made much sense as a Mars | "proof-of-concept", but it actually does now. | | IIRC, in the Iliad Artemis helps out Ares (which is kinda the | Greek version of Mars). Probably just a coincidence (I'm sure | Artemis was chosen because she's Apollo's sister), but fun | nonetheless. | the_duke wrote: | > There are still major risks with the Starship program | | To expand on this: I think it's reasonable to assume that the | stack will reach orbit just fine and be a functional rocket. | | The big risks are related to recovery. Starship will require | in-orbit refueling to go to the moon, so (rapid) reusability is | somewhat of a hard requirement. | | Superheavy (the first stage) is huge and will land directly on | the launch tower instead of using landing legs - to reduce | turnaround times. This is innovative and completely unproven. | And a RUD would at the very least put the launch tower out of | commission for a while. | | Starship (the second stage) will also have to survive the high | velocity reentry in a good condition and nail the crazy landing | maneuver. SpaceX heat shield tiles and the general aerodynamic | and thermal properties of the rocket are an unknown for now. | | Musk recently said that Starship will probably require "many | test flight" to achieve successful reentry and landing. | | On top there have been quite a few reliability issues with | their new Raptor engine, which need to be ironed out. | | I'm sure SpaceX will figure it out, but there are a lot of | risks lurking in the development program. | | All this makes the choice to go for SpaceX more impressive for | the usually so cautious NASA. | | But the payoff would be enormous. If the re-usability works | out, Starship can completely change the game for the launch | market and lift capability. | russdill wrote: | Many of these risks don't apply to the lunar variant. The | lunar variant won't be launching people from earth and won't | be returning to earth. No re-entry, no landing flip, etc. | | As far as descent, it will do final touchdown with smaller | engines higher up to avoid kicking up rocks. During landing, | I think pretty much any one of the 6 raptor engines can be | used to abort. | the_duke wrote: | They somewhat apply because the lunar variant still needs | to be fueled up in LEO with ~ 6 additional launches , all | in relatively quick succession. | | This seems unfeasible without rapid reuse actually working. | russdill wrote: | True enough, they can't be throwing away tankers for each | refuel. | themgt wrote: | In my opinion the way to think about SuperHeavy+Starship | is a scaled up stainless steel Falcon 9. Currently Falcon | 9's first stage booster (usually) lands and is | quickly/cheaply refurbished/reused, while the second | stage is completely thrown away except for partially | successful attempts at fairing recovery. They've used | this partially reusable system to do a large number of | launches quite cost effectively. | | In SH+SS, the "Starship" part is the second stage, with | the revolutionary goal that it can deliver a payload to | orbit and then skydive back to earth and propulsively | land itself. That has major risks and is unlikely to | succeed the first number of attempts, with the loss of | the stage and the 6 raptor engines. | | The "Superheavy" portion is very much equivalent to a | scaled-up F9 booster, and the risks to landing it should | be much lower (Elon's crazy catch ideas notwithstanding). | | tl;dr I think Starship system can _mostly_ work if it 's | partially reusable to a similar extent as F9. Losing a | half-dozen second stages to do a full orbital refueling | for a Moon or Mars mission should still be a fraction of | the cost of a single SLS launch, and they can continue | working on full reusability while performing missions and | cashing checks. | simonh wrote: | I'm getting very nervous about manned propulsive landings. I | know it's been done before, e.g. the LEM, but that at least | had an abort option available and the flip manoeuvre seems to | introduce a lot of unpredictability into the process. I | wouldn't be surprised if they take up a Crew Dragon with them | in a cargo bay to bring the crew back down separately for the | first manned flights, until they've demonstrated a strong | track record of successful propulsive landings. | | As for Lunar Starship, it's massively overengineered for the | Artemis requirements, capable of taking 100 tons to the Lunar | surface. That's great for later missions to set up a base, | but even then you'd likely need a crew version just for | shuttling people back and forth. So I wouldn't be surprised | to see the first version of that to be somewhat scaled down | from the concept art. That should massively reduce the number | of refuelling missions needed for the early Artemis flights. | nickik wrote: | > I'm getting very nervous about manned propulsive | landings. | | Humans will land on earth in Orion capsule not Starship. So | there will only be a tanker that has to do the flip. | | On the moon, there is no flip. | | The Appollo didn't have a abort option is parts of the | flight, unless I am misinformed. | | > So I wouldn't be surprised to see the first version of | that to be somewhat scaled down from the concept art. | | The problem is then about how you do the integration. All | the tooling and processes are designed for one size of | Starship, to change the whole design just to make it | smaller is unlikely to be an efficient thing to do. | | Instead they could just fly part of it empty and take far | less then the full 100t to the moon, rather then design a | smaller version. | simonh wrote: | If a LEM landing became untenable they could abort to | Lunar orbit by launching the crew capsule. You know how | after landing on the moon the way they got back to Lunar | orbit was by launching the crew capsule, using the lower | stage of the LEM as a launch platform? They could | actually do that in flight. You're right of course | though, I forgot that for Artemis they wont be landing | people on Earth in Starship. | | All they need to do to make a lighter Lunar starship is | make it shorter. Just miss out some fuel tank and payload | section segments. No need to make significant changes to | the functional parts, it would just be stubbier. | trhway wrote: | >100 tons to the Lunar surface | | the next morning after the first such delivery would feel | like a new era because with Starships it will be just like | a regular shipping line, less than $1B per 100ton cargo to | the Moon taking just several days. The Moon will become | more reachable than Philippines were at the time of Manilla | Galleons. | NortySpock wrote: | I agree, Crew Dragon (and maybe Orion and Boeing Starliner) | are going to be the people-carriers of choice for Earth | launch and re-entry for at least the next decade. | simonh wrote: | I don't really have concerns about launching people on | Starship, it's the landing process that gives me the | willies. | Denvercoder9 wrote: | _> Starship will require in-orbit refueling to go to the | moon, so (rapid) reusability is somewhat of a hard | requirement._ | | Is it though? The lunar starship itself doesn't depend on | reusability. If SpaceX cannot get reusability down, they'll | have to expend a few boosters and tankers to get it working. | That'll cost them their profit, but it would fulfil the | contract. | beambot wrote: | If it was simply a matter of money, SpaceX could raise $15B in | an IPO in a heartbeat given the incredible retail demand. | | I'm glad that Elon is remaining "conservative" in his financing | of SpaceX to avoid the quartly Wall Street song & dance. | kwertyoowiyop wrote: | Next week he will probably announce that he's already funded | it via Dogecoin speculation. | cryptoz wrote: | Last I heard, SpaceX will IPO once there are regular trips to | Mars with Starship. Looking forward to it to say the least. | medium_burrito wrote: | And it's winter for Gateway and SLS | NortySpock wrote: | A Lunar Gateway still sort-of-makes-sense, as an outpost near | the moon, using ISS-derived hardware, makes it hard for | Congress to argue cancelling something that is (a) new and | (b) we know will work. | | That being said, a few small LEO orbital depots makes more | sense than Gateway. Or perhaps small LEO and Lunar gateways | might make the safety-officer at NASA happier. | kwertyoowiyop wrote: | The JFK quote still gives me (good) chills! | CynicusRex wrote: | This rubs me the wrong way, but it's a biased feeling solely | because of Elon Musk. I feel like if Musk was ousted from both | Tesla and SpaceX these companies would be less tainted. Elon is | becoming like Howard Hughes: completely nuts. The nonsense he's | spouting and lies he's selling is the complete antithesis to what | a virtuous scientist or engineer should strive for, unfortunately | he's just a nasty businessman. | | I can't quite recall where my irritation with him began: the | horrendous apocalypse cybertruck, a podcast with Joe Rogan where | his laughs seemed totally fake and creepy, his musings with | Kanye, defending Amber Heard, calling someone a pedo while having | millions of followers, manipulation the market, full self-driving | false promises, claiming he founded Tesla, pretending Neuralink's | latest demo was novel, Las Vegas' ridiculous redundant tunnel, | the list goes on. I don't like the guy any more. | MisterBiggs wrote: | Considering SpaceX got by far the smallest award for the initial | bid [0], it's great to see NASA choosing something new in an | industry where entrenchment is so prevalent. It's a big | disappointment that we haven't seen more from Blue Origin since | the initial bid. Hopefully, the established players will take a | step back and understand why SpaceX is completely dominating | everything they do in this space. | | Starship doesn't fit the original mission very well, so I wonder | if this could be the start of a pretty big (and in my opinion | necessary) overhaul for Artemis. I can't find the document, but I | know NASA was pretty set on preferably a 3 but possibly a 2 stage | lander and weren't sold on Starships reusability and using the | same vehicle for cargo and human missions. | | Starship is far more capable than anything else out or even | anything on a drawing board, and NASA accepting it for human | flights to the Moon signals a lot of confidence in SpaceX and | Starship. Hopefully, NASA uses it to its fullest potential. | | - [0] https://spacenews.com/nasa-selects-three-companies-for- | human... | kiba wrote: | They are developing a lunar variant so that they can land on | the moon. | MisterBiggs wrote: | Yes early Starships for Artemis were planned to be one way | and maximize cargo payload to the Moon but that was before | SpaceX was accepted for crewed Artemis missions. | elihu wrote: | I wonder if they'll use the belly-flop maneuver to land the | astronauts back on Earth, or if the astronauts will depart the | ship in a more traditional capsule and land separately from the | Starship? | | I guess they have quite a while to figure out the details, and if | the belly flop maneuver isn't deemed to be safe enough by the | time the mission is ready, it shouldn't be that big a deal to | take a more conservative approach. | nickik wrote: | This is already known. Austronauts launch on SLS/Orion and | transfer to moon orbit, transfer to Lunar Gateway or Starship | and then land on the moon. | | Starship launches from surface back to lunar orbit, gives | astronauts over to Orion and Orion will then land on earth. | | Lunar Starship will stay in Lunar orbit and potentially be | reusable or just land on the moon to start building a Basecamp. | aynyc wrote: | Why can't they just dock with ISS and use the crew dragon to | bring the astronauts home? | tectonic wrote: | If true, this is a BIG deal. | TheCraiggers wrote: | Perhaps you could say why it's such a big deal? | kiba wrote: | I expected NASA to choose 2 providers. I would have done that | if I were in their shoes. | | Instead, they choose SpaceX alone. | | This also gives them major cash infusion for their Starship | development program, which their Lunar lander will be based | on. Basically, Lunar lander is a modified Starship designed | to land on the Moon. | ThisIsTheWay wrote: | I also expected the competition between two (or more) | contactors to be the choice, but with BO just now | approaching human test flights, I can understand why they | selected SpaceX to move forward if they could only fund one | system. | Alupis wrote: | And what about ULA? They're a very serious contender here | - have a human spaceflight program, and pretty strangely | nobody ever seems to give them credit for the massive | list of successful launches they have under their belt. | | Maybe because they're not run by Musk or Bezos? How | strange to put so much faith in a few eccentric | billionaires - one of which is clearly building rockets | as a pet project. | Sanzig wrote: | They were included indirectly. The Dynetics bid proposed | ULA's Vulcan Centaur as the baseline launch vehicle with | SLS as an option. The Blue Origin bid baselined New Glenn | but included Vulcan Centaur as an option. | | So both other bidders proposed a ULA rocket either as the | primary or back-up launch vehicle. | kiba wrote: | They have a human spaceflight program? That's news to me. | Not to mention that they are owned by Lockheed and | Boeing. | | Also, I have no faith in Blue Origin. They don't have | much if any flight records. | Alupis wrote: | Seems they're working on it, at least[1]. | | Did they not bid because of the Starship funding SpaceX | is already receiving? If you knew you had zero chance of | winning, why bother bidding? | | > Not to mention that they are owned by Lockheed and | Boeing. | | Not sure your point here? Is that supposed to be a | negative thing? Both companies have a massive amount of | aerospace experience going back decades. | | [1] https://www.ulalaunch.com/missions/commercial-crew | kiba wrote: | _Seems they 're working on it, at least[1]._ | | ULA has never designed a crew spacecraft. They're just | launching it. | | The Starliner is a Boeing product. | | _Not sure your point here? Is that supposed to be a | negative thing? Both companies have a massive amount of | aerospace experience going back decades._ | | And yet why did NASA chose SpaceX over dynetic, which is | full of old companies? | | SpaceX is an 18 years old company who developed the | Falcon 1, Falcon 9(with further 4 iterations), the first | Dragon, Dragon 2(with Cargo and Crew variant). They also | achieved reusability with supersonic landing, an industry | first. | | Boeing mismanaged their Starliner program to the point | that they failed their test flight due to program | mismanagement and now have to wait years before they can | relaunch Starliner, and thus SpaceX was able to start | their commercial crew contract first. Boeing also | drastically mismanaged the SLS program. As it is years | behind schedule and cost billion of dollars. | | Lockheed Martin? I don't know much about except the | constant controversy surrounding their F-35 program. | | I'll have to say this: decade of experience means not | much if you're slow, inefficient, and do shitty jobs. | | It's not like SpaceX lack decades of experience either. | They have industry veterans too, not just fresh graduate | from schools. One of the reasons that they were able to | get anywhere in the early days was because they have | folks who knows the space industry and able to work with | the military. | Alupis wrote: | > The Starliner is a Boeing product. | | ULA is Lockheed Martin + Boeing. | | > controversy surrounding their F-35 program. | | Fair enough, I'm not fan of the F-35 program either. | Although it's not entirely Lockheed's fault... the | mandate to have a one-size-fits-all aircraft for all | branches of the military was doomed to fail from | inception. The military knew it, and I'm certain so did | Lockheed and all their contractors. Congress didn't want | to hear that though... thinking it would lead to costs | savings (oh, how hindsight is 20/20). | | At a minimum, there should be two competing designs - | built through flight testing (if not built to completion | and maintained in conjunction to avoid any future safety | groundings that stall USA human space flight | capabilities). It's nutty to put all eggs into SpaceX's | basket. | | I also hardly believe saving money on such an important | mission is important at all. Getting people there and | back safely is paramount to saving what amounts to | rounding errors in today's spend-happy congressional | budget. | kiba wrote: | _At a minimum, there should be two competing designs - | built through flight testing (if not built to completion | and maintained in conjunction to avoid any future safety | groundings that stall USA human space flight | capabilities). It 's nutty to put all eggs into SpaceX's | basket._ | | I am sure that the starship program will have the most | test flight of any spacecraft development program. I have | the uttermost confident in them. | | That said, I agreed with you that we shouldn't put all | our eggs into SpaceX's basket, no matter how good they | are. We just don't have insight in NASA's thinking here, | only guesses. | | _I also hardly believe saving money on such an important | mission is important at all. Getting people there and | back safely is paramount to saving what amounts to | rounding errors in today 's spend-happy congressional | budget._ | | What gives you that impression? It seems like NASA gave | all the money to SpaceX alone, which is 2.9 billion | dollars. The only way that there would be more money is | if NASA gets a bigger budget for their lunar program, | which would making awarding more than one competitors a | more viable option. | Alupis wrote: | > What gives you that impression? | | People often cite the extraordinary cost per launch of | missions such as this, and how SpaceX can reduce that | cost (allegedly) via reusability, etc. I just don't think | saving a few bucks on a mission of this importance is | worth-while. I'd, personally, much rather return to the | moon first, and then figure out if reusability even makes | sense later on (if we are to continue going to the moon | with any sort of regularity). | | After all, SpaceX's goal with Starship isn't to do NASA's | bidding, it's to push a private company to Mars. | | > The only way that there would be more money is if NASA | gets a bigger budget for their lunar program | | Which is quite sad. $2.9 billion to go to the moon, and | hundreds of billions for congress-critter pet projects in | the last few "stimulus" packages. We really cannot find | more money to throw behind such important achievements? | kiba wrote: | _People often cite the extraordinary cost per launch of | missions such as this, and how SpaceX can reduce that | cost (allegedly) via reusability, etc. I just don 't | think saving a few bucks on a mission of this importance | is worth-while. I'd, personally, much rather return to | the moon first, and then figure out if reusability even | makes sense later on (if we are to continue going to the | moon with any sort of regularity)._ | | A reusable rocket must be more robust to do what it do | while also being much more difficult to accomplish. It's | also how we increase safety, which will happen with rapid | reusuability. | | A reusuable rocket cannot afford to cut corner like an | expendable rocket. | | Just because a rocket is more expensive doesn't mean it's | safer. | | The fact that SpaceX is launching more rockets than | everyone else means it will be a safer vehicle due to | rapid increase in flight experience. More flights mean we | iron out more flight. | | They're not cutting corners here. | zlsa wrote: | Because they're a launch vehicle company and didn't bid | for the HLS contract. | emilecantin wrote: | Simply because they didn't bid on that contract. The | bidders were SpaceX, Dynetics and the Blue Origin-led | "National Team" (BO, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman | and Draper). | skissane wrote: | Boeing also bid on the original contract, but was kicked | out of the competition at an earlier stage. Their bid was | rejected because it didn't address key requirements in | the contract solicitation. | | A senior NASA manager, Doug Loverro, is accused of | reaching out to Boeing and trying to help them amend | their bid to avoid it being rejected. For a NASA staff | member to offer help to one of the bidders is illegal, | and due to that, Loverro was forced to resign from NASA, | and is now under criminal investigation. He justified his | actions on the belief that without Boeing in the lander | procurement, the lander was dead. I guess today's | announcement just proves how wrong he was. | [deleted] | emilecantin wrote: | My understanding is that the Starship program is fully- | funded already; the NASA cash is just the cherry on top for | SpaceX. Which is why their bid was so low compared with the | others. | | Congress didn't give NASA the funding it originally wanted | for Artemis, which is probably the reason why they went | with only one provider. | itsoktocry wrote: | > _My understanding is that the Starship program is | fully-funded already_ | | Where does that information come from? SpaceX just raised | another round of money. I keep seeing things about how | profitable the organization is, but it looks like the | operations are shareholder subsidized. Rockets are | expensive, I don't think this stuff is profitable yet. | | https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/spacex-raises- | valuation | emilecantin wrote: | Just from general announcements around this. As you | mentioned, they just raised a round of funding which will | probably be used for Starlink and Starship. Another big | chunk of change came from Yusaku Maezawa for the Dear | Moon project. | | SpaceX is a private company and doesn't disclose its | financials so there's way to know for sure; that's why I | qualified my statement with "My understanding is". | | Also their launch business (Falcon 9) is massively | profitable already, there have been public statements by | the company on this matter. | Denvercoder9 wrote: | _> I keep seeing things about how profitable the | organization is, but it looks like the operations are | shareholder subsidized._ | | Operations (Falcon/Dragon) likely is profitable, R&D | (Starship/Starlink) likely isn't. | jasonwatkinspdx wrote: | Musk is very aggressive about raising capital to | accelerate scaling up. That Musk is raising sheds no | light on profitability. He'll raise even with fat margins | if he thinks it's the fastest path to his goals. | | There's no question F9 has been deep into profitability | for ages. Most people estimate they're operating at about | 10% of the cost of their competitors now on a per flight | basis. | hackeraccount wrote: | If they pick two they have to pay two. Look at commercial | crew. Boeing is clearly a laggard but as they deliver NASA | will pay them - because NASA picked them (and SpaceX). | ThisIsTheWay wrote: | One reason that comes to mind is that it would be a totally | new use case for Dragon capsules. SpaceX had originally | planned them to use propulsive landing on return to Earth, | but abandoned that plan in lieu of more traditional water | landing returns. To land on the moon (and Mars) they will | need to pick up where they left off and continue with the | propulsive landing plans, albeit in a much lower gravity | environment. | | https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/07/19/propulsive-landings- | ni... | bryanlarsen wrote: | SpaceX's lunar proposal uses Starship, not Dragon. | Tepix wrote: | I don't think they are planning to use Dragon capsules for | Moon landings. They want to use their new Starship and | probably equip it with some extra rocket engines near the | top of the spacecraft so when landing it won't kick up dust | and rocks into Moon orbit and beyond (yes, that would | happen with the rocket engines at the bottom because | Starship is so big!) | Buttons840 wrote: | I'm not sure a rocket landing could blow a rock into a | stable moon orbit. Blow them to escape velocity maybe. | | But if a rock is "in orbit" after being blown upward and | away from the moon's surface, then wouldn't its "orbit" | pass beneath the moon's surface? | simonh wrote: | That assumes the potentially chaotically turbulent, | expanding blast of exhaust gas propelling these rocks | only imparts a single instantaneous linear impulse. It's | possible some rock fragments might be kicked up from the | surface, and then accelerated laterally away from the | landing site by the gas cloud. | Diederich wrote: | Perhaps? Delta-v from the surface of the moon to orbit is | about 1.6 km/second, though debris from a landing would | be approximately instantaneous thrust, which doesn't | allow insertion into an orbit. | Diederich wrote: | > ... probably equip it with some extra rocket engines | near the top of the spacecraft so when landing it won't | kick up dust and rocks ... | | Correct: https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/05/01/nasa- | identifies-risks-... | handol wrote: | It's not Dragon, it's a variant of Starship. | | The three proposals they were selecting between: | https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-selects-blue-origin- | dyneti... | kiba wrote: | I have to say, I am completely skeptical of Blue Origin's ability | to do anything in a reasonable amount of time and that they will | amount of anything but Bezo's hobby. At least until they change | their approaches. | | That said, it's a very secretive firm with an unknown amount of | progress. | | I'll believe in Blue Origin when I see it. | CydeWeys wrote: | They don't seem to have the kind of drive that SpaceX has. And | their secretiveness is not causing space fans to be enamored of | them. SpaceX by contrast is quite open (with Elon often | speculating on Twitter with fans about the cause of a test | failure within minutes of it happening). That open approach is | definitely delivering public mindshare that seems to be helping | them. | generalizations wrote: | > seems to be helping them | | I love that SpaceX is so open, but I'm not sure what material | 'help' that actually gives them. I mean, I doubt NASA gives | Spacex special consideration because they're popular. | petertodd wrote: | The biggest help might be in attracting really talented | employees willing to work for affordable wages, and keeping | those employees excited enough to keep pushing hard. | Laremere wrote: | It's definitely a strong recruiting tool. SpaceX is known | to work you harder for less money than other firms, but | they can get people who are invested in the vision of the | company. Also at this point there's been enough time for a | high schooler to be inspired by SpaceX's first rocket | booster landing, decided to go to college in a relevant | field with the sole purpose of working at SpaceX, | graduated, and gotten a job. | | I'm sure the popularity is also helping with demand for | starling. | ObserverNeutral wrote: | > Recruiting tool | | Smart people (the kind you need in a rocket company to do | the heavy lifting -pun intended-) don't want to work for | loud people such as Musk. | | Matter of fact they are disgusted by them. | | All Musk companies have in common a huge lack of a | particular demographic which is deemed to be both "book | smart" as well as "street smart", ask yourself why is | that. | | Academically smart people with just a bit of street | smartness do tolerate people like Jim Simons or John | Overdeck as their bosses, but those guys are the best | bosses in corporate America...and by the way they also | belong to that particulare demographic. They absolutely | despise loud individuals such as Musk or Cuban or the | former host of reality tv show "the apprentice ". | [deleted] | lai-yin wrote: | I've heard Bezos' approach with Blue Origin compared to the | 'tortoise and the hare' allegory. Slow and steady may work | when your talented opponent is taking naps along the | racetrack, it doesn't work when they are as driven as the | SpaceX team. | 4gotunameagain wrote: | "In winning the $2.9 billion contract, SpaceX beat out Jeff | Bezos' Blue Origin, which had formed what it called a "national | team" by partnering with aerospace giants Lockheed Martin, | Northrop Grumman and Draper. SpaceX also won over Dynetics, a | defense contractor based in Huntsville, Ala. _(Bezos owns The | Washington Post.)_ " | | That's good PR, mentioning that Bezos owns WP when it is | completely irrelevant, in order to foster a feeling of openness | and honesty, while the real bomb in that sentence is that spaceX | beat the team of the dinosaurs (Northrop, Lockheed) | | I don't know how I feel about any of this | throwawayboise wrote: | From a software perspective, I've experienced being in the | small startup company that partnered with the huge established | government contracting firm to try to win an award. Complete | disaster. The culture clash alone was fatal. | Alupis wrote: | How serious of an effort did Northrop and Lockheed put in | though? | | Blue Origin isn't really a serious contender, and has very few | actual flights under their belt. I have no idea, but I'd think | the other two companies probably were mostly a "consultancy" | role to provide clout behind BO. | | It's pretty perplexing BO would take point on such a major | undertaking given their vast lack of experience. | jandrese wrote: | I kind of think that they put their name in there just to try | to make life hard for SpaceX. Basically throwing in their lot | with anybody but Elon. | skissane wrote: | > That's good PR, mentioning that Bezos owns WP when it is | completely irrelevant, in order to foster a feeling of openness | and honesty | | It is standard practice, when a newspaper reports on its owner, | for it to point out the fact of ownership. It is considered | good journalistic ethics. It is reminding the readers of the | possibility that their reporting on their owner might be prone | to bias, even if there is no sign of bias in any particular | case. | | Here in Australia, every time _The Sydney Morning Herald_ | (Sydney 's broadsheet) or _The Age_ (Melbourne 's broadsheet) | mentions Nine Entertainment (the Australian TV network, and | more recently owner of those newspapers), they add a | parenthetical aside ("the owner of this masthead"). Different | publications, different country, same principle. | dpifke wrote: | I wish a newspaper reporter, writing about the union to which | he or she belongs, had to disclose that relationship. | | Many years ago when the SF Chronicle had an ombudsman, I | asked about this, and was told "it's just not done." | mfsch wrote: | For what it's worth, the hosts of NPR's Planet Money | regularly disclose their union memberships when talking | about the topic. | jfengel wrote: | The Post includes that disclaimer every time they mention | Bezos, or Amazon for that matter. It's policy, not a judgment | call about relevance. They don't want to be accused of hiding | the relationship. | jandrese wrote: | It is a statement about the dire state of so much of the news | media that standard disclosure of potential conflicts of | interest is seen as some kind of weird spin. | cryptoz wrote: | There's a new render of Starship on Mars, I guess from the | presentation happening now. | https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/13831508679482613... | jccooper wrote: | Looks like the moon to me. | _Microft wrote: | This [0] is also an interesting piece. SpaceX won a contract for | logistics services to the lunar gateway but not much has happened | on that front yet. Here is an excerpt from the article: | | _" NASA, in a statement provided to SpaceNews April 14, said it | has yet to formally authorize SpaceX to proceed on the Gateway | Logistics Services contract because the agency is studying the | overall schedule of the Artemis lunar exploration program, of | which development and use of the Gateway is just one part. | | "An agency internal Artemis review team is currently assessing | the timing of various Artemis capabilities, including Gateway. | The goal of this internal review is to evaluate the current | Artemis program budget and timeline, and develop high-level plans | that include content, schedule, and budgets for the program," the | agency stated."_, from [0] | | Now this is pure speculation but they are not maybe working | towards doing away with the Gateway and going directly to the | moon instead? | | [0] https://spacenews.com/nasa-delays-starting-contract-with- | spa... | Tepix wrote: | It seems unlikely. The lunar gateway is a cornerpiece of the | international collaboration at the moon. | skissane wrote: | I doubt they'll cancel Gateway. They have already awarded | contracts for its manufacture and launch, and they have | international partners (Europe, Japan, Canada) committed to | manufacture and launch components as well. | | What might get cancelled however, is Dragon XL. I'm sure SpaceX | is going to ask to change the contract to replace Dragon XL + | Falcon Heavy with cargo Starship. Now that NASA is relying on | Starship for HLS, it is going to be hard for them to say "no" | to Starship for Gateway cargo as well. | avmich wrote: | > Now this is pure speculation but they are not maybe working | towards doing away with the gateway and going directly to the | moon instead? | | You don't assume the humanity doesn't need a Moon orbiting | outpost, do you? Insisting that all materials and devices have | to go to Moon or Earth with no intermediate point sounds, shall | I say, interesting. | bryanlarsen wrote: | Spacecraft can dock with other spacecraft, they don't need a | station to facilitate that. It's especially nonsensical now | that Starship was chosen, since Starship is much larger than | Gateway. | NotSammyHagar wrote: | Gateway could have coasted out in space for years though, | like the the existing space station. starship won't be able | to sit there forever. But that's an interesting point in | general, will the starship 'habitable space' be bigger than | gateway? | _Microft wrote: | Starship is huge, it is supposed to have up to 1000m3 of | pressurized volume. That would be 10% more than the ISS | currently has. | | Gateway should have at least 125m3 from what I saw on its | Wikipedia page. | skissane wrote: | Maybe they could use a Starship as an additional module | for Gateway or the ISS? Just dock it to one of the ports | and leave it there permanently. Maybe even send up a | special one with some extra docking ports on it. You | could even convert the fuel tanks into extra cabin space | (the classic "wet workshop" space station design). | avmich wrote: | A good Moon base should for sure be bigger than an | orbital outpost; unless we have an awful lot of traffic | there, on the orbit around the Moon... but we're not | there yet. | | However, to completely avoid having a Moon orbiting | facility would be to err to the other direction. Suppose, | for example, you have an emergency on the Moon. If you | need to fly to Earth, it's easier to meet an Earth-bound | ship in the Moon orbit than to have that ship landed on | Moon; reminding, SpaceX lunar ship isn't intended to fly | to Earth, with good reasons. Or if you need an urgent | delivery of something unique from the Earth, it's easier | to deliver to the Moon orbiting outpost, rather than to | have it with Moon landing capabilities. If you need | delivery of materials from the Moon, a convenient place | is to accumulate them in orbit; Earth's history of sea | shipments suggests that. Of course there could be other | reasons. | | Size of Starship doesn't really matter - Gateway could be | smaller, and still quite useful. | bryanlarsen wrote: | Gateway will be almost completely useless for this. | Gateway is in a very odd orbit, a near rectilinear halo | orbit. that NRHO spends most of its time a massive | distance from the moon. Most of the time the Earth is | closer to the moon than the gateway is. | | You can make a good argument for having a station in low | lunar orbit, but NRHO is really silly. It was only chosen | because it's all the Senate boondoggle SLS could reach. | | Edit: NRHO is only close to the moon once every 7 days, | versus a low lunar orbit which orbits the moon in 2 | hours. | KineticLensman wrote: | > Insisting that all materials and devices have to go to Moon | or Earth with no intermediate point sounds, shall I say, | interesting. | | Apollo did quite well without an intermediate point. | avmich wrote: | > Apollo did quite well without an intermediate point. | | Not particularly relevant. At the JFK planning moment, | there were no plans, and hardly means, to fly to the Moon | to stay. Different from what we have now. Today, "just" | repeating "the small step" would be quite anticlimactic. | scottrogowski wrote: | I have a genuine curiousity (because I can't seem to find it in | the news reports). The contract is going to the starship design. | What exactly are they planning to take that requires such a large | ship? The lunar landers were tiny because the Moon has such a | small gravity well. For that payload capacity, I assume you would | have most or all of a habitable lunar base. | | Edit: There is this: | https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2020/10/28/lunar-living-nasas.... | I wonder whether NASA will now try to include it on one of the | two missions. | skissane wrote: | > What exactly are they planning to take that requires such a | large ship? | | NASA didn't ask for such a big ship, and would have accepted a | smaller one. But if SpaceX bids a big ship, they can't say "no" | to it just because it is bigger than they thought they needed. | | For the first few landings they probably won't even use most of | the capacity. But I'm sure NASA will get to work coming up with | ideas of things to do with it. | | One option is to have a much bigger crew. | | Another option is cargo such as lunar rovers, lunar base | modules, ISRU demonstrators, etc. (I wonder if SpaceX will | design a slightly different variant optimised for lunar surface | cargo delivery.) | nickik wrote: | I think we are all curious about that. NASA didn't plan for | this. Its a lucky break that SpaceX 'over-delivered' to an | absurd degree. | | There must be people inside NASA that are over the moon about | this. You can now fly a full geology lab to the surface of the | moon. You can take a big rover. You can do all sorts of crazy | things. | | You can just land one of these on the moon and leave it there | as a whole moonbase. One Starship is comparable to ISS. | | NASA will have so many options, its gone be interesting to see | what they and SpaceX come up with for the interior. | jccooper wrote: | Starship is big because it's meant to do other things. The | mission parameters didn't require it. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-16 22:00 UTC)