[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)