Some context: NASA opened up a Human Landing System bid, to build spacecraft that would bring astronauts from lunar orbit to the lunar surface and back. Three companies were selected in the...
Some context:
NASA opened up a Human Landing System bid, to build spacecraft that would bring astronauts from lunar orbit to the lunar surface and back.
Three companies were selected in the initial stage of the contract, to build basic mockups and demonstrate to NASA their processes: Blue Origin (aka the National Team) bid a three-stage lander), Dynetics bid ALPACA, and SpaceX bid a modified version of Starship.
After evaluating these three options, and in light of Congressional budget constraints, NASA decided to choose only SpaceX.
Under this $2.9 billion contract, SpaceX will develop, build, and fly their modified Starship; perform one uncrewed lunar landing; and perform one crewed lunar test flight. The operational lunar missions will be awarded at a later time.
Some more context on the selection:
From the start, Starship was seen as the weird underdog. Here's a render of the three competing vehicles, to scale. Starship can bring in the neighborhood of 100 metric tons to the surface of the Moon, and the other two contenders decidedly cannot.
At the same time, Starship would need huge-scale orbital refueling to perform its mission, along with very high performance engines that (at the time) had only been flown one time, to 150 meters. In light of the higher risk, SpaceX's bid was far lower than the other competitors. The expectation was that NASA would select two companies, similar to their Commercial Crew Program, for redundancy and competition. However, the Congress-specified budget forced NASA's hand, and they judged SpaceX to be the best option out of the three.
SpaceX is still largely seen as an unproven newcomer to human spaceflight, whereas Blue Origin (working with Lockheed Martin and a number of highly established aerospace companies) and Dynetics (a long-time aerospace contractor) were seen as the "safer" options, despite being higher cost.
So, here's a thought. NASA will launch humans from Earth on the SLS, in the Orion capsule, to the Gateway lunar station, where they will meet up with a SpaceX Starship to take them down to the...
So, here's a thought. NASA will launch humans from Earth on the SLS, in the Orion capsule, to the Gateway lunar station, where they will meet up with a SpaceX Starship to take them down to the surface of the Moon.
...and about a week later, SpaceX will have the capacity to fly humans (plus a truckload of cargo) directly from Earth to the lunar surface and back again, using fully reusable systems. Is that the right timeline?
Agreed, SpaceX were definitely the odd one out. High-risk, low-cost, but also far more capability. But having read the NASA Source Selection Statement, NASA calls out Blue Origin a lot for very...
Agreed, SpaceX were definitely the odd one out. High-risk, low-cost, but also far more capability.
But having read the NASA Source Selection Statement, NASA calls out Blue Origin a lot for very questionable decisions, like testing unproven propulsion hardware (think: fuel tanks and engines) for the first time on a crewed mission.
Some context:
Under this $2.9 billion contract, SpaceX will develop, build, and fly their modified Starship; perform one uncrewed lunar landing; and perform one crewed lunar test flight. The operational lunar missions will be awarded at a later time.
Some more context on the selection:
From the start, Starship was seen as the weird underdog. Here's a render of the three competing vehicles, to scale. Starship can bring in the neighborhood of 100 metric tons to the surface of the Moon, and the other two contenders decidedly cannot.
At the same time, Starship would need huge-scale orbital refueling to perform its mission, along with very high performance engines that (at the time) had only been flown one time, to 150 meters. In light of the higher risk, SpaceX's bid was far lower than the other competitors. The expectation was that NASA would select two companies, similar to their Commercial Crew Program, for redundancy and competition. However, the Congress-specified budget forced NASA's hand, and they judged SpaceX to be the best option out of the three.
SpaceX is still largely seen as an unproven newcomer to human spaceflight, whereas Blue Origin (working with Lockheed Martin and a number of highly established aerospace companies) and Dynetics (a long-time aerospace contractor) were seen as the "safer" options, despite being higher cost.
I think it makes sense to let SpaceX take the financial risk. They want to do it anyway. That's probably another reason they bid low.
So, here's a thought. NASA will launch humans from Earth on the SLS, in the Orion capsule, to the Gateway lunar station, where they will meet up with a SpaceX Starship to take them down to the surface of the Moon.
...and about a week later, SpaceX will have the capacity to fly humans (plus a truckload of cargo) directly from Earth to the lunar surface and back again, using fully reusable systems. Is that the right timeline?
This is actually a bit bizarre. I'm a huge SpaceX fan, but I never thought NASA would go with them for this gig ... it's just such a weird fit.
Agreed, SpaceX were definitely the odd one out. High-risk, low-cost, but also far more capability.
But having read the NASA Source Selection Statement, NASA calls out Blue Origin a lot for very questionable decisions, like testing unproven propulsion hardware (think: fuel tanks and engines) for the first time on a crewed mission.