17 ms·

SpaceX, Blue Origin, Dynetics win contracts to land astronauts on moon

121 points by gamblor956 7y ago

cydonian_monk 7y ago
In this project, Blue Origin is working with Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, while Dynetics is partnered with Sierra Nevada Corp. So it makes sense that Blue Origin received a much larger chunk of money than SpaceX - they're somewhat unproven in the space, but are partnered with experienced firms that have been there before and are more likely to deliver. And SpaceX is probably going to do whatever they plan to do with or without the contract money. I'm interested in seeing what Dynetics is up to... as I'm sure are a few others. Interesting times right now.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  > they're somewhat unproven in the space, but are partnered with experienced firms that have been there before and are more likely to deliver. I disagree with this characterization. I think SpaceX is more likely to deliver. The old dinosaurs are years behind and billions over budget on projects like SLS. SpaceX is the surest bet. They weren't five years ago but they are now.
  - vulcan01 7y ago
    Military-industrial complex, reinvented. Instead of most contracts going to Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, they now go to companies such as Blue Origin who are partnered with them.
  - hwillis 7y ago
    It's common for specialty contracts (aerospace, nuclear, defense etc) to be awarded based on need. The government is conscious of how competitive the industry is, and tries to keep several firms alive in any one sector regardless of who is delivering more value. Sometimes it results in questionable choices. They don't create contracts just to keep companies afloat (not without a lot of lobbying, anyway), but they will give a lot more money even if companies are losing money to wild incompetence. Westinghouse is a good example. They may be literally losing blueprints to nuclear reactors, but there aren't many other companies that can make reactors in the first place, and in the slim chance the government suddenly needs to make a lot (eg every sub sinks at once), they really don't like relying on unproven designs and manufacturers.
buboard 7y ago
I don't see any of these happening. People will demand large investment in biotech after this scare, instead of vanity projects.
- cdolan 7y ago
  “Vanity”. Ha. I would figure as a member of this forum you’d have a respect for the speed of technical innovation brought about by the 1960’s space race. Why wouldn’t similar improvements occur here for intra-solar and inter-stellar space travel? Why is it vanity to explore, but “biotech” (which recently seemed to go off the deep end of “augmented bio-humans who are part sci-fi cyborg”) is not? Did “people” “demand” “fintech” after 2007-2010? Edit: “We choose to go to the moon...” feels just as relevant today as it did in the 1960’s. I want my children to have the opportunity to fly off this pale due dot and look back.
Rebelgecko 7y ago
Definitely a big win for newspace, although I think it's a bit bizarre (and perhaps self-serving for Bezos) that the headline only mentions 2 of the 3 companies that got awards
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- colinplamondon 7y ago
  First, Blue Moon is doing some really interesting things with regularizing access to the Moon. Clear adapters, clear pricing, it's as much a leap forward as what SpaceX has done with regularizing access to orbit. From a scale standpoint, it also plays it safe. No exponential increase in tonnage over Apollo, but an exponential increase in costs and private access. That's all interesting as all hell, and props to the Blue Origin team. Second, Starship is just insanely fucking cool. It's maybe one of the most ambitious generation on generation leaps ever attempted, by any team of human beings ever. It's aiming to skip from the Bronze Age to the Industrial Age overnight. The sheer scale of ambition is just breathtaking. Dynetics, on the gripping hand, is... yet another government contractor. Taking a government contract. Developing a paint by numbers solution. Again. Just like SLS. And the Space Shuttle. And Constellation. And Ares. And every other slab of corporate welfare has doled out over the past 40 years. To project my opinions onto OP, I can't imagine Dynetics' contribution here is getting anyone too hot and bothered.
  - teqnologiq 7y ago
    What are you basing your judgement on Dynetics from?
    - colinplamondon 7y ago
      15m of Googling after seeing the press on this announce - definitely not pretending to be an expert. But - let's assume that cursory look at primary clients is correct. It appears they're all government agencies. They don't sell much to private business. The things that make SpaceX and Blue Origin so interesting is that it utterly bucks the government procurement model, making them riskier ventures. SpaceX and Blue Origin maintain their own product roadmaps, based on their own reading of the marketplace, what technology can do, and their long-term vision. These other contractors, like Lockheed, General Dynamics, and apparently Dynetics, have an inherently mercenary business model. They only respond to contracts already out on the market - there's little to no incentive for them to blaze a path forward. They win on graft, running up the bill on cost-plus contracts, and taking advantage of the procurement process that wastes trillions. The defining question to me - why didn't Boeing or Lockheed build reusable rockets? Blue Moon started work far before this contract awarded a dime. Same with Starship. These guys have made their money off SLS - a snakepit of corruption and waste. I'd feel the same way about any company that's primarily a government contractor. There's a big difference in approach between the military-industrial companies, and "New Space" companies like Blue Origin and SpaceX.
Causality1 7y ago
It seems a little odd that a company which has never achieved orbit was awarded a contract.
- missedthecue 7y ago
  I mean that was the case when we've put men on the moon before
wmf 7y ago
So launch on Orion+SLS then transfer over to Starship for the last mile? What a crazy plan.
- DannyB2 7y ago
  A second Starship booster can be used to get SLS off the ground as Starship's payload.
  - BitwiseFool 7y ago
    I'm waiting for the SLS Heavy, with two starship boosters on the side instead of the SRBs.
    - wmf 7y ago
      Don't give them any ideas!
- pjscott 7y ago
  That's officially part of the plan, because otherwise it would be politically impossible -- but if those things get delayed, which seems likely, NASA could "temporarily" use some other, saner way of getting astronauts to lunar orbit. I suspect that's the real plan.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  Unlike Crew Dragon, Starliner, Soyuz and Orion, Starship does not have a launch abort system. From what I hear, NASA now has an institutional allergy against crewed spacecraft without a launch abort system. It's been burned into the culture by the two Space Shuttle disasters.
oh_sigh 7y ago
mods, there is a typo in the title. astronaughts is a good nickname for cosmic dust though.
- smoyer 7y ago
  And it would apparently be a good name for the Boeing lander's contract.
smoyer 7y ago
Probably the biggest bit of information in this article is that Boeing submitted a proposal that was rejected. You launch a defective plane, a defective crew module and then repeatedly miss deadlines and budgets for a booster. That appears to be more than the company's lobbyists can overcome!
- greglindahl 7y ago
  Boeing was also a bidder for a recent cargo-to-the-lunar-gateway contract. 4 bidders, Boeing's bid was judged defective as well as having the highest cost.
  - greglindahl 7y ago
    ... and the source selection document for this bid makes it seem like Boeing again submitted an invalid bid.
- vsareto 7y ago
  Boeing seems like a pile of crap with the other issues stacking up against it. It had its time in the sun, but if you're career-minded, Boeing is probably not where you want to be.
  - ortusdux 7y ago
    I know several career minded engineers that jumped ship 10 years ago.
- pm321 7y ago
  The latest Aviation Week podcast on the dumped $4B plus Boeing M&A deal for the commercial arm of a Brazilian smaller player has one industry insider analyst put positive spin on the 737MAX8. Business as usual.
nathanaldensr 7y ago
Title is misspelled: astronauts
- tlb 7y ago
  Fixed, thanks
JanSolo 7y ago
The deadline for this moon landing is 2024; most space followers agree that it's a crazy deadline. It's 3 years away! It's even crazier when you consider that the lander hardware has not even been designed, let alone built, tested, certified and man-rated. Blue Origin has made a few public statements about having ideas (and maybe even designs) for a lunar lander. However, given their current rate-of-progress, I doubt that they could finish it within the time remaining. SpaceX has built man-rated spacecraft; also they have extensive experience of propulsive landings and re-usable launchers. Also, they have a reputation for making fast progress. They're clearly the front-runners here and I think they're the safest bet to succeed. Still unlikely for 2024 though. Dynetics is partnered with Sierra Nevada who also have experience of building spacecraft. However their craft have never been flown manned and their speciality is in winged, aerodynamic reentry; something which is not necessary on the moon. Also, their rate of progress is glacial; I consider it very unlikely that they will be able to design, build, test and certify any kind of lunar craft before 2030 at the earliest.
- 101404 7y ago
  Its 4.5 years to the end of 2024. Not a crazy deadline, but not easy either. Maybe with this, SpaceX will focus more on development of their actual Starship+SuperHeavy, rather than mostly focusing on mass production set-up. Anyway, this it really exciting news.
  - JanSolo 7y ago
    Remember that the SLS is what will be used to launch the Artemis missions. Starship & Superheavy are not in the picture at all for this work, even though they would be able to do the job and at a much lower price. Additionally, I doubt that Starship or SuperHeavy will be ready by 2024; flying, maybe, but reliable enough for manned missions? I don't think so.
    - zipwitch 7y ago
      >* the SLS is what will be used to launch the Artemis missions* That seems overly optimistic for a system that is now a year and a half past it's original target launch date and has a current target date of late next year.
pjscott 7y ago
Here's an article from NASA with more description of what they're building: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-selects-blue-origin-dynetics-spacex-for-artemis-human-landers https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-selects-blue-origin-dyneti...
thoraway1010 7y ago
Wasn't spaceX's bid 1/4 the price of Blue Origin / Northrup?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
knoke 7y ago
This question might be a bit naive, but could someone explain to me if the SpaceX illustration (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/starship_moon_astronauts.jpg?itok=dRfA9RhQ https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/p...) is feasible at all? From the (many, oh, so many) hours of KSP I've played landing legs seem to be the way to go with an uneven and uncertain and especially slightly sloped landing surface and not a flat rocket underside. Or is there any explanation how Space Ships are supposed to land? Thanks Thanks
- simonh 7y ago
  That’s a really early render, from back when starship was going to be made from composite materials. At that time they hadn’t figured out the landing leg system, and anyway it’s changed several times since.

121 points by gamblor956 7y ago

In this project, Blue Origin is working with Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, while Dynetics is partnered with Sierra Nevada Corp. So it makes sense that Blue Origin received a much larger chunk of money than SpaceX - they're somewhat unproven in the space, but are partnered with experienced firms that have been there before and are more likely to deliver. And SpaceX is probably going to do whatever they plan to do with or without the contract money. I'm interested in seeing what Dynetics is up to... as I'm sure are a few others. Interesting times right now.

CydeWeys 7y ago
> they're somewhat unproven in the space, but are partnered with experienced firms that have been there before and are more likely to deliver. I disagree with this characterization. I think SpaceX is more likely to deliver. The old dinosaurs are years behind and billions over budget on projects like SLS. SpaceX is the surest bet. They weren't five years ago but they are now.
- vulcan01 7y ago
  Military-industrial complex, reinvented. Instead of most contracts going to Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, they now go to companies such as Blue Origin who are partnered with them.
- hwillis 7y ago
  It's common for specialty contracts (aerospace, nuclear, defense etc) to be awarded based on need. The government is conscious of how competitive the industry is, and tries to keep several firms alive in any one sector regardless of who is delivering more value. Sometimes it results in questionable choices. They don't create contracts just to keep companies afloat (not without a lot of lobbying, anyway), but they will give a lot more money even if companies are losing money to wild incompetence. Westinghouse is a good example. They may be literally losing blueprints to nuclear reactors, but there aren't many other companies that can make reactors in the first place, and in the slim chance the government suddenly needs to make a lot (eg every sub sinks at once), they really don't like relying on unproven designs and manufacturers.

buboard 7y ago

I don't see any of these happening. People will demand large investment in biotech after this scare, instead of vanity projects.

cdolan 7y ago
“Vanity”. Ha. I would figure as a member of this forum you’d have a respect for the speed of technical innovation brought about by the 1960’s space race. Why wouldn’t similar improvements occur here for intra-solar and inter-stellar space travel? Why is it vanity to explore, but “biotech” (which recently seemed to go off the deep end of “augmented bio-humans who are part sci-fi cyborg”) is not? Did “people” “demand” “fintech” after 2007-2010? Edit: “We choose to go to the moon...” feels just as relevant today as it did in the 1960’s. I want my children to have the opportunity to fly off this pale due dot and look back.

Rebelgecko 7y ago

Definitely a big win for newspace, although I think it's a bit bizarre (and perhaps self-serving for Bezos) that the headline only mentions 2 of the 3 companies that got awards

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
colinplamondon 7y ago
First, Blue Moon is doing some really interesting things with regularizing access to the Moon. Clear adapters, clear pricing, it's as much a leap forward as what SpaceX has done with regularizing access to orbit. From a scale standpoint, it also plays it safe. No exponential increase in tonnage over Apollo, but an exponential increase in costs and private access. That's all interesting as all hell, and props to the Blue Origin team. Second, Starship is just insanely fucking cool. It's maybe one of the most ambitious generation on generation leaps ever attempted, by any team of human beings ever. It's aiming to skip from the Bronze Age to the Industrial Age overnight. The sheer scale of ambition is just breathtaking. Dynetics, on the gripping hand, is... yet another government contractor. Taking a government contract. Developing a paint by numbers solution. Again. Just like SLS. And the Space Shuttle. And Constellation. And Ares. And every other slab of corporate welfare has doled out over the past 40 years. To project my opinions onto OP, I can't imagine Dynetics' contribution here is getting anyone too hot and bothered.
- teqnologiq 7y ago
  What are you basing your judgement on Dynetics from?
  - colinplamondon 7y ago
    15m of Googling after seeing the press on this announce - definitely not pretending to be an expert. But - let's assume that cursory look at primary clients is correct. It appears they're all government agencies. They don't sell much to private business. The things that make SpaceX and Blue Origin so interesting is that it utterly bucks the government procurement model, making them riskier ventures. SpaceX and Blue Origin maintain their own product roadmaps, based on their own reading of the marketplace, what technology can do, and their long-term vision. These other contractors, like Lockheed, General Dynamics, and apparently Dynetics, have an inherently mercenary business model. They only respond to contracts already out on the market - there's little to no incentive for them to blaze a path forward. They win on graft, running up the bill on cost-plus contracts, and taking advantage of the procurement process that wastes trillions. The defining question to me - why didn't Boeing or Lockheed build reusable rockets? Blue Moon started work far before this contract awarded a dime. Same with Starship. These guys have made their money off SLS - a snakepit of corruption and waste. I'd feel the same way about any company that's primarily a government contractor. There's a big difference in approach between the military-industrial companies, and "New Space" companies like Blue Origin and SpaceX.

Causality1 7y ago

It seems a little odd that a company which has never achieved orbit was awarded a contract.

missedthecue 7y ago
I mean that was the case when we've put men on the moon before

wmf 7y ago

So launch on Orion+SLS then transfer over to Starship for the last mile? What a crazy plan.

DannyB2 7y ago
A second Starship booster can be used to get SLS off the ground as Starship's payload.
- BitwiseFool 7y ago
  I'm waiting for the SLS Heavy, with two starship boosters on the side instead of the SRBs.
  - wmf 7y ago
    Don't give them any ideas!
pjscott 7y ago
That's officially part of the plan, because otherwise it would be politically impossible -- but if those things get delayed, which seems likely, NASA could "temporarily" use some other, saner way of getting astronauts to lunar orbit. I suspect that's the real plan.
bryanlarsen 7y ago
Unlike Crew Dragon, Starliner, Soyuz and Orion, Starship does not have a launch abort system. From what I hear, NASA now has an institutional allergy against crewed spacecraft without a launch abort system. It's been burned into the culture by the two Space Shuttle disasters.

oh_sigh 7y ago

mods, there is a typo in the title. astronaughts is a good nickname for cosmic dust though.

smoyer 7y ago
And it would apparently be a good name for the Boeing lander's contract.

smoyer 7y ago

Probably the biggest bit of information in this article is that Boeing submitted a proposal that was rejected. You launch a defective plane, a defective crew module and then repeatedly miss deadlines and budgets for a booster. That appears to be more than the company's lobbyists can overcome!

greglindahl 7y ago
Boeing was also a bidder for a recent cargo-to-the-lunar-gateway contract. 4 bidders, Boeing's bid was judged defective as well as having the highest cost.
- greglindahl 7y ago
  ... and the source selection document for this bid makes it seem like Boeing again submitted an invalid bid.
vsareto 7y ago
Boeing seems like a pile of crap with the other issues stacking up against it. It had its time in the sun, but if you're career-minded, Boeing is probably not where you want to be.
- ortusdux 7y ago
  I know several career minded engineers that jumped ship 10 years ago.
pm321 7y ago
The latest Aviation Week podcast on the dumped $4B plus Boeing M&A deal for the commercial arm of a Brazilian smaller player has one industry insider analyst put positive spin on the 737MAX8. Business as usual.

nathanaldensr 7y ago

Title is misspelled: astronauts

tlb 7y ago
Fixed, thanks

JanSolo 7y ago

The deadline for this moon landing is 2024; most space followers agree that it's a crazy deadline. It's 3 years away! It's even crazier when you consider that the lander hardware has not even been designed, let alone built, tested, certified and man-rated. Blue Origin has made a few public statements about having ideas (and maybe even designs) for a lunar lander. However, given their current rate-of-progress, I doubt that they could finish it within the time remaining. SpaceX has built man-rated spacecraft; also they have extensive experience of propulsive landings and re-usable launchers. Also, they have a reputation for making fast progress. They're clearly the front-runners here and I think they're the safest bet to succeed. Still unlikely for 2024 though. Dynetics is partnered with Sierra Nevada who also have experience of building spacecraft. However their craft have never been flown manned and their speciality is in winged, aerodynamic reentry; something which is not necessary on the moon. Also, their rate of progress is glacial; I consider it very unlikely that they will be able to design, build, test and certify any kind of lunar craft before 2030 at the earliest.

101404 7y ago
Its 4.5 years to the end of 2024. Not a crazy deadline, but not easy either. Maybe with this, SpaceX will focus more on development of their actual Starship+SuperHeavy, rather than mostly focusing on mass production set-up. Anyway, this it really exciting news.
- JanSolo 7y ago
  Remember that the SLS is what will be used to launch the Artemis missions. Starship & Superheavy are not in the picture at all for this work, even though they would be able to do the job and at a much lower price. Additionally, I doubt that Starship or SuperHeavy will be ready by 2024; flying, maybe, but reliable enough for manned missions? I don't think so.
  - zipwitch 7y ago
    >* the SLS is what will be used to launch the Artemis missions* That seems overly optimistic for a system that is now a year and a half past it's original target launch date and has a current target date of late next year.

pjscott 7y ago

Here's an article from NASA with more description of what they're building: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-selects-blue-origin-dynetics-spacex-for-artemis-human-landers https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-selects-blue-origin-dyneti...

thoraway1010 7y ago

Wasn't spaceX's bid 1/4 the price of Blue Origin / Northrup?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

knoke 7y ago

This question might be a bit naive, but could someone explain to me if the SpaceX illustration (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/starship_moon_astronauts.jpg?itok=dRfA9RhQ https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/p...) is feasible at all? From the (many, oh, so many) hours of KSP I've played landing legs seem to be the way to go with an uneven and uncertain and especially slightly sloped landing surface and not a flat rocket underside. Or is there any explanation how Space Ships are supposed to land? Thanks Thanks

simonh 7y ago
That’s a really early render, from back when starship was going to be made from composite materials. At that time they hadn’t figured out the landing leg system, and anyway it’s changed several times since.