3 ms·

This isn't a "bold bet", it's a backstop. It's what (little) the Senate will pay for right now. Their one choice. It helps ensure that NASA has at least one way

This isn't a "bold bet", it's a backstop. It's what (little) the Senate will pay for right now. Their one choice. It helps ensure that NASA has at least one way to get large amounts of cargo onto the moon. No actual manned flight is included, and personally, I don't expect Starship to be man-rated soon, or - perhaps - ever. It's not needed for the most dangerous task, which is getting astronauts up to orbit, that's already possible via Dragon. Avoiding putting kerosene soot into the stratosphere is the only reason to prefer sending astronauts into orbit via Starship.

skissane 6y ago
> It helps ensure that NASA has at least one way to get large amounts of cargo onto the moon. No actual manned flight is included, and personally, I don't expect Starship to be man-rated soon That's not true. SpaceX's bid includes at least two lunar landings – at least one uncrewed, and one crewed. (They may have to have more than one uncrewed landing if things unexpectedly go wrong with the first one.) For the crewed landing, Starship will launch from earth, be refuelled in LEO, then travel to lunar orbit and wait there. Up to 3 months later, Orion will launch on SLS with four astronauts and also travel to lunar orbit. Once in lunar orbit, Orion and Starship will rendezvous and dock, and two astronauts will transfer to Starship (the other two stay on Orion). Starship will land those two astronauts on the moon, and then re-dock with Orion, and the four astronauts will use Orion to return to earth. The Starship will be disposed of, probably by landing it again on the Moon's surface, where it will await possible future reuse by a lunar base. (Ideally it would be reused multiple times before disposal, but I don't think that's going to happen at first – how do you inspect/repair it in-between uses if it can't return to Earth?) Starship is not being crew-rated for launch and re-entry as part of this contract, although that is the long-term goal. It is only being crew-rated for in-space use and the lunar landing. Orion will be the vehicle used for crewed launch and re-entry for lunar missions initially. Once Starship is crew-rated for launch and re-entry, that may change.
- Nomentatus 5y ago
  Citations would be welcome. The program includes manned landing, but this contract covers just one part of that program. I looked again, and can't find the contract you say exists.
nickik 6y ago
> It's what (little) the Senate will pay for right now. Their one choice. This is no correct. The typical NASA move in this situation would have been to extend the analysis phase and pull the competitors along. Also, the selection statement quite clearly showed that Starship was by far the best solution in every single segment evaluated, technical, price and management. Had Starship not won the evaluation. NASA would have been required to first engaged the winner in price negotiation and try to square the budget. If this would not have been possible they might have looked to the cheaper competitor or do something else. However, all of that doesn't matter because Starship simply won outright and they could fit it in the budget. > No actual manned flight is included As the other comment stated, this is just flat wrong.

skissane 6y ago

> It helps ensure that NASA has at least one way to get large amounts of cargo onto the moon. No actual manned flight is included, and personally, I don't expect Starship to be man-rated soon That's not true. SpaceX's bid includes at least two lunar landings – at least one uncrewed, and one crewed. (They may have to have more than one uncrewed landing if things unexpectedly go wrong with the first one.) For the crewed landing, Starship will launch from earth, be refuelled in LEO, then travel to lunar orbit and wait there. Up to 3 months later, Orion will launch on SLS with four astronauts and also travel to lunar orbit. Once in lunar orbit, Orion and Starship will rendezvous and dock, and two astronauts will transfer to Starship (the other two stay on Orion). Starship will land those two astronauts on the moon, and then re-dock with Orion, and the four astronauts will use Orion to return to earth. The Starship will be disposed of, probably by landing it again on the Moon's surface, where it will await possible future reuse by a lunar base. (Ideally it would be reused multiple times before disposal, but I don't think that's going to happen at first – how do you inspect/repair it in-between uses if it can't return to Earth?) Starship is not being crew-rated for launch and re-entry as part of this contract, although that is the long-term goal. It is only being crew-rated for in-space use and the lunar landing. Orion will be the vehicle used for crewed launch and re-entry for lunar missions initially. Once Starship is crew-rated for launch and re-entry, that may change.

Nomentatus 5y ago
Citations would be welcome. The program includes manned landing, but this contract covers just one part of that program. I looked again, and can't find the contract you say exists.

nickik 6y ago

> It's what (little) the Senate will pay for right now. Their one choice. This is no correct. The typical NASA move in this situation would have been to extend the analysis phase and pull the competitors along. Also, the selection statement quite clearly showed that Starship was by far the best solution in every single segment evaluated, technical, price and management. Had Starship not won the evaluation. NASA would have been required to first engaged the winner in price negotiation and try to square the budget. If this would not have been possible they might have looked to the cheaper competitor or do something else. However, all of that doesn't matter because Starship simply won outright and they could fit it in the budget. > No actual manned flight is included As the other comment stated, this is just flat wrong.