5 ms·

I think the author is arguing for NASA to take a cautiously optimist stance on Starship, instead of assuming it won't work at all until it does. For example, N

I think the author is arguing for NASA to take a cautiously optimist stance on Starship, instead of assuming it won't work at all until it does. For example, NASA could start allocating a small-ish budget (e.g. 50M$) to design a parallel mission to their Artemis-IV mission that is currently scheduled for 2026 (but will slip) and that should deliver the Gateway i-HAB module to Moon's orbit. While 50M$ (excluding launch costs) for a mission like this would be lunacy today given the constraints on weight imposed by current rockets, with Starship that would be a sizeable budget to design a much bigger and more useful module. If by some cut-off date (say 2024) Starship still hasn't proven itself, then scrap that mission, proceed with the original one and the wasted 50M$ will be a rounding error in Artemis-IV budget. If Starship proves itself before then, scrap the original mission and go with the redesigned Artemis-IV based on Starship. Billions of dollars will be saved (SLS launch cost + at least 2 years worth of development), and we will have a Lunar Gateway 10 years ahead of what we would have had otherwise in terms of capabilities.

pintxo 5y ago
Isn't the point of most/all big NASA projects to distribute as much money as possible into a specified number of states? Kind a hard then to get political backing to move to a quicker + cheaper project.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  A less cynical person would say that NASA’s role is to employ as many highly qualified aerospace workers as feasible to both keep the workforce updated and advancing space applications and to do the things private companies don’t want to. Now that it seems SpaceX is willing and able to fulfil part of NASA’s mission, maybe it should refocus a bit.
ncallaway 5y ago
> I think the author is arguing for NASA to take a cautiously optimist stance on Starship, instead of assuming it won't work at all until it does. NASA has taken a cautiously optimistic stance on Starship. The assignment of the HLS to Starship and no other provider was an aggressively optimistic stance from NASA that surprised many of the space industry observers at the time of its announcement. The expectation (and normal NASA behavior) would've been two assign the HLS to multiple vendors, at a reduced funding level and stretch the timelines out. So, I'd argue that NASA is already being quite bullish on Starship given the projects and funding that they have available.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  The only way I can reconcile this is political constraints - perhaps they can't feasibly do what the GP proposes, but they could assign HLS to Starship and have some idea on how to capitalize from it "unexpectedly" exceeding expectations. But then, I know nothing about how NASA operates internally.
  - elcritch 5y ago
    It seems much of the politics are external and come from congress pushing their various pork barrel projects.
dflock 5y ago
I don't think it's a very big stretch to think that Blue Origin might well sue NASA if they did this.
- jonathankoren 5y ago
  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Everyone that loses a contract sues the government. Blue Origin already sued over losing a moon lander contract that didn't even meet the minimum requirements. Airbus sued the Air Force after losing the KC-X contract. I'm sure there are others, but those are just two that immediately popped into mind. Trying to a void a lawsuit is how you get nonsense like the LCS where the Navy first opened the bids for a single class of ship, and then when it was time to announce the winner, split the contract between Marinette Marine and Austal.
  - sailingparrot 5y ago
    > Airbus sued the Air Force after losing the KC-X contract You have it backward. Airbus won the contract initially. Boeing sued and managed to get the bidding process restarted from scratch. Boeing won that second bid and Airbus decided to not protest, probably because they knew they had 0 chance against Boeing lobbying power in the US.

pintxo 5y ago

Isn't the point of most/all big NASA projects to distribute as much money as possible into a specified number of states? Kind a hard then to get political backing to move to a quicker + cheaper project.

rbanffy 5y ago
A less cynical person would say that NASA’s role is to employ as many highly qualified aerospace workers as feasible to both keep the workforce updated and advancing space applications and to do the things private companies don’t want to. Now that it seems SpaceX is willing and able to fulfil part of NASA’s mission, maybe it should refocus a bit.

ncallaway 5y ago

> I think the author is arguing for NASA to take a cautiously optimist stance on Starship, instead of assuming it won't work at all until it does. NASA has taken a cautiously optimistic stance on Starship. The assignment of the HLS to Starship and no other provider was an aggressively optimistic stance from NASA that surprised many of the space industry observers at the time of its announcement. The expectation (and normal NASA behavior) would've been two assign the HLS to multiple vendors, at a reduced funding level and stretch the timelines out. So, I'd argue that NASA is already being quite bullish on Starship given the projects and funding that they have available.

TeMPOraL 5y ago
The only way I can reconcile this is political constraints - perhaps they can't feasibly do what the GP proposes, but they could assign HLS to Starship and have some idea on how to capitalize from it "unexpectedly" exceeding expectations. But then, I know nothing about how NASA operates internally.
- elcritch 5y ago
  It seems much of the politics are external and come from congress pushing their various pork barrel projects.

dflock 5y ago

I don't think it's a very big stretch to think that Blue Origin might well sue NASA if they did this.

jonathankoren 5y ago
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Everyone that loses a contract sues the government. Blue Origin already sued over losing a moon lander contract that didn't even meet the minimum requirements. Airbus sued the Air Force after losing the KC-X contract. I'm sure there are others, but those are just two that immediately popped into mind. Trying to a void a lawsuit is how you get nonsense like the LCS where the Navy first opened the bids for a single class of ship, and then when it was time to announce the winner, split the contract between Marinette Marine and Austal.
- sailingparrot 5y ago
  > Airbus sued the Air Force after losing the KC-X contract You have it backward. Airbus won the contract initially. Boeing sued and managed to get the bidding process restarted from scratch. Boeing won that second bid and Airbus decided to not protest, probably because they knew they had 0 chance against Boeing lobbying power in the US.