3 ms·
> His main point was that not one of NASA’s powerpoints even as much acknowledges that something like Starship might come round That's just not true, though. N
by ncallaway 5y ago
> His main point was that not one of NASA’s powerpoints even as much acknowledges that something like Starship might come round
That's just not true, though. NASA awarded the HLS program solely to SpaceX as a Starship lander. The Source Selection Statement of that program (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-a-source-selection-statement-final.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-...) discusses the benefits and drawbacks of Starship in good detail.
It seems wild to claim that NASA doesn't acknowledge that Starship might come around, when they're paying SpaceX specifically for the Starship program, for moon landings with Starship in 2024 (I think we all know that date will slip, but that's the official plan).
- TeMPOraL 5y agoAuthor mentions HLS contract, but their argument is that it's not taking any advantage of economies offered by Starship. It's like a 10th century trader took an offer to use modern long-haul trucks at a fraction of what they pay for horse and cart transport, but failed to update the business to take advantage of the improved range, speed, reliability and cargo capacity. The argument is potent particularly because space mission architectures are designed primarily around constraints of the space launch systems, so choosing Starship as the launch vehicle seems to merit a large expansion in scope, if not total redesign of the program.