3 ms·
The article is pretty light on details. But it was clear that their previous plan to return the samples by 2040 for $11 billion wouldn't get funded. Doing it fa
by wongarsu 2y ago
The article is pretty light on details. But it was clear that their previous plan to return the samples by 2040 for $11 billion wouldn't get funded. Doing it faster for less money will require some out-of-the-box thinking.
Commercial options to get to earth orbit have been booming ever since SpaceX proved it viable on a startup budget, and commercial resupply of the ISS is an incredible success. Commercial options for delivery to the moon are emerging. Commissioning a commercial provider with delivering the lander to Mars seems like the best long-term option. But it's not immediately obvious if it's the best option from the viewpoint of this single mission. Mars landings are really tricky, and NASA has by far the best track record nailing them.
- fooker 2y ago> SpaceX proved it viable on a startup budget This is like saying Einstein proved it viable to discover groundbreaking physics as a patent clerk.
- wongarsu 2y agoBefore SpaceX we had Virgin Orbit and Blue Origin, two well-funded ventures that were burning money going nowhere, and a bunch of old big defense companies building rockets derived from ICBMs. After SpaceX we have Rocket Lab running a successful smallsat launch service with their Electron rocket, with ambitions for more; Astra making rockets that fit in standard shipping containers (to great interest of military customers); Firefly trying to break into the market of medium lift vehicles and lunar landers; Relativity Space trying to make better rockets with extensive 3d printing; and Stoke Space trying to make medium lift rockets with some whacky engine configurations. And that's just the US, lots of exciting movement in Europe, India and China too. Also let's not forgetting Blue Origin is about to finally launch their first orbital rocket, a design that's clearly inspired by Falcon 9. Sure, maybe of the above only SpaceX and RocketLab can already be called successful launch providers, and SpaceX is like 90% of the US launch market. But even if all the others end up failing, going from old defense companies and failing billionaire's toys to old defense companies, SpaceX, RocketLab and Blue Origin is a massive step up that likely wouldn't have happened without SpaceX
- me_me_me 2y agoI have recently been reading up on Apollo program, and more on the logistical and bureaucratic side. I am convinced the technical achievements have peaked around that time. Apollo was mind boggling complex, and at the time unknown territory. But one of the few reasons it worked was the work culture - pride of what you were doing and being well compensated - and new growing organization free of political appointees and middle-management corporate freeloaders. NASA in those days was razor sharp (not to downplay current achievements of NASA) There are few reasons spaceX will not reach moon, and mars is even more laughable. Starship prime and only reason is to make starlink financially viable. Its a cargo-bus to LEO. Musk is using taxpayers money under false pretense of going to the moon.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Commercial options to get to earth orbit have been booming The pipeline is full. But SpaceX maintains an effective planetary hegemony on LEO.