4 ms·

Is this realistic? Doesn't the development timelines for a new large rocket stretch into more than a decade? Unless someone else had one under development...

Is this realistic? Doesn't the development timelines for a new large rocket stretch into more than a decade? Unless someone else had one under development... Could this just be a pressure tactic on SpaceX?

rsynnott 1y ago
As mentioned in the article (of course I realise we mustn't read those here) Blue Origin is supposed to be providing a lander in 2030 in any case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_V https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_V), so doesn't seem like a _huge_ stretch. Somewhat surprised they've waited this long, under the circumstances.
- chasd00 1y ago
  I was about to post that Blue Origin is the only possible candidate for a competitor to SpaceX and they're not even close. More competition is needed but it's like saying more competition is needed for the hyperscalers, going from zero to on par is very hard and even with the time and money you still need the talent.
madaxe_again 1y ago
This contract isn’t for launch - that will be SLS (in theory) - rather for the lander.
- loourr 1y ago
  Which highlights how unserious this whole thing is. SLS hardly works and is way behind schedule.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
ACCount37 1y ago
Blue Origin is explicitly named in Duffy's statement. And if SpaceX's Starship HLS catches enough delays, they can slide into Blue Origin's Blue Moon HLS timeline - which is now being developed for Artemis 5, in 2030. On top of working on a HLS lander, Blue Origin has a pretty large rocket developed already - New Glenn. They just don't have the reusability or the launch cadence, and their HLS needs at least two launches. So far, New Glenn has only ever flown once, with the first stage recovery attempt being unsuccessful. But they may get it into a good shape in time. I do think that Artemis 3, currently stated for 2027, will be eventually delayed to ~2030, for many reasons. But I wouldn't trust Blue Origin to deliver before SpaceX even if they started the development at the same exact time, and they didn't. SpaceX is, by aerospace standards, a lean and mean company. SpaceX sets unhinged hyper-aggressive "if we lived in a perfect world" timelines, and delivers late. Blue Origin sets reasonable aerospace timelines, and still delivers late. Blue Moon HLS is considerably less complex than Starship HLS, but it has a lot of the same milestones in front of it - including in-orbit propellant storage and fuel transfers from one vehicle to another. And currently, they certainly don't seem to be ahead of where SpaceX is now with Starship. Other than Blue Origin and SpaceX? I just don't see anyone being able to squeeze out a HLS candndate in time for 2030. Who else is there in the space, with anywhere near the expertise? Firefly? Boeing?
- floating-io 1y ago
  > Blue Moon HLS is considerably less complex than Starship HLS That's the one thing in your comment I disagree with. Starship-based HLS has basically one base vehicle, modified into three variants (tanker, depot, and the lander itself). Refueling is done in LEO. Blue Origin's HLS has three completely unique vehicles with no commonality (New Glenn, Transporter, and the lander), and refuels in multiple orbits, one of which is NRHO, which is likely to be far more challenging. And they're doing it with hydrogen. Blue Origin's Mk1 cargo lander is simpler; their HLS architecture is not. JMHO.
  - ACCount37 1y ago
    I do think that Blue Origin HLS is less complex overall, but I agree that they aren't dealing with the same kind of complexity. Both companies are playing to their strengths there. A major weakness of SpaceX's HLS approach is that it requires them to launch a lot of the same vehicle in a fairly short succession. But SpaceX are the kings of high volume aerospace manufacturing, and they are the driving force behind US launch cadence going up. Even if Starship reusability isn't truly perfected in time for Artemis HLS, they are already building those Starships pretty fast, and can eat some refueling vehicle losses. Blue Origin doesn't have the raw performance figures of Starship, or SpaceX's unmatched manufacturing and launch cadence. So their HLS architecture is lighter and less launch hungry. That comes at an engineering cost of having to use more specialized vehicles. And they are using LH2 fuel - which delivers more of a punch per weight, but is even harder to stay on top of than CH4. More engineering effort would be required to store and transfer that in orbit, dealing with boil-off and all - but Blue Origin has used liquid hydrogen extensively already, so they have experience with it.
mrieck 1y ago
Sir! Elon has responded to our pressure tactic. Your interview seems to have had an effect. "Well - what did he say?" It's better if you see for yourself. GIF reply "why are you gae" (this was his actual response btw)
zugi 1y ago
> Could this just be a pressure tactic on SpaceX? Yes! I'm disappointed I had to scroll down so far to see this. The CNN headline isn't even accurate. The actual NASA statement is: > "I’m going to open up the contract. I’m going to let other space companies compete with SpaceX." SpaceX is behind schedule, but still years ahead of its competitors. No one is even in the same ballpark on the main metric that ultimately matters: dollars per kilogram to orbit. The main effect of this NASA statement, or of NASA sending a few dollars to SpaceX's competitors, is to give SpaceX a kick in the pants.
- cubefox 1y ago
  I think SpaceX can't accelerate much. They are already operating on a higher speed than (arguably) any other space company.

rsynnott 1y ago

As mentioned in the article (of course I realise we mustn't read those here) Blue Origin is supposed to be providing a lander in 2030 in any case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_V https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_V), so doesn't seem like a _huge_ stretch. Somewhat surprised they've waited this long, under the circumstances.

chasd00 1y ago
I was about to post that Blue Origin is the only possible candidate for a competitor to SpaceX and they're not even close. More competition is needed but it's like saying more competition is needed for the hyperscalers, going from zero to on par is very hard and even with the time and money you still need the talent.

madaxe_again 1y ago

This contract isn’t for launch - that will be SLS (in theory) - rather for the lander.

loourr 1y ago
Which highlights how unserious this whole thing is. SLS hardly works and is way behind schedule.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

ACCount37 1y ago

Blue Origin is explicitly named in Duffy's statement. And if SpaceX's Starship HLS catches enough delays, they can slide into Blue Origin's Blue Moon HLS timeline - which is now being developed for Artemis 5, in 2030. On top of working on a HLS lander, Blue Origin has a pretty large rocket developed already - New Glenn. They just don't have the reusability or the launch cadence, and their HLS needs at least two launches. So far, New Glenn has only ever flown once, with the first stage recovery attempt being unsuccessful. But they may get it into a good shape in time. I do think that Artemis 3, currently stated for 2027, will be eventually delayed to ~2030, for many reasons. But I wouldn't trust Blue Origin to deliver before SpaceX even if they started the development at the same exact time, and they didn't. SpaceX is, by aerospace standards, a lean and mean company. SpaceX sets unhinged hyper-aggressive "if we lived in a perfect world" timelines, and delivers late. Blue Origin sets reasonable aerospace timelines, and still delivers late. Blue Moon HLS is considerably less complex than Starship HLS, but it has a lot of the same milestones in front of it - including in-orbit propellant storage and fuel transfers from one vehicle to another. And currently, they certainly don't seem to be ahead of where SpaceX is now with Starship. Other than Blue Origin and SpaceX? I just don't see anyone being able to squeeze out a HLS candndate in time for 2030. Who else is there in the space, with anywhere near the expertise? Firefly? Boeing?

floating-io 1y ago
> Blue Moon HLS is considerably less complex than Starship HLS That's the one thing in your comment I disagree with. Starship-based HLS has basically one base vehicle, modified into three variants (tanker, depot, and the lander itself). Refueling is done in LEO. Blue Origin's HLS has three completely unique vehicles with no commonality (New Glenn, Transporter, and the lander), and refuels in multiple orbits, one of which is NRHO, which is likely to be far more challenging. And they're doing it with hydrogen. Blue Origin's Mk1 cargo lander is simpler; their HLS architecture is not. JMHO.
- ACCount37 1y ago
  I do think that Blue Origin HLS is less complex overall, but I agree that they aren't dealing with the same kind of complexity. Both companies are playing to their strengths there. A major weakness of SpaceX's HLS approach is that it requires them to launch a lot of the same vehicle in a fairly short succession. But SpaceX are the kings of high volume aerospace manufacturing, and they are the driving force behind US launch cadence going up. Even if Starship reusability isn't truly perfected in time for Artemis HLS, they are already building those Starships pretty fast, and can eat some refueling vehicle losses. Blue Origin doesn't have the raw performance figures of Starship, or SpaceX's unmatched manufacturing and launch cadence. So their HLS architecture is lighter and less launch hungry. That comes at an engineering cost of having to use more specialized vehicles. And they are using LH2 fuel - which delivers more of a punch per weight, but is even harder to stay on top of than CH4. More engineering effort would be required to store and transfer that in orbit, dealing with boil-off and all - but Blue Origin has used liquid hydrogen extensively already, so they have experience with it.

mrieck 1y ago

Sir! Elon has responded to our pressure tactic. Your interview seems to have had an effect. "Well - what did he say?" It's better if you see for yourself. GIF reply "why are you gae" (this was his actual response btw)

zugi 1y ago

> Could this just be a pressure tactic on SpaceX? Yes! I'm disappointed I had to scroll down so far to see this. The CNN headline isn't even accurate. The actual NASA statement is: > "I’m going to open up the contract. I’m going to let other space companies compete with SpaceX." SpaceX is behind schedule, but still years ahead of its competitors. No one is even in the same ballpark on the main metric that ultimately matters: dollars per kilogram to orbit. The main effect of this NASA statement, or of NASA sending a few dollars to SpaceX's competitors, is to give SpaceX a kick in the pants.

cubefox 1y ago
I think SpaceX can't accelerate much. They are already operating on a higher speed than (arguably) any other space company.