NASA selects SpaceX as its sole provider for a lunar lander

[PACOX]

I don't what you mean by this statement. NASA is literally letting SpaceX land on the moon, abandoning any pretense of having a viable program. Can you explain what you mean? Because it seems like you say one thing and then immediately contradict it in the next. I know you're not doing that, but I'm just not following your train of thought here.


All evidence suggests just the opposite, or, more accurately, that NASA isn't going to really have any part of a Mars mission landing humans on the surface. Humans on Mars is going to be all SpaceX and other private companies. NASA will be advisers and traffic control facilities.

NASA is doing everything you BUT the actual landing part of the mission. The launch, the transit, lunar orbit, SpaceX will land, NASA does the science mission, SpaceX docks then back with Orion, NASA does the return flight back to Earth, landing on Earth. NASA was ALWAYS going to get a private company to do the landing.

This is the generic plan. The HLS will be SpaceX's 'Starship'. You can ignore the stuff about 'Gateway'. Gateway for initial landings. Orion would directly dock with Starship.





I said the most of the hardware for a Mars trip will be from private companies. The only think NASA will probably build after SLS as far as human spaceflight goes are stations and scientific equipment.

A private company will no head a Mars mission until NASA figures out how to safely get humans from Earth to Mars. We don't don't know how to do yet. Keeping someone on the ISS is easy, actually dealing with deep space travel is a different ballgame. Radiation, supplies, disaster plans, the mental, physical, and emotional health of astronauts. No way NASA isn't micromanaging the process. Then you have landing on Mars, which no one can quite get right except NASA - and you can land people the way NASA landed Curiosity/Perseverance. It's going to take a lot of dry runs before a lander has a person in it.

- - - Updated - - -

Why spend more tax dollars to duplicate what private industry already has and can provide cheaper?

Who has what?

[cubby]

NASA is doing everything you BUT the actual landing part of the mission. The launch, the transit, lunar orbit, SpaceX will land, NASA does the science mission, SpaceX docks then back with Orion, NASA does the return flight back to Earth, landing on Earth. NASA was ALWAYS going to get a private company to do the landing.

This is the generic plan. The HLS will be SpaceX's 'Starship'. You can ignore the stuff about 'Gateway'. Gateway for initial landings. Orion would directly dock with Starship.
I said the most of the hardware for a Mars trip will be from private companies. The only think NASA will probably build after SLS as far as human spaceflight goes are stations and scientific equipment.

Ah, ok - gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. One issue I have with NASA's overall plan is the SLS - which has been a slow burning failure since it's inception 15 years ago. NASA's entire plan relies on that rocket working, and so far they have only had one test flight. And the next one will be with a faulty vehicle, still with no humans on board. That's 15 years for one shitty test launch. Whereas SpaceX has met several launch goals. I can very easily see NASA handing everything over to SpaceX, aside from traffic coordination.

A private company will no head a Mars mission until NASA figures out how to safely get humans from Earth to Mars. We don't don't know how to do yet. Keeping someone on the ISS is easy, actually dealing with deep space travel is a different ballgame. Radiation, supplies, disaster plans, the mental, physical, and emotional health of astronauts. No way NASA isn't micromanaging the process. Then you have landing on Mars, which no one can quite get right except NASA - and you can land people the way NASA landed Curiosity/Perseverance. It's going to take a lot of dry runs before a lander has a person in it.

I disagree entirely with you here. NASA has almost given up on getting humans to Mars (despite their statements, their actions is what I'm speaking of). All the issues you bring up are entirely valid, and would take a clunky organization like NASA decades to address, analyze, and fix. I see SpaceX and Blue Horizon and Virgin making progress towards a human landing on Mars.

One thing NASA can't deal with is the possibility of losing someone during the mission. While a noble mindset, a Mars mission will almost certainly have a fatality, and NASA can't deal with that uncertainty. A private organization can, and will - hence their ability to advance quickly.

[PACOX]

Ah, ok - gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. One issue I have with NASA's overall plan is the SLS - which has been a slow burning failure since it's inception 15 years ago. NASA's entire plan relies on that rocket working, and so far they have only had one test flight. And the next one will be with a faulty vehicle, still with no humans on board. That's 15 years for one shitty test launch. Whereas SpaceX has met several launch goals. I can very easily see NASA handing everything over to SpaceX, aside from traffic coordination.



I disagree entirely with you here. NASA has almost given up on getting humans to Mars (despite their statements, their actions is what I'm speaking of). All the issues you bring up are entirely valid, and would take a clunky organization like NASA decades to address, analyze, and fix. I see SpaceX and Blue Horizon and Virgin making progress towards a human landing on Mars.

One thing NASA can't deal with is the possibility of losing someone during the mission. While a noble mindset, a Mars mission will almost certainly have a fatality, and NASA can't deal with that uncertainty. A private organization can, and will - hence their ability to advance quickly.

I actually think you have who can accept loses in reverse. NASA has unfortunately lost people in tests and in space, and is built to deal with such loses. NASA uses military test pilots and rarely took up civilians for a reason. The first private corporation death in space is going to scrutinized under a microscope. People are going to be asking if civilians should be in space, why the company is being funded, investors will back out. The company will probably bounce back but it will be controversial for awhile.

On whether or not the SLS can fly, it's literally the the Space Shuttle without the orbiter (the space plane part). It will actually use engines and SRBs (modified) left over from the Space Shuttle program. Then orange part of the SLS is a extended version of the one from the shuttle.

Something that's interesting is that unlike the shuttle, NASA won't be reusing parts of the SLS (people forgot that NASA has been reusing parts for decades. SpaceX does it a whole lot sexier and is perfecting the craft though). Supposedly they can build new engines and SRBs (the big rockets on the side) cheaper than refurbishing them - so the first flights using shuttle parts will be more expensive then later flights.




NASA seemingly abandoned Mars plans because contrary to popular belief, a lot of scientists don't see much use in doing it. It's cool and they would love to see it happen but exploration and science expeditions are much better done with robots. Humans will probably spend a lot of time learning how to live in orbit of Mars than actually on its surface like how ocean researchers live in boats and sets robots down to do the actual exploration. Why the moon was abandoned. I think near future plans are an ISS (or the future Lunar Gateway) like structure around Mars that's manned with lab modules which receives samples from Mars via automated launch systems or short term manned expeditions.

[cubby]

I actually think you have who can accept loses in reverse. NASA has unfortunately lost people in tests and in space, and is built to deal with such loses. NASA uses military test pilots and rarely took up civilians for a reason. The first private corporation death in space is going to scrutinized under a microscope. People are going to be asking if civilians should be in space, why the company is being funded, investors will back out. The company will probably bounce back but it will be controversial for awhile.

I disagree - private corporations suffer loss totals equal or higher than the government (excluding military, of course). SpaceX is already setting expectations with Musk's recent statement about people dying during their quest to land people, and eventually a colony, on Mars. I agree it will be scrutinized, but at the same time, they will bounce back MUCH faster than the government would in the same situation.

On whether or not the SLS can fly, it's literally the the Space Shuttle without the orbiter (the space plane part). It will actually use engines and SRBs (modified) left over from the Space Shuttle program. Then orange part of the SLS is a extended version of the one from the shuttle.

The SLS has never flown. You're saying it's literally something - but regardless of what it's supposed to represent, it still hasn't flown. I know you're going to say, "well, neither has SpaceX's Starship" - but at the same time, SpaceX has already perfected an entire rocket launch and landing system in the same time period that NASA has not launched anything. Neither of us are going to be right, of course, until one of us actually is. But so far SpaceX has a much better recent track record than NASA.

Something that's interesting is that unlike the shuttle, NASA won't be reusing parts of the SLS (people forgot that NASA has been reusing parts for decades. SpaceX does it a whole lot sexier and is perfecting the craft though). Supposedly they can build new engines and SRBs (the big rockets on the side) cheaper than refurbishing them - so the first flights using shuttle parts will be more expensive then later flights.

Interesting.

NASA seemingly abandoned Mars plans because contrary to popular belief, a lot of scientists don't see much use in doing it. It's cool and they would love to see it happen but exploration and science expeditions are much better done with robots. Humans will probably spend a lot of time learning how to live in orbit of Mars than actually on its surface like how ocean researchers live in boats and sets robots down to do the actual exploration. Why the moon was abandoned. I think near future plans are an ISS (or the future Lunar Gateway) like structure around Mars that's manned with lab modules which receives samples from Mars via automated launch systems or short term manned expeditions.

I can definitely see NASA prioritizing an orbiting space station like structure around Mars rather than landing, whereas the private corporations will prioritize landing and colonizing. In fact, that might be how NASA divides up the Mars pie, so to speak.

There is definitely a faction in NASA that prefers an all robot exploration of space. But while robots can do a lot, then can only do what they are programed to do. Whereas once we get a human safely onto something, and with the supplies and equipment to live/explore/science, any number of tasks can be accomplished, all without having to build an entire new robot.

Short term robots are great - and are frankly kicking ass on Mars. Long term a colony on Mars will happen, and the private companies will figure out a way to make it pay for itself.

[CostinR]

I disagree entirely with you here. NASA has almost given up on getting humans to Mars (despite their statements, their actions is what I'm speaking of). All the issues you bring up are entirely valid, and would take a clunky organization like NASA decades to address, analyze, and fix.

Congress wants NASA to send people back to Mars. It doesn't matter what NASA wants to do, Congress will make them do it and if they drag their feet SpaceX will push them: Starship is happening whether or not NASA funds it.

Now of course for a while it looked like NASA would try and push for a direct Mars mission, until Space Policy Directive 1 was signed by Trump, effectively creating the Artemis program though it would take over two years for it to get that name. Why did Trump decide that? Likely because his National Space Council realized that going to the Moon would be a great warm up for Mars.

[cubby]

Congress wants NASA to send people back to Mars. It doesn't matter what NASA wants to do, Congress will make them do it and if they drag their feet SpaceX will push them: Starship is happening whether or not NASA funds it.

Now of course for a while it looked like NASA would try and push for a direct Mars mission, until Space Policy Directive 1 was signed by Trump, effectively creating the Artemis program though it would take over two years for it to get that name. Why did Trump decide that? Likely because his National Space Council realized that going to the Moon would be a great warm up for Mars.

I think Mars Direct and Moon First can be in the same breath - Moon Orbiter/Base gets us a step closer to Mars.

Agreed about Starship - Musk is taking his people to Mars, and more than likely might want to die there himself. He just put out something regarding those wanting to go, it will be akin to the 1900's expedition of the Artic - dangerous and highly unsurvivable.

One thing in the overall Mission-to-Mars thought is whether they will have people coming back. I always assumed so, for lots of different reasons, but now I wonder if they will also offer one-way trips, to those that are interested.

[smityx]

Why waste time and effort to just send a man to the moon again.

Increased knowledge and experience of landing a manned craft on another celestial body. Example: How to handle the dust kicked up during landing and launch.

[PACOX]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/30/nasa...hallenges.html

SpaceX might not get its landing contract.


While the companies do make valid arguments, they are not putting up the same collateral as SpaceX. The SpaceX option is the most risky but they are at least working towards something

I don't even know what Blue Origin's HLS will be. Maybe it's the New Glenn (their version of Starship)? I hope not because they are far behind SpaceX. Something like New Shepard? That would actually be fitting but then NASA would have to fly it to the Moon. Starship would be able to fly itself to the Moon.

Dynamics (I believe that's their name) has a cool lander that would get the job done. They face the same problem as Blue Origin though, they would need a separate SLS flight and SLSs won't be cheap. SLS is made for super heavy lifting but NASA isn't trying to lift anything it doesn't have to.

Starship shouldn't be what the only option though. It's a single point of failure for Artemis that could delay the entire program or kill it. I really don't understand why NASA would want a single lander when they felt it necessary to award two contracts for something simple as the ISS missions (we're still waiting for Boeing to get its shit together). You would have to think they would have awarded multiple landing contracts as well.

[Edge-]

Dynamics (I believe that's their name) has a cool lander that would get the job done. They face the same problem as Blue Origin though, they would need a separate SLS flight and SLSs won't be cheap. SLS is made for super heavy lifting but NASA isn't trying to lift anything it doesn't have to.

Dynetics. And they had separate issues like apparently their math was uh...fictional and presumed a negative weight, like it just legit didn't work. It was in that excel grid that was floating about for a while, plus apparently they had no test program as a part of their submitted plan IIRC.

I honestly don't know why NASA would take either company seriously though. The list of problems with each submitted proposal (including Bezos asking for payment up-front and wanting to keep patents) was pretty lengthy (especially compared to SpaceX) and none of them are like, actually even launching rockets delivering anything into space. Like it or not, SpaceX appears to remain the most practical choice if NASA wants to actually get something done without it getting delayed a decade and doubling the budget.

[Nerraw]

without it getting delayed a decade and doubling the budget.

Which is the goal of Old Space. Gotta milk that teat for as much money as possible.

[Easo]

I pretty much expect some court proceedings regarding the lander. I mean look at the bullshit in USA military procurements. Now we have the same companies involved here with some hipster upstart trying to take their place.

[bladeXcrasher]

I honestly don't know why NASA would take either company seriously though. The list of problems with each submitted proposal (including Bezos asking for payment up-front and wanting to keep patents) was pretty lengthy (especially compared to SpaceX) and none of them are like, actually even launching rockets delivering anything into space. Like it or not, SpaceX appears to remain the most practical choice if NASA wants to actually get something done without it getting delayed a decade and doubling the budget.

This.

Everyone else is still building glorified sounding rockets, or for the ones putting small satellites up, it's just that, small satellites.

[PC2]

Sounds good. Governments should exist to empower the private sector, not the other way around.

[Beazy]

Did SN15 launch get scrapped today?

[Nerraw]

Did SN15 launch get scrapped today?

Yep. Next attempt tomorrow.

[Beazy]

Yep. Next attempt tomorrow.

Is there a place to see if a launch is scrubbed or not? I cant find it for the life of me. I have to watch a live stream video and wait for people to say "launch scrubbed".

[Nerraw]

Is there a place to see if a launch is scrubbed or not? I cant find it for the life of me. I have to watch a live stream video and wait for people to say "launch scrubbed".

I just follow a bunch of space people on twitter. Word spreads fast in that grouping. For the actual sources it's a mix of people on location getting updates about road closures and people following the FAA notifications.

[dwarven]

Elon recently mentioned using continuous, controlled nuclear detonations at the poles of Mars to melt the ice and create a breathable atmosphere. I really like what Elon is doing, but this idea just made me think of a nuclear war happening between planets. Imagine a solar system where 2 different planets each supported intelligent life and this ended up happening.

[Easo]

Elon recently mentioned using continuous, controlled nuclear detonations at the poles of Mars to melt the ice and create a breathable atmosphere. I really like what Elon is doing, but this idea just made me think of a nuclear war happening between planets. Imagine a solar system where 2 different planets each supported intelligent life and this ended up happening.

Expanse, basically.

[PC2]

Elon recently mentioned using continuous, controlled nuclear detonations at the poles of Mars to melt the ice and create a breathable atmosphere. I really like what Elon is doing, but this idea just made me think of a nuclear war happening between planets. Imagine a solar system where 2 different planets each supported intelligent life and this ended up happening.

Humanity can incrementally de-militarize before that point though. Eventually China, Russia, and the West wont want to hurt each other so we can downsize the military and nuclear arsenals.

Expanse, basically.

Well in that case maybe Martians should have nukes because Earth is still overly aggressive in that scenario. Martian culture in The Expanse is superior to Earth culture so I'd side with Mars in that case.