NASA Names Companies To Develop Human Landers For Artemis Moon Missions (nasa.gov) 39
New submitter penandpaper shares an excerpt from a NASA press release: NASA has selected three U.S. companies to design and develop human landing systems (HLS) for the agency's Artemis program, one of which will land the first woman and next man on the surface of the Moon by 2024. NASA is on track for sustainable human exploration of the Moon for the first time in history. The human landing system awards under the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP-2) Appendix H Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) are firm-fixed price, milestone-based contracts. The total combined value for all awarded contracts is $967 million for the 10-month base period. The following companies were selected to design and build human landing systems:
- Blue Origin of Kent, Washington, is developing the Integrated Lander Vehicle (ILV) -- a three-stage lander to be launched on its own New Glenn Rocket System and ULA Vulcan launch system.
- Dynetics (a Leidos company) of Huntsville, Alabama, is developing the Dynetics Human Landing System (DHLS) -- a single structure providing the ascent and descent capabilities that will launch on the ULA Vulcan launch system.
- SpaceX of Hawthorne, California, is developing the Starship -- a fully integrated lander that will use the SpaceX Super Heavy rocket. "With these contract awards, America is moving forward with the final step needed to land astronauts on the Moon by 2024, including the incredible moment when we will see the first woman set foot on the lunar surface," said NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine. "This is the first time since the Apollo era that NASA has direct funding for a human landing system, and now we have companies on contract to do the work for the Artemis program."
Further reading: SpaceX and NASA Break Down What Their Historic First Astronaut Mission Will Look Like
- Blue Origin of Kent, Washington, is developing the Integrated Lander Vehicle (ILV) -- a three-stage lander to be launched on its own New Glenn Rocket System and ULA Vulcan launch system.
- Dynetics (a Leidos company) of Huntsville, Alabama, is developing the Dynetics Human Landing System (DHLS) -- a single structure providing the ascent and descent capabilities that will launch on the ULA Vulcan launch system.
- SpaceX of Hawthorne, California, is developing the Starship -- a fully integrated lander that will use the SpaceX Super Heavy rocket. "With these contract awards, America is moving forward with the final step needed to land astronauts on the Moon by 2024, including the incredible moment when we will see the first woman set foot on the lunar surface," said NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine. "This is the first time since the Apollo era that NASA has direct funding for a human landing system, and now we have companies on contract to do the work for the Artemis program."
Further reading: SpaceX and NASA Break Down What Their Historic First Astronaut Mission Will Look Like
SLS platform (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:SLS platform (Score:4, Informative)
If it was only $100M per that would be a bargain compared to what they are actually paying [arstechnica.com].
Each SLS launch is going to cost $600M just for the engines The only reason this thing wasn't scrapped years ago is to make powerful constituencies in Congress happy.
Re:SLS platform (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what happens when you let lawyers run an engineering program.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, it DOES hurt NASA's budget, along with our future.
Three PRIME contractors. Usual players otherwise. (Score:4, Informative)
As per the CNBC
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/3... [cnbc.com]
"Blue Origin partnered with two larger aerospace companies: Lockheed Martin for the ascent module and Northrop Grumman for what is called the transfer module."
So yeah, NASA picked these three "new" prime contractors, and they're going to give money to Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.
My bet is Boeing will be part of that, although they missed being a prime contractor.
The only one of the three who isn't giving money to the "usual players" is SpaceX. They were also allotted 14% of the funds for the project. ...and this is before the "usual suspects" go to NASA and request additional funds to finish the project...
Once again SpaceX will be the little train that could... and the Lockheed Martins and Northrop Grummans and Boeings will collect much more than SpaceX will for delivering... nothing. It's good to have your manufacturing plants in states where powerful senators live.
E
Re:Three PRIME contractors. Usual players otherwis (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, those two are also the only ones making a normal descent/ascent vehicle as we know it from the Apollo days. Compared to what NASA asked for Starship comes from way out left field with a completely different concept shoehorned into a lunar lander. SpaceX knew they'd be an outsider in this race, priced it right and got a bit of cash for an highly experimental third choice. As long as the scope of the contract was what it was I really don't think it could have gone any better for them, sure the whole SLS / Orion / Lunar Gateway plan is a giant cluster fuck and money sink but when they're contracting out bits and pieces your solutions have to fit their plans. And in this case SpaceX had to use a sledge hammer to make a square peg fit a round hole.
The good thing is that this brings a lot of things that SpaceX wanted anyway, like the Starship needs to get man rated. They need the engines working. They get deep space navigation and landing experience, even if the Moon isn't Mars it's closer like no GPS and no paved landing sites. And it'll be a lot easier to steal other bits and pieces of the mission, like why can't we launch them on a Crew Dragon and transfer them to Starship once the lander is fueled up. They're just waiting for SLS to slip up too far and come in as a backup plan to keep the schedule on time. It's too early now but maybe in a year or so when hopefully Starship is a far more proven rocket. Not that I really think the SLS will ever get cancelled before launching, they need to show it off to say it wasn't totally pointless before decommissioning it.
Re: (Score:2)
why can't we launch them on a Crew Dragon and transfer them to Starship
That's more like Von Braun's original vision, launch multiple modules, assemble them on orbit, and then send the crew up. It would have given a mission a month on the Moon rather than a few days. Then the "by the end of the decade" statement was carved into stone and there wasn't time to learn how to do all of that.
Re: (Score:2)
for an highly experimental third choice.
I have seen a number of ppl declare the same thing. To be fair, NASA rated this the furthest out. Yet, if you ask me, it is the LEAST experimental.
Before BFS goes to the moon, it will have gone to orbit here and then landed under it own power, back on earth. Other than coming in at a higher speed, SX has already done this.
As such, it will be the MOST tested and least experimental. In fact, the others will have the least time/testing when they go to the moon since they are incapable of landing on earth
The Transgender Lander (Score:1)
So they already know it's going to be one female and one male astronaut. Looks like transgender astronauts will need to get their own mission at a later time.
Re: The Transgender Lander (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually I am serious, because we're living in an age where the definition of gender has become fluid. If you want to make this about people's state of mind then go ahead, but I'm not going to join in with you. I find the idea that it has to be one man and one woman backwards. I doubt it has much to do with gathering scientific data on women in space as we should have plenty from past Space Shuttle & ISS missions, but even if it was about that could one equally decide on an all women crew, because it wa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So does Japan, and, for that matter, China. Doesn't seem to have hurt them much.
Dianetics? (Score:1)
If Only Press Releases Landed People On The Moon (Score:5, Insightful)
Independent space analysts have been unanimously brutal about this supposed plan to put return to the Moon in four years (at this point), See for example this [technologyreview.com] and this [thespacereview.com].
The story so far - in Dec. 2017 Trump declared that the U.S. was going to return to the Moon in 2028. For what purpose? Supposedly it is to help us get to Mars, although no one has ever been able to provide a coherent explanation of how this actually helps going to Mars (other than - if we do "stuff in space" then it helps). Currently the only purpose of mission that has been described is just to "do it".
15 months later Pence made a speech that astonished every observer by changing the date to 2024. Why? No reason for suddenly cutting the schedule in half was really offered, but It would appear that it is simply so that it would occur before the end of a second Trump Administration - pure political aggrandizement, of if you prefer, a campaign commercial for 2020 (at taxpayer expense).
The program has so little funding at this point (less than the cost of a single Shuttle launch) that it can scarcely be said to exist in reality. It consists of announcing plans, but speeches and press releases (and websites, etc.) really have not been demonstrated to be effective ways of executing manned space missions. When Pence made his speech there were 57 months until the end of 2024, 15 of them have already disappeared without any sign that a coherent effort has taken form.
It is just as well that nothing much has been spent on this, as this scheme is going to be but a memory next year.
Re: (Score:3)
If anyone here is a fan of Robert Zubrin (or the National Review) you might want to read his take on this [marssociety.org]. Regardless of how one regards Zubrin, it cannot be denied that he really want to send humans to Mars and he can see that the "Artemis" program is not going to help this in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
if we do "stuff in space" then it helps
Well, yeah, that's exactly the point. Humans didn't leave Africa and walk directly to Tierra de Fuego, you need to learn **HOW** to get from here to there before you can actually do it. A big advantage for the Moon is that it's within a viable emergency mission abort range, which we needed to do with Apollo 13. Once escape velocity has been achieved a Mars mission is committed to a multiyear voyage no matter what.
The other enormous advantage that the Moon has over Mars is that there are resources there t
Re: (Score:2)
A big advantage for the Moon is that it's within a viable emergency mission abort range, which we needed to do with Apollo 13.
Well obviously Apollo 13 did happen so there's a non-zero chance but how often do we really expect failures that keep both the ship in one piece and the crew alive, with enough engine functionality and life support to get them back? My impression was that they were extremely lucky to survive the initial explosion and it was by the skin of their teeth that the rescue mission succeeded. Like I'm thinking the mission risk is 99% the chance of a failure and 1% the chance that it's salvageable.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if we send people into space, some of them will die. We have to be willing to accept that, or we shouldn't play.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, they gave $100 million to SpaceX. That's enough to ensure they land on the moon instead of just flying around it and then heading to Mars.
Going to the moon is almost certainly more useful that going to Mars. The moon is a much better place to build an industrial base and to serve Earth orbit infrastructure development.
Re: (Score:2)
Other than distance, Mars is a MUCH better place for going to. Far safer. Probably more resources. etc. The only thing is, the gravity well is 2x the moons. However, what really makes sense for going to the moon first is none of what you said, but Mars has to be ECONOMICAL. THe only thing stopping us, has never been technical, but pure economics. The moon makes things economic, esp. for earth launch. Why? Because it will most likely involve a weekly+ launch, as opposed to a few ever 2 years.
Re: (Score:2)
What you've said is great, if you're a politician. Let's put some boots on ${HIGHEST_STATUS_TARGET_WE_CAN_THINK_OF}, plant a flag, and show we're the greatest!
You mention economical. A weekly launch to the moon isn't economical. That's why Apollo got cancelled. Mining resources and building stuff that benefits the biggest economy in the solar system (Earth)? That's economical. You're not going to be doing that on Mars.
Re: If Only Press Releases Landed People On The Mo (Score:2)
The moon comes to mind.
Re: If Only Press Releases Landed People On The M (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is some value to "leaning by doing". I think its easy for ideas to drift into fantasy-land if they are not anchored by the need to make real devices work. Otherwise you can end up with the most outrageous proposals being favored because they sound great on paper.
That only makes sense though if you really do things and that takes a tremendous amount of money. I'm in favor of the US going back to the moon and then to Mars, but unless there is *serious* funding, >$10B/year to start and then grow
Re: (Score:2)
U.S. was going to return to the Moon in 2028. For what purpose? Supposedly it is to help us get to Mars, although no one has ever been able to provide a coherent explanation of how this actually helps going to Mars (other than - if we do "stuff in space" then it helps). Currently the only purpose of mission that has been described is just to "do it".
Three other countries have announced their intentions to put people on the Moon in the near future. The US will not allow another country to be first on the Moon the second time around too. That is the only reason that this got ramped up all of a sudden.
Daughters of Artemis in Elis (Score:2)
Never can find them.
altheqa (Score:1)
Political Motivation (Score:2)
The reason the US is returning to the moon now is because of the Chinese manned moon program. Just like the last time, the reason is political, not scientific.
Given funding and absence of political meddling, NASA would explore the solar system with uncrewed spacecraft, i.e. robots. NASA wants to do science.
Sending people into space is mostly about politics, not about science.