NASA Wants Another Moon Lander For Artemis Astronauts, Not Just SpaceX's Starship (space.com) 113
NASA plans to encourage the development of another commercial vehicle that can land its Artemis astronauts on the moon. Space.com reports: In April 2021, NASA picked SpaceX to build the first crewed lunar lander for the agency's Artemis program, which is working to put astronauts on the moon in the mid-2020s and establish a sustainable human presence on and around Earth's nearest neighbor by the end of the decade. But SpaceX apparently won't have the moon-landing market cornered: NASA announced today (March 23) that it plans to support the development of a second privately built crewed lunar lander.
"This strategy expedites progress toward a long-term, sustaining lander capability as early as the 2026 or 2027 timeframe," Lisa Watson-Morgan, program manager for the Human Landing System Program at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama, said in a statement today. "We expect to have two companies safely carry astronauts in their landers to the surface of the moon under NASA's guidance before we ask for services, which could result in multiple experienced providers in the market," Watson-Morgan added. [...] Congress is "committed to ensuring that we have more than one lander to choose [from] for future missions," [NASA Administrator Bill Nelson] said during a news conference today, citing conversations he's had with people on Capitol Hill over the past year. "We're expecting to have both Congress support and that of the Biden administration," Nelson said. "And we're expecting to get this competition started in the fiscal year [20]23 budget."
Exact funding amounts and other details should be coming next week when the White House releases its 2023 federal budget request, he added. "So what we're doing today is a bit of a preview," Nelson said. "I think you'll find it's an indication that there are good things to come for this agency and, if we're right, good things to come for all of humanity." NASA plans to release a draft request for proposals (RFP) for the second moon lander by the end of the month and a final RFP later this spring, agency officials said. If all goes according to plan, NASA will pick the builder of the new vehicle in early 2023. That craft will have the ability to dock with Gateway, the small moon-orbiting space station that NASA plans to build, and take people and scientific gear from there to the surface (and back). This newly announced competition will be open to all American companies except SpaceX. But Elon Musk's company will have the opportunity to negotiate the terms of its existing contract to perform additional lunar development work, NASA officials said during today's news conference.
"This strategy expedites progress toward a long-term, sustaining lander capability as early as the 2026 or 2027 timeframe," Lisa Watson-Morgan, program manager for the Human Landing System Program at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama, said in a statement today. "We expect to have two companies safely carry astronauts in their landers to the surface of the moon under NASA's guidance before we ask for services, which could result in multiple experienced providers in the market," Watson-Morgan added. [...] Congress is "committed to ensuring that we have more than one lander to choose [from] for future missions," [NASA Administrator Bill Nelson] said during a news conference today, citing conversations he's had with people on Capitol Hill over the past year. "We're expecting to have both Congress support and that of the Biden administration," Nelson said. "And we're expecting to get this competition started in the fiscal year [20]23 budget."
Exact funding amounts and other details should be coming next week when the White House releases its 2023 federal budget request, he added. "So what we're doing today is a bit of a preview," Nelson said. "I think you'll find it's an indication that there are good things to come for this agency and, if we're right, good things to come for all of humanity." NASA plans to release a draft request for proposals (RFP) for the second moon lander by the end of the month and a final RFP later this spring, agency officials said. If all goes according to plan, NASA will pick the builder of the new vehicle in early 2023. That craft will have the ability to dock with Gateway, the small moon-orbiting space station that NASA plans to build, and take people and scientific gear from there to the surface (and back). This newly announced competition will be open to all American companies except SpaceX. But Elon Musk's company will have the opportunity to negotiate the terms of its existing contract to perform additional lunar development work, NASA officials said during today's news conference.
time for a joint venture with Russia or China (Score:1)
Seriously, we gotta put an end to the political shenanigans of our corrupt governments and start working on a common vision for the future of all of us.
Re: (Score:2)
start working on a common vision for the future of all of us.
All of us except the Ukrainians, I guess. Somehow I'd doubt they'd characterize the invasion of their country and murder of their civilians as "shenanigans", but what do I know?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, do you think Russia and the CCP are communist? Why would you think that? Russia doesn't even pretend to be communist anymore. China pretends, but they have a damn stock market! They have private ownership of the means of production, they, like Russia, are authoritarian capitalists. Capitalism won dude. There is no more communism, except for maybe Cuba. There's plenty of reasons to hate Russia and the CCP, you don't need to invent political ideologies that no longer exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ivan? Dude, Russia has been capitalist for thirty years. How dense are you ?I bet you are thinking of authoritarianism. Authoritarians suck. Communism is when the workers control the means of production. If that isn't happening, it's not communism, at all.
Do the workers control the means of production in Russia or China? No, the means of production are owned by private individuals, or the state, and there is no democracy in Russia or China, so the workers do not control the state.
It's just more gangster cap
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Awww, you don't have to admit that you know nothing about communism, or that you have absolutely no argument to present, but I do appreciate you conceding defeat in such a gentlemanly fashion. Thanks bud.
Re: time for a joint venture with Russia or China (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The workers do not control the means of production in China. They are communist like the DPKR is a democracy: in name only. China is state capitalism, the party owns and controls the means of production. That is about as far from communism as any other form of capitalism is.
The fact that there is a means for "westerners" to invest in China is absolute proof it isn't communism. It may be "just for show" but if they were to just nationalize anything westerners own, China would be cut off faster than Russia wa
Re: (Score:2)
"Seriously, we gotta put an end to the political shenanigans" - no, we need to put an end to corrupt and Communist regimes. Working with these ass-hats just emboldens them to commit crimes against humanity.
What - you're going to declare war on the United States?
Re: time for a joint venture with Russia or China (Score:2)
But Putin/Russia is not communist. They are pure far right fascist. The same government that Trumpers wanted.
Re: (Score:1)
Russia isn't communist, socialist, or fascist. They're probably closest to a British Parliament type government than anything else. It's really not cool to just call anything you don't like fascist. Let's call fascists fascists and no one else.
Re: time for a joint venture with Russia or China (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You've been mislead. A lot of people have. The left loves to deny their past.
First citation - https://ivesguy.com/where-does... [ivesguy.com]
"Fascism is as far left as you can go on the political spectrum. The left owns it. I didn’t make up the rules here, it’s just the way it is. You show me a form of government that has total control over the people and I’ll show you far left on the political spectrum."
Another citation at random and one that explains all of this - https://thedailyjournalist.com... [thedailyjournalist.com]
Tried that about a thousand times (Score:2)
Partnerships with China have been done many, many times.
A typical example is Schwinn bicycles. For decades, Schwinn was far and away the most popular bicycle brand. To the point the government sought to have them declared a monopoly under the Sherman Act.
In 1979, Schwinn started a partnership with a Chinese company, Giant, to produce some bicycles. A few years later, they added a deal with China Bicycle Company.
Both Giant and CBC started making bikes from the Schwinn plans and dies and selling them direct,
Re: (Score:2)
In 1979, Schwinn started a partnership with a Chinese company, Giant, to produce some bicycles.
Yeah, nice story. Except Giant is Taiwanese. And Taiwan is not China, in the same way that Ukraine is not Russia.
Re: Tried that about a thousand times (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, we gotta put an end to the political shenanigans of our corrupt governments and start working on a common vision for the future of all of us.
This needs to be rated +5 funny.
China - maybe. Russia? You heard what your Russians said about the ISS https://news.yahoo.com/russian... [yahoo.com]
So we're suppose to work with people who are led by people who in our face tell us they will destroy everything we're working on?
Nah - Russia has been showing signs of political dementia lately. Allowing a loose cannon on the group often works out badly.
Re: (Score:2)
This is due to whinging by Jeff Bezos who lost out on the first Artemis contract due to being pathetically incompetent.
I'm sure he bribed a few Congresscritters to get NASA to change their minds.
Re: time for a joint venture with Russia or China (Score:2)
corrupt regimes
These funds are intended for Boeing and Lockheed Martin. We have our own corrupt regimes to feed.
Re: (Score:2)
And you don't think the US is?
Hedging bets is good but (Score:2)
I sincerely hope Musk is healthy. If he survives another 10-20 years, his companies will be well established and would survive a leadership transition. Not at the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I give much more credit to Gwynne Shotwell [wikipedia.org] for SpaceX's success, as she is there actually running the company while Elon is splitting his attention across 10 other projects and picking fights on twitter. Elon is very important to SpaceX for his vision and incessant drive, for being the public face, and for securing funding. But it's har
Re: Hedging bets is good but (Score:2)
Re: Hedging bets is good but (Score:2)
Atari? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Has anyone talked to Atari? They have a lot of experience building Lunar Lander.
They should be disqualified because their control system sucks.
It's almost impossible to land their spacecraft in one piece, especially on hilltops.
Re: (Score:2)
The trick was to land left or right besides the hilltops :P
I believe on the Apple ][ we used so called "paddles" as controllers, 1D analog input, adjusted by a knob you could turn left or right. But not sure - to long ago.
Re: Atari? (Score:1)
Now get your lander off my lawn.
does not matter (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
because spacex will have a colony on the moon before this is invented
Everyone takes SpaceX seriously because of their success with the Falcon 9.
And while Crew Dragon is not so revolutionary, Boeing has made it look amazing.
But Starship is still far from a fait accompli. It would be nice to have another iron in the fire. Nothing from B.O. obviously, but something.
Re: (Score:2)
because spacex will have a colony on the moon before this is invented
Everyone takes SpaceX seriously because of their success with the Falcon 9. And while Crew Dragon is not so revolutionary, Boeing has made it look amazing.
But Starship is still far from a fait accompli. It would be nice to have another iron in the fire. Nothing from B.O. obviously, but something.
Oh my gawd! You have offended the cult, and will now have to go into the Witness protection system.
Musk who is actually gawd - not a flawed human - is here to take humanity to the next level, for we have stalled, and need his perfect guidance. He has been successful beyond mere human ability in every single project he has undertaken, and every utterance out of his mouth has become truth. This is not debatable. For he is gawd - let us praise him with great praise!
Elon Musk - forgive this mere human,
Re: (Score:2)
What does Boeing have to do with (Crew) Dragon 2? Boeing has its own product, Starliner, which hasn't even gone through a human test yet.
Re: (Score:2)
What does Boeing have to do with (Crew) Dragon 2? Boeing has its own product, Starliner, which hasn't even gone through a human test yet.
Exactly. Boeing's failures make Dragon look good. Do I need to explain more?
Re: does not matter (Score:2)
Boeing is not one making SX look great. It is all of the nations that are not able to do this that make SX look great.
Re: (Score:2)
How many companies have developed rockets and manned vessels?
McDonnell Aircraft, Grumman, North American Aviation, Roscosmos, Blue Origin, Virgin, ...
Hell, how many nations have tried and failed?
I'm going to say "zero"?
Unless NK has a secret manned space program?
At what point will we stop pretending (Score:1)
that this is going to happen at all?
Clearly nasa has become as much about generating revenue for establishment aerospace companies and aerospace lawyers as it is about spaceflight and science.
How about a radically different approach. Instead of nasa contracting manned spaceflight, the faa merely regulates whatever there is and that's it?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is kind of where I'm at too. Space transport is well on its way to being a commodity, NASA should be worrying about the science part.
This is one of those things that sounds like a no brainer, but is a lot more complicated than just saying "NASA - you are out of the Rocket business, others will do it better.
Rocketry. There is no one size fits all solution. Some rockets need to be small to launch light loads, some middlin' and some big.
And Spacex has made a middlin' rocket the Falcon 9, and the Heavy sort of squeaks into big rocket status. Certainly comparing the Falcon 9 heavy and it's roughly 23 MN thrust to the SLS block one and it
Re: At what point will we stop pretending (Score:2)
Space transport is well on its way being a commodity,
Payload deliveries to LEO on Shipping Wars [imdb.com] soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: At what point will we stop pretending (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's okay, the contractors made money off of JWST through all those decades.
They tried to get them to do it for free, but no one was interested.
While many poo-pooh the JWST as a monument to NASA not being actually able to do anything right, on time, or within cost, it actually was a technical tour deforce. Technology needed to be invented, and technology also moved on since JWST was conceptualized.Things move fast today.
Re: At what point will we stop pretending (Score:2)
NASA has gone to great lengths to make private space work. Their contracts have been awesome. And right now, who is holding SX back? FAA.
Bezos (Score:2)
Yes but (Score:3)
they better fucking be reusable rockets. Not even a billionaire uses disposable vehicles. I mean do you see Warren Buffett using a new Rolls Royce for each trip? I didn't know we were that wealthy. Why the F are we using disposable rockets? I feel like it has to do with both NASA and the Soviets developing their space programs from Hitler's missile group. I am talking about guys like Arthur Rudolph, Wernher von Braun etc. they were building V-2 rockets .. you don't want those to return back. Anyway, it's fine .. we needed that .. but for fucks sake now we it is 60 years later and we are still fucking with disposable rockets?
We need to make it national emergency priority to develop multiple re-usable rocket options.
Re: Yes but (Score:2)
Re: Yes but (Score:1)
Re: Yes but (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No, it will not have a heat shield. It will possibly be able to go to the moon multiple times though.
It is intended to be able to return to LEO and be refueled and presumably reloaded with cargo for reuse. It doesn't need to land on Earth again.
When it reaches end of life hopefully it will take one last load of cargo to a Moon Base and then become part of that base in some way (fuel storage or dismantled for raw material for example). Alternately it could become a fuel depot in LEO or be converted to a module on a space station, since the fuel is non toxic the fuel tanks could be used for habitat space
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably what this is.
Re: (Score:3)
The reason nobody did re-usable rockets previously is because the tech to actually land them just wasn't available. They need fairly advanced guidance computers with a lot of processing power, and also very good thrust vectoring tech.
Most of the tech that was getting us to space was developed in the 60s and 70s. It's only relatively recently that a lot of new designs have started to arrive, which can take advantage of technological developments. Previously reliability was the most important thing so once th
Re: (Score:1)
As for re-usable rockets on the Moon, the issue is how to refurbish them. On Earth it's easy, on the Moon... They would take off and meet the gateway space station in orbit, so all the work has to be done in zero-g with no atmosphere using stuff that can be stored on the station.
Without reentry and all launches after the first being against Lunar gravity they shouldn't experience as much wear and tear as Falcon 9 (1st stage) or the projected Starship/Super Heavy. Refurbishment becomes simpler. Ideally a Lunar base will involve local resource utilization and some parts can be made on site. Depending on the nature of any required refurbishment it might be practical to ship parts to the Lunar surface and have a pressurized building to do the work in as well given Lunar manufacture.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's bollocks. Sure, landing a rocket is hard, but so is flying a hypersonic plane down to a runway [wikipedia.org]. The requisite processing power has existed for decades. Thrust vectoring has existed nearly as long as rockets.
Novel technical challenges abounded, like getting
Re: (Score:2)
Well landing on the Moon is a lot easier than landing on Earth, due to the reduced gravity and no wind.
At first they will have to land on the untreated surface of the Moon though, which could be challenging. It is fine dust that is quite sharp due to lack of erosion, and static electricity makes it cling to everything. The bigger the ship, the more of an issue that will become.
Making a nice hard surface isn't exactly trivial either. Concrete isn't readily available or easy to make without an atmosphere.
As
Re: Yes but (Score:2)
Over and over. Such ignorance about history.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason nobody did re-usable rockets previously is because the tech to actually land them just wasn't available. They need fairly advanced guidance computers with a lot of processing power, and also very good thrust vectoring tech.
Most of the tech that was getting us to space was developed in the 60s and 70s. It's only relatively recently that a lot of new designs have started to arrive, which can take advantage of technological developments.
It has yet to be proven that these reuseable rockets are the incredibly cheap devices that will make rocketry really inexpensive.
I mean, I've been trying to get the cost, but it seems to be a highly guarded state secret.
Meanwhile, is the cost of Musk's fleet of ships and platforms and staffing so minimal that it makes sense to have those in the mix in order to use that mode instead of simply building new rockets? Is the reduced payload required by keeping extra fuel for landing or if the first stage
Re: (Score:2)
Oh - and the price they are charging per launch is not that proof.
Unless you're arguing (a) that SpaceX is losing money on every launch (i.e. dumping, which Roscosmos has accused them of doing) or (b) that launches on every other platform are incredibly profitable, it actually is the very best proof that you could get.
It appear to me that SpaceX is actually generating very nice profits (which they are plowing into Starship development and Starlink deployment) while still undercutting other launch providers by a significant margin -- and those other providers are losing
Re: (Score:2)
Oh - and the price they are charging per launch is not that proof.
Unless you're arguing (a) that SpaceX is losing money on every launch (i.e. dumping, which Roscosmos has accused them of doing) or (b) that launches on every other platform are incredibly profitable, it actually is the very best proof that you could get.
I know I'm a cynical old asshole, but hey - the lack of a number tells me that something might be amiss. You do know that businesses sell at a loss for a while to get their feet in the door.
It appear to me that SpaceX is actually generating very nice profits (which they are plowing into Starship development and Starlink deployment) while still undercutting other launch providers by a significant margin -- and those other providers are losing business to SpaceX but unable to further lower their prices without losing money.
Good - show me the numbers - It would appear to me also - but like I said. I'm one of those assholes that really likes to see the numbers, and it would be simple for a thriving and successful company to provide something along those lines.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/3... [cnbc.com]
Musk himself has said in 2021 "Raptor eng
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately, SpaceX is privately held -- the numbers you're looking for aren't public.
However, the numbers we do see -- reflected in the launch fees -- do indicate that they must be significantly cheaper. That, or they're horrible at the business.
Referring here: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-cost-of-space-flight/ [visualcapitalist.com]
The cost per kg of a Falcon9 shows here as somewhere about $2400. The next closest competitor is the Angara, at about $4700 -- on the order of 2x the cost. Most of the pack is between
Re: Yes but (Score:2)
Uh why would they release those numbers to you? It can only hurt them. I reckon if you were going to hand them a check for a billion dollars, then yeah they would tell you what they are investing in and how much.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh why would they release those numbers to you? It can only hurt them.
I'm not the only person, and I'm not talking about having a meeting with Elon to get the straight skinny. Hiding the numbers eventually hurts them a lot worse. The flag is that it seems very inconsistent.
Spacex is all about making themselves look good, Musk for everything he has done, is a braggart. At it's very best, this is bad optics. Spacex is largely subsidized in many areas, so despite the fans believing that Musk and Spacex are beyond the rules of mere mortals, there will be accounting. Maybe not
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about the rest of y'all, but *some* of us were landing rockets back in the 70s.
Sure, it took a lot of quarters, but . . .
Re: Yes but (Score:2)
Sheesh.
Re: (Score:2)
In his defense, despite being one of the wealthiest people on the planet, Warren Buffet is a pretty frugal guy. He's lived in the same, under-$1million home in Omaha for decades. His personal vehicle is a Cadillac XTS which, although a little upscale, is hardly a flashy choice.
He does own a private jet, but he isn't exactly what you might call "the jet set". And he's not posting pics of all his bling on Insta, or whatever the ric
Re: Yes but (Score:2)
So the Expensive Launch System (Score:2)
Will get an even more expensive unrealistic project.
I grew up loving the idea of space colonization but reality is hard and we are nowhere near the capability. We are going to need robots to pave the way, and should be concentrating on working on them. That way even if we can't live in alien environments we can still make use of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree in concept, but in practice it's a different matter.
We should be allocating our capital in a way that best produces returns for the civilization. Trying to skip up the tech tree isn't a great way to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So the Expensive Launch System (Score:2)
Re: So the Expensive Launch System (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't win the race by running in random directions.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't win the race by running in random directions.
You also don't win by never walking out your front door and taking that first pathetic, flabby, winded run down to the end of the block and back. That is what we are doing right now. There is always an excuse to not start something, but you never get anywhere with excuses.
I know I sound like an old man, but that is because I am an old man.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, but it would seem like an open topped, hand rowed space vessel would be tough on the galley slaves . . .
(they're kind of hard to replace if they float off after you leave port!)
hawk
I want a pony! (Score:1)
Actually I want 2!
Sure, sounds good (Score:2)
..but this sounds more like some backroom deal-making to give Bezo's Blue Origin some of that sweet sweet government cheddar.
It almost seems as though Musk's continued success and achievements are an embarrassment to our government, so they look for any way to do without him...but keep coming up empty.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is better than a backroom deal with Boeing .. which somehow sold the idea of "disposable" rockets that cost a billion dollars each. At least Bezos is (trying to) make reusable rockets.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is better than a backroom deal with Boeing .. which somehow sold the idea of "disposable" rockets that cost a billion dollars each.
"Somehow"? It's a perfect match for a government-run space program. Billions of dollars, cost+ contracts, deadlines missed by decades. Take Orion spacecraft for example. Conceived in early 2000s - and still unflown by humans. In 2000 SpaceX didn't even freaking *exist*, and now they have a fleet of reusable launchers, doing vertical landing which govt "scientists" declared unfeasible before that, manned orbital vehicles doing routine flights resupplying ISS or carrying space tourists, 2k Starlinks in orbit
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is better than a backroom deal with Boeing .. which somehow sold the idea of "disposable" rockets that cost a billion dollars each. .
HAHAHAHA they wish! It's actually 4 billion [wired.com] each, the equivalent of around sixty Falcon 9 launches. FTFA:
Women and non-white only, presumably? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Women don't matter anymore. All a guy has to do is don some panties, little bit of makeup and say he identifies as a woman and it's ok now.
I'm waiting for an all male board of directors to have a few of them identify as women to get around BS criticism.
OK - Here is where we decide who will be a woman for the next 5 years. You'll get a $10,000 allowance for clothes.
Boeing.... (Score:2)
Contact (Score:2)
First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?
Re: (Score:2)
First rule in designing a reliable system: "Two is one and one is none".
If the US is serious about having lunar landing capability, the investment in two lander programs is sensible.
Redundancy in companies? (Score:2)
If you were trying to blow up an asteroid and had only one chance you'd want to launch two different weapons in case one failed. But when you're launching rockets with a solid history behind them you don't need a different rocket in case it fails, what you need is to be sure it's not going to fail. What good would a second landing option do? If the first one fails, the crew is already dead.
Re: (Score:2)
If you wanted to get really ingenious, you could use those rocket engines built into the rovers and spacesuits that continuously fire upwards to simulate gravity and aim them so you can just fly around instead of driving.
Feels like a big FU (Score:2)
IMO, this feels like the biggest FU Biden and his administration could give to Musk. It feels sudden, intentional and full of malice more so than genuinely pushing for progress and competition. I mean I understand the idea behind this, but if that were really a driving force it would have been from the beginning.
Re: (Score:1)
I think this has little to do with Biden and his administration.
Although they are pathetically against Musk for some silly reason.
Re: (Score:1)
IMO, this feels like the biggest FU Biden and his administration could give to Musk. It feels sudden, intentional and full of malice more so than genuinely pushing for progress and competition. I mean I understand the idea behind this, but if that were really a driving force it would have been from the beginning.
The original plan was to have 2 competing landers but there was barely the allocated budget (by Congress) for the cheapest bid. Now Congress is at least promising to increase it so the original plan can be implemented. It will be interesting to see if the bids are lower this time.
On the other had after winning the bid for the first 2 landings SpaceX seemingly wasn't allowed to bid on the larger number of later landings and now is, good for SpaceX not so good for the competition. If a significant base
Re: (Score:2)
The original plan was to have 2 competing landers but there was barely the allocated budget (by Congress) for the cheapest bid.
Ah. Thanks for that. I either knew and forgot for never knew.
Re: Feels like a big FU (Score:2)
This is not a FU, but a guarantee of many future flights.
2nd provider, so someone who is not SpaceX (Score:2)
I wonder if it would have been better if SpaceX failed it's first bid in this case.
Cos I got a feeling that whoever is going to win the next one will be charging alot more, for similar work that SpaceX is doing.
So if SpaceX lost the first bid, and they asked for a 2nd bid, maybe SpaceX could be getting paid abit more. Especially since there is a decent chance that whoever else it is will be running late, just like the current Boeing Starliner delays.
Re: 2nd provider, so someone who is not SpaceX (Score:2)
ASRM all over again (Score:2)
Synopsis: Challenger blows up, a commission finds fault with the NASA design of the SRM. NASA and its vendor redesign the SRM to become the RSRM and no further failures are attributable to the new design. This failure point is resolved.
Result: Congress mandates that the RSRM and its multi-segment design represents a risk to the shuttle program and mandates through funding that a new advanced solid rocket motor is built, the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor or ASRM. NASA during hearings and budget discussions
Double-edged sword (Score:2)
No pun intended but the question is whether or not the available funding is now going to be split by two companies which is only going to result in the project never getting off the ground. Another question is whether or not this second company is going to insist on certain bulllshit design specs that SpaceX will have to meet thus delaying the project or killing it entirely.
At this point, SpaceX is the only private company to do real work. Everything else is a publicity and fundraising stunt.
Why would NAS
Wasting more government money (Score:1)