NASA Picks Blue Origin To Make a Second Human-Crewed Lunar Lander (theverge.com) 69
NASA has selected Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin to create a lunar lander for an upcoming Artemis mission, with a $3.4 billion contract including an uncrewed "demonstration mission" followed by a human-crewed demo in 2029 for the Artemis V mission. The Verge reports: Currently, the plan for the Artemis V mission is for four astronauts to first fly to the Gateway space station on NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and the Orion spacecraft. Then, two astronauts will go to the Moon on Blue Origin's Blue Moon lander for "about a weeklong trip to the Moon's South Pole region," NASA said. Blue Origin is the second company to land a contract with NASA for a lunar lander for Artemis. SpaceX was the first, winning the sole contract in 2021, and Blue Origin lost a lawsuit against NASA over the decision later that year. However, NASA announced in 2022 that it would develop a second human lunar lander, inviting space companies to make proposals. "Adding another human landing system partner to NASA's Artemis program will increase competition, reduce costs to taxpayers, support a regular cadence of lunar landings, further invest in the lunar economy, and help NASA achieve its goals on and around the Moon in preparation for future astronaut missions to Mars," NASA said.
Shit (Score:5, Funny)
I should have applied. I have the same track record of orbital launches as Blue Origin.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree.
Blue Origin has only taken people to the edge of space after how many years in development...maybe 5 to 10?
So seeing Blue Origin landing something on the Moon with LIVE Humans on board and safely returning LIVE Humans back to Earth might take Blue Origin another 20 or 30 years at that pace, right?
Re:Shit (Score:4, Informative)
So seeing Blue Origin landing something on the Moon with LIVE Humans on board and safely returning LIVE Humans back to Earth ...
Pretty sure a "lunar lander" only has to get back into lunar orbit, not all the way back to the ground on Earth.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It was nice of Nasa to give Blue Origin one more chance to get to orbit. Now from the Moon to make it easier.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if BO isn't the perfect choice, it's good for NASA to keep its base diversified. Placing all your business in one basket (regardles of who it is) just isn't a safe or future-proof idea.
It also seems like a fair idea to let BO handle the lander, since that removes a lot of complexity from the table, allowing NASA and others to focus more on the rockets and suits.
Re:Shit (Score:4, Informative)
Even if BO isn't the perfect choice, it's good for NASA to keep its base diversified.
Not for one shot, "Iwuzhere" space tourism masquerading as space science. Redundancy and semi-permanence makes sense for Mars missions. The new NASA moon missions are dumb. You only need semi-permanent moon bases if there actually is a financial motive to exploit resource mining/gathering on the Moon, or if we decide to militarize the Moon, and *then* need semi-permanent moon bases.
There already is a developer for the "primary" moon lander, and that's SpaceX, which actually managed to build a rocket that could orbit the Earth (the true definition of attaining space travel if one understands orbital mechanics).
The only reason BO is getting the redundant lunar lander project is because they would otherwise sue NASA for not getting the contract. Everyone else in the space business cares about either minimizing their loss, or maximizing their profit; they're not suing NASA because they didn't win a contract bid.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SX will have no issue traveling to the moon. BO will have human launch capability around 2025 (hopefully).
Assume that they get the lunar lander working by 2025. All that is needed is transportation from earth orbit to lunar orbit. Considering that they will be pushing hydrolox tanks to the moon for a time, it would make good sense for them to develop the ability to send humans from orbit to orbit. If they start building a space station TODAY, they can use modules from it to do that. Cheaply.
Re: (Score:2)
If BO is smart, they will start building a space station (ideally, inflatable), and then keep the module/habitat production line going and simply add a tug to push ppl from earth orbit to lunar orbit.
Re: Shit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't be so pessimistic. If it breaks down on the moon we can send parts and supplies over in Starship. :)
Will that Starship have a Bezos 'swooshing schlong' painted on it?
Or does Amazon Prime only limit itself to delivering on most parts of Planet Earth?
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno. Their suborbital experience seems pretty relevant to lunar landing and takeoff. If those flights had been orbital they wouldn't really have learned much more relevant to a lunar vehicle.
IIRC the system is going to be architecturally similar to and only modestly more ambitious than the Apollo Lunar Lander in terms of payload -- 4 astronauts rather than 2, 1.6x the cargo capacity -- although the missions will be much longer and involve multiple dockings in space with supply tugs and the Lunar Gatew
Re: (Score:2)
Their suborbital flights take place almost entirely within the atmosphere, only reaching the Karman line after the ascent burn completes and only starting up for the landing burn (for the propulsion module) after an aerodynamic flight back to the landing site. The experience isn't totally irrelevant, but its relevance is rather limited.
Re: (Score:2)
after how many years in development...maybe 5 to 10?
Try 20 years for New Shep. Company started in 2000, but project new shep was started in 2002.
First flight of Goddard was in 2006. So, after more than 15 years of first flight, they STILL do not have a working schedule of space flight. Sad.
This is why China continues to steal technology from others. The fact is, that it is EXPENSIVE AND SLOW to get a working rocket going, esp. when you do not do continued tests.
SX is probably the first group to be doing this since the 60s, when USSR and America were l
Re:Shit (Score:4, Informative)
I should have applied. I have the same track record of orbital launches as Blue Origin.
To be fair, reaching Lunar orbit should be easier than reaching Earth orbit.
(obviously, from the surface of the Moon and Earth respectively)
Re: (Score:2)
I should have applied. I have the same track record of orbital launches as Blue Origin.
To be fair, reaching Lunar orbit should be easier than reaching Earth orbit.
(obviously, from the surface of the Moon and Earth respectively)
Unless Blue Origin is planning on purchasing a SpaceX module already on the moon, they'll have to first launch it from earth to get it to the moon.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless Blue Origin is planning on purchasing a SpaceX module already on the moon, they'll have to first launch it from earth to get it to the moon.
Unless it gets shipped there by SpaceX, in which case they will have to launch it first.
Re: (Score:3)
They wanted Blue Origin to win the contract: they're hoping Bezos will launch himself into space to the moon, which carries the appealing possibility that he might not make it back.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds good to me.
This is how the swamp works (Score:5, Informative)
There was a competition to select THE lunar lander for the Artemis program. There were three teams that made it into the final round. One was SpaceX (with a Starship variant designed for the lunar mission), another was Dynetics (with its innovative ALPACA design) and the third team was a bunch of defense contractors (Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Draper Labs, etc pretending to be something else under the "National Team" logo with Blue Origin as the face). This third team proposed a seriously impractical mutant derivative of an Apollo type lander, which being designed by a team provided a camel where a horse was called for. The national team/blue origin proposal was not very practical, and way too expensive, but as big defense contractors they presumed they'd win. They did not. SpaceX was selected and the boys at Blue immediately sued, introducing over a year of delay into the overall program. The members of congress they'd bought...err... whose campaigns they help fund... went insane and demanded NASA find a way to get a second lander design. NASA, knowing where their budgets come from, then announced ("oh...yeah...we ALWAYS intended to have a second lander team...THAT's the TICKET!") this program for a second lander.
If you are in any way surprised that the defense contractor team, with Jeff Bezos as a hood ornament, won the competition for the second lander design, then I have some Polynesian beach front property in Montana to sell you...
Elon? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Elon? (Score:5, Funny)
I think the Congress has some misgivings about putting all their eggs on Elon Musk to deliver. The man isn't a mentally stable individual.
Well... only about half of Congress prefer a "stable genius". :-)
Re:Elon? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the Congress has some misgivings about putting all their eggs on Elon Musk to deliver. The man isn't a mentally stable individual.
There is a clique of Spacex fans who occasionally get mod points. And they diligently search out and mod down anyone who would dare criticize the object of their adoration. Watch how quickly this post gets to -1.
But despite their wishes that Musk take over the entire space program, they aren't going to get it.
Mr Musk is showing some signs of mental deterioration and instability. He has been surrounded by so many people who more or less worship him, that he is starting to believe every idea he has is genius. The Twitter acquisition was one huge cock-up, a hissy fit that cost him a lot of money. Hyperloop and the battery tractor are another. Tesla is become dated.
I think he started out meaning well, but his fans have done him actual harm with their adoration.
But all that aside, there is one very important thing to keep in mind.
The commercialization of Space was not designed to create a monopoly for Spacex.
The commercialization of Space is designed to get multiple players in the game.
We surely are not there yet. Spacex receives a lot of money from the government, an almost 3 billion dollar contract recently. Oddly enough, he rails on about other subsidies for other groups. But it holds true, this is not a system where only one player is in the game.
And if we look beyond the standard talking points of fans who have a favorite horse, there is some method to the madness. We have created a stable of different horses for different courses.
To start off, There are payloads and there are payloads. different sizes and different weights. So we have everyday workhorses like the Falcon 9, and if all goes well, ULA will have their first Vulcan launch this summer.
We have medium/heavy rockets like the Falcon 9 Heavy.
We have balls to the wall monsters like the SLS.
And we have a new group coming along, the small rockets like ABL's RS1
Why wouldn't we have just one rocket to serve them all? Waste of a rocket. Trying to launch something heavy with an RS1 wouldn't work, and trying to launch a couple cubesats with SLS wouldn't make any sense.
So there is a seat at the table for Boeing, ULA, Blue Origin, Spacex, and newcomers ABL, along with anyone else wanting to play the Space game. This is how the plan is meant to work.
No fans of a particular company with mod points are going to change that truth.
Re: (Score:2)
The Ambien abuse and the other drugs might play a role as well.
Re: (Score:3)
The Ambien abuse and the other drugs might play a role as well.
I hadn't considered his Ambien use, but I looked it up,https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-ambien-use-tesla-board-what-drug-does-2018-8?op=1 and yes, long term drug abuse could explain some of this. https://americanaddictioncente... [americanad...enters.org]
And who knows what other recreational drugs he's taken. Oddly enough, the most benign rec drug is one he says he stays away from.
Re: (Score:2)
Every one of your fucking posts is about Elon Musk.
And the poor little anonymous coward is off! and running. No they are not all about Musk. Most is about other things like Spacex not having some sort of requirement to be used for all space work. That Musk is proving errativ lately is included, but he's not the main thrust of my posts in this matter. You just see that someone posted something not glowing in praise of the mere man Musk, and you go Reee! in a spittle flecked rage. Miss me with that silliness.
I am wondering if your posted muskphobia trolling is like Homophobia by the GOP and you secretly wish that he would do you.
Posting the truth is not the (fill in the blank)
Re:Elon? (Score:4)
This goes beyond the idea of redundancy, because Elon himself chose to buy Twitter and insert himself into the political commentary sphere and defend people who stormed the US Capital. For me personally, this causes some internal conflict as I love Musk's various projects around technology but find his promotion of conspiracy and insurrection very disturbing. I want SpaceX to success, I want humanity to colonize the solar system, but I don't want people like Qanon Shaman to be looked at like a "hero".
Re: (Score:1)
...The man isn't a mentally stable individual.
Given Elons ongoing contributions to business, society, and human advancement, we should probably be thankful for that. I promise Elon's accomplishments will be what history rightfully recognizes and remembers, not the critics politicking from the peanut gallery.
And quite frankly, I'd love for you to stand up in a clear voice and tell the Birthing Person Czar what your definition of "mentally stable" is, because I'm not seeing any evidence we have a definition anymore. You're speaking deadtalk.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's put it this way, if you had to spend your own money, why do you consider Blue Origin a better purchase?
Re: (Score:2)
Musk isn't designing or delivering shit, he just owns the company.
Odd. All of the ppl that were on the ground floor of Tesla and SpaceX has said that he was critical to all of the designs. Even more so for SpaceX. And that includes ALL of the engineers that have left Tesla/SpaceX and were known to have been heavy contributers.
But I guess that you know more than those past engineers would.
Re: This is how the swamp works (Score:5, Interesting)
There wasnâ(TM)t. There was a competition to select 2 lunar landers. NASA selected only SpaceX because their concept was the only viable one. Congress then said âoehang on, thatâ(TM)s not 2!â NASA said âoeokay, well give us more money to fund anotherâ, which they did. Now thereâ(TM)s another.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Artemis is a $100B class project, so an extra $3B for a lander backup doesn't seem crazy. Especially after the failure of the first BFR launc
Re: (Score:2)
You trolls are way too much. Just insane.
The SpaceX lander design is very unusual - much larger, higher thrust / weight than is necessary, very tall etc. Its not a bad design, some of those are big advantages, but there are a lot of additional risks. In addition it needs to be launched on a SpaceX BFR, which by a considerable margin is the largest vehicle ever launched, and has its own set of risks.
The fact that it will land on earth BEFORE landing on the moon would indicate that it will be just fine. Height is not an issue on it. It is large because they intend to be able to launch from Earth and ultimately go straight to the lunar surface with 20-30 people AND cargo on-board. Likewise, it will be able to return easily. A lot of risks? Actually far less than any other design. Why? Because it will already have been tested in Earth.
All new vehicles have
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair it is widely believed that NASA always wanted two landers, as evidenced by the Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew contracts both choosing two contractors. Its just that Congress didn't give them the money for two so they were "forced" to go with the most capable of them (Lunar Starship). Though as you say, after the cabal of defence contractors wasn't chosen, Congress suddenly came up with the money. I would also suggest that it is more likely that Bezos is the one using the defence contract
agreed (Score:2)
I also believe that two lunar lander designs is a good thing (dissimilar redundancy) and that NASA always wanted that. That's not what I was highlighting.
Resources are limited. The job of the Congress (the US House in particular) is to decide what the US will spend money on, and how much will be spent. The congress originally only provided a certain amount of money for the program and several considerations made the SpaceX victory in round1 a natural result. First, SpaceX was going to fund most of the devel
Re: (Score:2)
And I suspect that you are correct that the old space partners are just arm-ornaments to get CONgress to do their jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not entirely correct. Originally there were meant to be two suppliers of lunar landers selected (but only selecting one was not prohibited in the terms).
Of the submitted applications, only the SpaceX one had any chance of working or being delivered on time. In addition, NASA were only given enough money for it to actually pay for one (BTW the SpaceX application was also the cheapest).
And that's why only SpaceX were awarded a contract.
Re: (Score:2)
What is funny is by picking SX, they counted on CONgress who have been bought/paid for by OLD space, to do just what they did: scream for our $. Regardless, I would rather get true private space off the ground, then to give up any more c
Eww. (Score:2)
Good call! (Score:2)
They can do the first landing on the 100th anniversary of Apollo
Why build one . . . (Score:1)
Re: Why build one . . . (Score:4, Informative)
I mean, the first choice for reaching the ISS was Boeing and ULA. They still wouldnâ(TM)t even have a viable solution yet if theyâ(TM)d only gone with one. Issuing 2 fixed priced contracts instead of one contract that keeps getting more and more expensive as they go has really paid off for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Competition actually works. Once a few companies are established, then hopefully, free market will step it up.
Same day delivery with Prime membership (Score:2)
feels like (Score:2)
This feels like nothing more than a bureaucratic "fuck you" to Musk.
Is that the right rationale to use when deciding on a corporate partner for an astonishingly complex, dangerous, and fault-intolerant piece of mission hardware?
I mean it tracks with modern NASA priorities: they explicitly choose the crew based on their melanin and ovaries.
(To be clear to the stupid people in the cheap seats who are already ginning up the rage replies: I'm sure Glover and Koch are absolutely fully qualified and capable. I d
Re: (Score:2)
This feels like nothing more than a bureaucratic "fuck you" to Musk.
Musk and Spacex are not the contractually dictated sole provider of any and all space rockets and equipment
Is the upcoming ULA Vulcan launch using Blue Origins another Bureaucratic "Fuck you" to Musk as well? No, it is all part of the commercialization of Space plan. The commercialization of space was never meant to have one company called Spacex and one man in charge named Musk having a monopoly. It is designed to have different groups making different vehicles and ships.
Re: (Score:2)
And relax. The only monopoly going on with SX is because they are SUPERIOR to everybody out there. But, NASA is trying to create a free market situation out there. We just need BO to quit acting like OLD space (such as ULA, Boeing and L-Mart) and start acting like the new space that they are. As it is, I wish that SNC had gone after a decent lander. They are much more new
Re: (Score:2)
ULA vulcan had nothing to do with NASA. It had everything to do with CONgress and DoD and removing all Russian (and any Chinese ) parts.
My putting the upcoming Vulcan rocket in my post is that it uses 2 BE-4 engines, which are of Blue Origin's manufacture. Another device not manufactured by Spacex.
Re: (Score:2)
How can it be a bureaucratic "fuck you" to Musk??? They've already won a contract to build the lunar lander. They don't really lose a penny having NASA agree to give more taxpayer money to a team of failure like Blue Origin to build a redundant lunar lander that probably won't be functional by the time the Artemis program puts man on the Moon for 6 months.
This is only coming about because Blue Origin is willing to piss away Jeff Bezos billions suing US taxpayers so they can get a billion dollars from US t
Re: (Score:2)
They don't really lose a penny having NASA agree to give more taxpayer money to a team of failure like Blue Origin to build a redundant lunar lander that probably won't be functional by the time the Artemis program puts man on the Moon for 6 months.
NASA is not giving a penny of taxpayer $. CONgress FORCED NASA to pick another one, and funded, unlike the first time. More importantly, BO decided to not gouge this time around. I guess BO decided that $3B sounded like more than enough subsidy, as opposed to wanting NASA to pay for it all, like old space loves.
Re: (Score:2)
More likely it's a Sore Loser Award for Bezos. It'll keep him from filing lawsuits while SpaceX is doing the actual work.
Re: (Score:2)
This feels like nothing more than a bureaucratic "fuck you" to Musk.
Quite the opposite. SX NEEDS competition, but also, if we are building a base on the moon, then we need multiple space crafts so as to have redundancy. And once that base gets started, it will need LARGE space crafts to go there putting up habitat equipment, nuclear reactor, manufacturing equipment, and obviously supplies. I suspect that with the smaller craft from BO, that they will likely be doing more supplies, while SX will be putting large stuff on the moon.
So, no, this is actually better for SX and
Reduce costs? Increase competition? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the problem is CONgress will not do their fucking jobs. Once you dip-shit goon squaders and trumpers decide to finally elect DECENT INTELLIGENT POLITICIANS, we will see things like raising minimum wage while at the same time, decreasing the number of ppl on government subsidies. Sadly, trumpers/fascists want no minimum wage/no government assistance, while you goon squader/marxist want massive minimum wage and loads of assistance for all sorts of ppl.
You get what you pay for (Score:2)
Lump all the worst companies together to build something and what do you think you'll get? I mean come on, old, outdated and outpaced dinosaurs led by an idiot that can't even get search right on his Chinesium backed store. His small phallus can barely penetrate the atmosphere. How does he think he can get a load to the moon? The worst kind of envy for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a cost+ project. This requires accomplishments with payments on each level. Boeing has learned that NASA will no longer be daddy warbucks, while NASA has learned that old space is NOT the only ones out there.
Less crack, more science... (Score:1)
"Currently, the plan for the Artemis V mission is for four astronauts to first fly to the Gateway space station on NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and the Orion spacecraft. Then, two astronauts will go to the Moon on Blue Origin's Blue Moon lander for "about a weeklong trip to the Moon's South Pole region,"
SO... a nonexistent vehicle from people half a decade behind getting engines to their customer will fly to DS9 on Nasa's hypersonic Zumwalt-ammo to the Omicron spacecraft, and then vacation on the
Why get different companies to do the same thing? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, a good free market will provide many possible solutions. One of America's bigger problems is that reagan and his GD GOP ignored our anti-monopoly act, the sherman act, and have destroyed much of the free market in large industry. We need it back and thi
Where are the engines? (Score:2)
I must be missing something, where are the engines on Blue Origins lander? Given the screeching about how dangerous starship would be with its engines kicking up regolith they can't be at the bottom can they? I don't even know if you could fit some appropriate rocket engines in the sliver of space between the crew cabin and the surface. On the plus side its nice that they brought down their price to something more reasonable and the design does have crew surface access that is easier compared to starship
Re: (Score:2)