Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Moon NASA Space

NASA Wants SpaceX and Blue Origin To Deliver Cargo To the Moon (theverge.com) 65

Posted by BeauHD from the two-is-better-than-one dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: After asking both SpaceX and Blue Origin to develop cargo landers for its Artemis missions, NASA has announced plans to use those landers to deliver heavy equipment to the Moon. The agency wants Elon Musk's SpaceX to use its Starship cargo lander to deliver a pressurized rover to the Moon "no earlier" than 2032, while Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin will be tasked with delivering a lunar surface habitat no sooner than 2033. Both launches will support NASA's Artemis missions, which aim to bring humans back to the Moon for the first time in over 50 years.

Both companies are developing human landing systems for Artemis missions -- SpaceX for Artemis III and Blue Origin for Artemis V. NASA later asked both companies to develop cargo-hauling variants of those landers, capable of carrying 26,000 to 33,000 pounds of equipment and other materials to the Moon. NASA says it will issue proposals to SpaceX and Blue Origin at the beginning of next year.

NASA Wants SpaceX and Blue Origin To Deliver Cargo To the Moon More | Reply

NASA Wants SpaceX and Blue Origin To Deliver Cargo To the Moon

Comments Filter:
  • So 30,000 +-10% pounds. Is that the weight on Earth or on the Moon? There may be lots of room for a contractual dispute there. The 30,000 pound payload would probably need a million pounds of propellant to get there.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by joh ( 27088 )

      It isn't weight at all, it's mass.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by quenda ( 644621 )

      So 30,000 +-10% pounds.

      NASA actually specified 12-15 tons ( 1 ton = 1000 kg ). But The Verge dumbed it down :)

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Pseudonymous Powers ( 4097097 )
        When it's a metric ton, they generally spell it "tonnes".

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by quenda ( 644621 )

          When it's a metric ton, they generally spell it "tonnes".

          Which "they"? Around here ton is assumed to be metric, unless you say long or short ton, which nobody ever does. Why would anybody want to fuck around with whether a ton means 2000 or 2240 pounds? How many stone or hundred weight is that, and how many tons to a fluid cubic furlong?

            Tonne is a British spelling of the same word. Tomayto tomato.

      • So, ton (tonne) is used in preference over megagram?

  • Bezos could offer same day delivery, like you can get with Amazon...

  • .. we would have gone back to the moon.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Targon ( 17348 )

      There are times when shortsighted approaches clearly fail. We don't know much about the mineral composition of the moon, and it will clearly be needed to set up facilities away from Earth to potentially take advantage of the asteroid belt, so setting up bases on the moon, and Mars are entirely about, "We WILL expand the presence of humanity off the planet, but we need experience to avoid really nasty problems". So, the moon...closer to Earth, easier to get to, and as a result, we can use it as a way to

  • NASA still does things in 1960s time. It's time that they caught up to the capabilities that exist today - that we can now put large things in orbit for 1000 times less money than before.

    • Re:By that time SpaceX will have a base on Mars (Score:4, Interesting)

      by gtall ( 79522 ) on Thursday November 21, 2024 @08:43AM (#64962049)

      Not really, it makes sense to take our time thinking through what should be sent up before Elmo starts really polluting the atmosphere to get it there. Elmo does not give a flying rat's ass about the environment, look at what he'd doing to Texas....although it isn't clear Texans give a flying rat's ass about the environment either.

      • Re:By that time SpaceX will have a base on Mars (Score:5, Informative)

        by cjonslashdot ( 904508 ) on Thursday November 21, 2024 @08:59AM (#64962085)

        Hi. SpaceX's new rocket uses methane, which burns to create CO2 and H2O. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but this reaction is much cleaner than what a lot of other rockets use. The cleanest would be hydrogen, but hydrogen is very difficult to store.

        There are something like a million commercial airliners that fly every day (data is here: https://www.oag.com/airline-fr... [oag.com]), so the amount of greenhouse gas from rocket launches it extremely tiny by comparison - like literally five orders of magnitude less.

        In terms of non-chemical alternatives, those are coming, but it will be a decade or more. Here is one project that I am hopeful about: https://psatellite.com/technol... [psatellite.com]

        I am no fan of Musk personally, but the whole reason he got involved with Tesla was to shift us to clean energy.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by r_naked ( 150044 )

          Hi. SpaceX's new rocket uses methane, which burns to create CO2 and H2O. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but this reaction is much cleaner than what a lot of other rockets use. The cleanest would be hydrogen, but hydrogen is very difficult to store.

          There are something like a million commercial airliners that fly every day (data is here: https://www.oag.com/airline-fr... [oag.com]), so the amount of greenhouse gas from rocket launches it extremely tiny by comparison - like literally five orders of magnitude less.

          In terms of non-chemical alternatives, those are coming, but it will be a decade or more. Here is one project that I am hopeful about: https://psatellite.com/technol... [psatellite.com]

          I am no fan of Musk personally, but the whole reason he got involved with Tesla was to shift us to clean energy.

          Wow, you have far more patience than I do -- taking the time to actually explain to that idiot. I would have gone with something along the lines of: "DEAR FUCKING GOD YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON!"

          Either way he isn't going to actually pay attention, comprehend, and process the facts you threw at him.

          • Hi. I believe in being kind and polite to everyone. These interactions are our lives. If he becomes abusive, I'll tell him so and report him, but he has not been abusive.
    • NASAs hyper-conservative, gulp-down-money approach is good for deep-space science stuff, where a failure means that you trashed a hyper-specialized scientific instrument, flushed literally years down the toilet and you need to wait even more years for another launch window. Nowadays, launches to earth orbit and the moon are pretty much implementation of low tech - big explody things that require some sophisticated machine control and strong engineering but arent cutting edge science. And, if one of them pop

      • Hi. Yes, low Earth orbit is a solved problem, but there is much room for improvement. Space's new "Starship" system will reduce the cost to orbit by a factor of 2000. Yes, 2000! As you say, "if one of them pops, you can slam another together for a few million bucks and try again in 24 hours".

        For deep space, I think a better approach is to build things cheaply and build several. That way if one fails, there are others, and it was not all a waste. That won't work for everything, but it will work for most deep

  • Dollars to doughnuts that Elno will do his best to eliminate NASA and replace it with SpaceX, granting himself all of their facilities.

    • The upcoming budgeting of NASA is now so riddled with conflicts of interest nothing is going to come out smelling good. On the basis of performance, NASA's legacy contractors have been doing an objectively horrible job, and the rational thing to do is slash their contracts and send most of it to Space-X, and some to trimming NASA's budget if the plan is to trim all agencies' budgets. But with the budget czar being the CEO of Space-X, that gives Boeing the strongest case they could imagine to mount a prot

      • On the basis of performance, NASA's legacy contractors have been doing an objectively horrible job, and the rational thing to do is slash their contracts and send most of it to Space-X, ...

        While I largely agree with the first part of that, I'm not sure giving most of the work/money to Elon is the best idea, for a variety of reasons. But, I'm sure he'll recommend that anyway in his work for the "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) -- surely no conflicts of interest there... I would like to find and correct whatever problems are happening at the other providers, like Boeing.

    • You're thinking too small. Don't buy the cow if you get the milk for free. Keep NASA as a customer, go build your bases on the Moon and Mars, replace the ISS with a private orbital industrial park, and Amazon will deliver before 11pm on your boats.

      And the beauty of this, Elon need not exercise any particular privilege through DOGE or take advantage of this opportunity, NASA can't help but refocus on hat they did best, which was what a government space program was uniquely able to do. Apollo was a fit becau

    • Well, let's wait and see, shall we?

    • Dollars to doughnuts that Elno will do his best to eliminate NASA and replace it with SpaceX, granting himself all of their facilities.

      You may not be far off. Apparent NASA has projects whose funding has expired but still receive funding and this is one of the things the new "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE), headed up by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, will reportedly be looking to cut -- among other thing in that category. Granted, Congress should review and re-authorize funding for things it specifically wants to keep, but that would require Representatives actually doing their job...

      Google: dept of government efficiency [google.com]

    • So, what do you propose? Continue throwing good money after bad, with pork projects?

      There's plenty NASA can (and does) do, aside from launches. Rocket launches are becoming the equivalent of a semi truck pulling away from a loading dock...why does NASA need to be involved in being a "shipping company"?

  • My first thought was 'heavy' is a Cat D9 or D11 but now I see they're only talking about 10-15 tonnes...
  • Based on re-used lunar lander components?

  • SpaceX is a definite maybe. Blue Origin? (Score:3)

    by nightflameauto ( 6607976 ) on Thursday November 21, 2024 @09:56AM (#64962245)

    SpaceX will likely have a vehicle on the moon in a semi-reasonable timeframe. By the time Blue Origin gets a ship up to, let alone beyond LEO, SpaceX will be sending the first cargo haulers to Mars. Blue Origin moves at the speed of the old space companies, with even less incentive to show progress beyond yo-yoing in the vague direction of up. Why does anyone believe they're going to be a viable competitor / teammate for SpaceX?

    • I have never understood this.

      The one thing Blue Origin has managed to do, is create an extremely expensive carnival ride for ultra-wealthy people. They can talk about delivering mass to another gravitational body when they figure out how to get off of this one and stay off for an amount of time not measured as a fraction of an hour.
       

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by bobm ( 53783 )

        Yeah, I came here to say the same. Shouldn't we first require that they get a couple things in LEO first?

        It's puzzling since all the videos and shots show a lot of building of space craft going on but they just seem to stop short of actually launching anything.

        I expected at least a few launchs even if they blowup.

      • BO has recently been in negotiations for purchase of Boeing's space business. This would make them a valid contender.

        Boeing has proven capabilities, but poor management practices. BO taking over could be the solution to this. A clean break from the failures of the past.

        • Blue Origin has had its share of ex Boeing managers...which has been a substantial part of their problem

  • so a stainless steel shell, unbreakable windows, battery powered ... seems like Cyber Truck fits the requirements.
  • Just ask Mr Beast to do it but tell him he can also build a Zaxby's on the moon. He'll hire like 3 sex offenders to get it done in like a week.

  • The agency wants Elon Musk's SpaceX to use its Starship cargo lander to deliver a pressurized rover to the Moon "no earlier" than 2032, ...

    Does NASA have a thing against earlier?

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close