SpaceX Tuesday...
Discussion
This decision for the lunar landing system and SpaceX is without doubt the right one.
However I’m quite amused by this - the Gateway. Basically all ferried to lunar orbit (built by?) SpaceX. Lunar lander: SpaceX starship lunar variant.
So there are these whopping great big Starships, unmanned and I would imagine by then manned, plying the route between earth and moon. Fabulous, huge, future visions of space travel, huge interiors, panoramic windows. You get the picture.
But to actually get to the lander/gateway in lunar orbit they have to take the hugely wasteful SLS and travel in a (relatively) tiny Orion capsule and s
t in a plastic bag.
At some point someone has got to just knock this SLS on the head. It’s expensive, wasteful, outmoded and totally outclassed.
However I’m quite amused by this - the Gateway. Basically all ferried to lunar orbit (built by?) SpaceX. Lunar lander: SpaceX starship lunar variant.
So there are these whopping great big Starships, unmanned and I would imagine by then manned, plying the route between earth and moon. Fabulous, huge, future visions of space travel, huge interiors, panoramic windows. You get the picture.
But to actually get to the lander/gateway in lunar orbit they have to take the hugely wasteful SLS and travel in a (relatively) tiny Orion capsule and s
t in a plastic bag. At some point someone has got to just knock this SLS on the head. It’s expensive, wasteful, outmoded and totally outclassed.
Einion Yrth said:
Eric Mc said:
What did specific areas did they "rip" on the Blue Origin proposal?
My main problem with Blue Origin is that they have virtually no real space experience of any sort.
Well neither did Grumman when they designed the LM to be fair; turned out a pretty decent machine in the end though.My main problem with Blue Origin is that they have virtually no real space experience of any sort.
Dog Star said:
Travel in a (relatively) tiny Orion capsule and st in a plastic bag.
Strapline for the brochure? t in a plastic bag. 
N0ddie said:
Eric Mc said:
I'm struggling to see how a Starship sitting on the surface of the moon can be used to deliver heavy gear like rovers, habitats and processing plants.
The Blue Origin lander is basically a large, flat, platform fitted with derricks which can carry anything and the derricks used to lower the cargo onto the surface.
I haven't seen how SpaceX plan to use the Starship in this role.
Essentially the 2 other competitors (Blue Origin & Dynetics) proposals were naff. The selection document ripped Blue Origin's and Dynetics proposals a new one. It openly calls them immature and unrealistic, and don't hold any praises regarding SpaceX's proposal.The Blue Origin lander is basically a large, flat, platform fitted with derricks which can carry anything and the derricks used to lower the cargo onto the surface.
I haven't seen how SpaceX plan to use the Starship in this role.
N0ddie said:
Essentially the 2 other competitors (Blue Origin & Dynetics) proposals were naff. The selection document ripped Blue Origin's and Dynetics proposals a new one. It openly calls them immature and unrealistic, and don't hold any praises regarding SpaceX's proposal.
It wasn't Blue Origin. It was a consortium of known respected names.The BBC article says that price was the deciding factor- SpaceX's bid was lower by a wide margin. So either SpaceX are hugely more efficient, or have made a break-even/low margin bid that could bite them if things don't go to plan.
As the BBC article also says, Nasa were refused the budget to hire two partners and make them compete as Nasa would normally do, and Nasa rather strangely announced the winner prior to Biden appointing a new head of NASA. So suggests politics at play too.
Edited by hyphen on Saturday 17th April 21:58
Scott Manley says both other bidders had issues:
Blue Origin wanted payment in advance for work, counter to one of the requirements of the RFP
Dynetics failed on the requirement for future growth, as their proposal was already too heavy and would need lightening to meet the basic mission requirements.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuSM_-Aw5HM
Blue Origin wanted payment in advance for work, counter to one of the requirements of the RFP
Dynetics failed on the requirement for future growth, as their proposal was already too heavy and would need lightening to meet the basic mission requirements.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuSM_-Aw5HM
Eric Mc said:
What did specific areas did they "rip" on the Blue Origin proposal?
My main problem with Blue Origin is that they have virtually no real space experience of any sort.
The official NASA statement (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-a-source-selection-statement-final.pdf) rated Blue Origin as technically "acceptable" and Dynetics as "Marginal". SpaceX also got an "acceptable" on technical aspects. However, on the Management rating only SpaceX achieved an "outstanding".My main problem with Blue Origin is that they have virtually no real space experience of any sort.
The analysis by NASA did pull up Blue Origin on a several things, I've quoted a few below. The reports goes on with further weaknesses but I thought it best to not quote most of the report out. To be fair they also identify weaknesses in the SpaceX proposal; the difference seeming to be that SpaceX has a plan to solve the unknowns and is already testing whereas it reads to me as if NASA doesn't have much confidence that Blue Origin won't continue the "Old Space" approach of simply producing more Powerpoints justifying why they need further cash before they can build anything.
Quotes from the report on the Blue Origin proposal:
"I find that it suffers from a number of weaknesses, including two significant weaknesses with which I
agree. The first of these is that Blue Origin’s propulsion systems for all three of its main
HLS elements (Ascent, Descent, and Transfer) create significant development and
schedule risks, many of which are inadequately addressed in Blue Origin’s proposal.
These propulsion systems consist of complex major subsystems that have low
Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) and are immature for Blue Origin’s current phase
of development."
...
"Further compounding these issues is significant uncertainty within the supplier section
of Blue Origin’s proposal concerning multiple key propulsion system components for the
engine proposed for its Descent and Transfer Elements."
...
"Finally, numerous mission-critical integrated propulsion systems will not be flight
tested until Blue Origin’s scheduled 2024 crewed mission. Waiting until the crewed
mission to flight test these systems for the first time is dangerous, and creates a high
risk of unsuccessful contract performance and loss of mission"
...
"Blue Origin’s second notable significant weakness within the Technical Design Concept
area of focus is the SEP’s finding that four of its six proposed communications links,
including critical links such as that between HLS and Orion, as well as Direct-to-Earth
communications, will not close as currently designed."
...
"These problematic links result in Blue Origin’s proposal failing to meet key HLS requirements during the surface operations phase of the mission"
F20CN16 said:
As far as I know they never started building SN12, 13 and 14. Not exactly sure what happened, but maybe the success of SN8 (apart from the landing) was a surprise and they felt they could move on faster than planned.
Parts for SN12, 13 and 14 were spotted. SN15 onwards were already at more advanced stages: 
Flooble said:
The official NASA statement (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-a-source-selection-statement-final.pdf) rated Blue Origin as technically "acceptable" and Dynetics as "Marginal". SpaceX also got an "acceptable" on technical aspects. However, on the Management rating only SpaceX achieved an "outstanding".
The analysis by NASA did pull up Blue Origin on a several things, I've quoted a few below. The reports goes on with further weaknesses but I thought it best to not quote most of the report out. To be fair they also identify weaknesses in the SpaceX proposal; the difference seeming to be that SpaceX has a plan to solve the unknowns and is already testing whereas it reads to me as if NASA doesn't have much confidence that Blue Origin won't continue the "Old Space" approach of simply producing more Powerpoints justifying why they need further cash before they can build anything.
Quotes from the report on the Blue Origin proposal:
"I find that it suffers from a number of weaknesses, including two significant weaknesses with which I
agree. The first of these is that Blue Origin’s propulsion systems for all three of its main
HLS elements (Ascent, Descent, and Transfer) create significant development and
schedule risks, many of which are inadequately addressed in Blue Origin’s proposal.
These propulsion systems consist of complex major subsystems that have low
Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) and are immature for Blue Origin’s current phase
of development."
...
"Further compounding these issues is significant uncertainty within the supplier section
of Blue Origin’s proposal concerning multiple key propulsion system components for the
engine proposed for its Descent and Transfer Elements."
...
"Finally, numerous mission-critical integrated propulsion systems will not be flight
tested until Blue Origin’s scheduled 2024 crewed mission. Waiting until the crewed
mission to flight test these systems for the first time is dangerous, and creates a high
risk of unsuccessful contract performance and loss of mission"
...
"Blue Origin’s second notable significant weakness within the Technical Design Concept
area of focus is the SEP’s finding that four of its six proposed communications links,
including critical links such as that between HLS and Orion, as well as Direct-to-Earth
communications, will not close as currently designed."
...
"These problematic links result in Blue Origin’s proposal failing to meet key HLS requirements during the surface operations phase of the mission"
Thanks for that - very interesting. It kind of ties in with what I was thinking - Blue Origin is just not far enough down the road of testing and developing their rocket motors - plus some other issues.The analysis by NASA did pull up Blue Origin on a several things, I've quoted a few below. The reports goes on with further weaknesses but I thought it best to not quote most of the report out. To be fair they also identify weaknesses in the SpaceX proposal; the difference seeming to be that SpaceX has a plan to solve the unknowns and is already testing whereas it reads to me as if NASA doesn't have much confidence that Blue Origin won't continue the "Old Space" approach of simply producing more Powerpoints justifying why they need further cash before they can build anything.
Quotes from the report on the Blue Origin proposal:
"I find that it suffers from a number of weaknesses, including two significant weaknesses with which I
agree. The first of these is that Blue Origin’s propulsion systems for all three of its main
HLS elements (Ascent, Descent, and Transfer) create significant development and
schedule risks, many of which are inadequately addressed in Blue Origin’s proposal.
These propulsion systems consist of complex major subsystems that have low
Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) and are immature for Blue Origin’s current phase
of development."
...
"Further compounding these issues is significant uncertainty within the supplier section
of Blue Origin’s proposal concerning multiple key propulsion system components for the
engine proposed for its Descent and Transfer Elements."
...
"Finally, numerous mission-critical integrated propulsion systems will not be flight
tested until Blue Origin’s scheduled 2024 crewed mission. Waiting until the crewed
mission to flight test these systems for the first time is dangerous, and creates a high
risk of unsuccessful contract performance and loss of mission"
...
"Blue Origin’s second notable significant weakness within the Technical Design Concept
area of focus is the SEP’s finding that four of its six proposed communications links,
including critical links such as that between HLS and Orion, as well as Direct-to-Earth
communications, will not close as currently designed."
...
"These problematic links result in Blue Origin’s proposal failing to meet key HLS requirements during the surface operations phase of the mission"
I just wish they'd write these reports in more "normal" English.
I find it interesting that - as far as I have seen - there has been no specific requirement around vehicle reusability.
I think this really needs to be right on up there as one of the major deal-breakers for getting considered. This isn’t the 1960s anymore, why are we using dressed up 1960s tech?
Seeing all these beautifully crafted, insanely expensive machines made from all manner of exotic materials just dropped in the ocean/burnt up/pogged off into space/the surface of the moon is quite frankly bonkers. It needs to stop. Hopefully the commercial aspects and sheer cost vs using a recoverable booster should kill the market off in the next few years. Evolve or die.
I think this really needs to be right on up there as one of the major deal-breakers for getting considered. This isn’t the 1960s anymore, why are we using dressed up 1960s tech?
Seeing all these beautifully crafted, insanely expensive machines made from all manner of exotic materials just dropped in the ocean/burnt up/pogged off into space/the surface of the moon is quite frankly bonkers. It needs to stop. Hopefully the commercial aspects and sheer cost vs using a recoverable booster should kill the market off in the next few years. Evolve or die.
Dog Star said:
I find it interesting that - as far as I have seen - there has been no specific requirement around vehicle reusability.
I think this really needs to be right on up there as one of the major deal-breakers for getting considered. This isn’t the 1960s anymore, why are we using dressed up 1960s tech?
Seeing all these beautifully crafted, insanely expensive machines made from all manner of exotic materials just dropped in the ocean/burnt up/pogged off into space/the surface of the moon is quite frankly bonkers. It needs to stop. Hopefully the commercial aspects and sheer cost vs using a recoverable booster should kill the market off in the next few years. Evolve or die.
I think reusable first and second stage boosters will become the norm - with SpaceX possibly dominating the heavy-lift end of the market. In terms of overall reusability of space vehicles by cost, I'm not so sure. Some things you're never going to get back - deep space probes and probably most of the stuff in geosynchronous orbits - finger in the air, call it $300 million a pop, and there about 300 of them in a geosynchronous graveyard orbit at the moment so that's about $90 billion worth thrown away already. There have been some interesting developments in refuelling geosynchronous satellites, so expect that to continue, but I'd be interested in seeing the figures comparing the costs of what could be re-used vs that which certainly cannot.I think this really needs to be right on up there as one of the major deal-breakers for getting considered. This isn’t the 1960s anymore, why are we using dressed up 1960s tech?
Seeing all these beautifully crafted, insanely expensive machines made from all manner of exotic materials just dropped in the ocean/burnt up/pogged off into space/the surface of the moon is quite frankly bonkers. It needs to stop. Hopefully the commercial aspects and sheer cost vs using a recoverable booster should kill the market off in the next few years. Evolve or die.
All looking good for Thursday's flight to the ISS. Alternate days are Friday and Monday
They've sent one of the recovery ships round to the other side of Florida in case the capsule has to abort and land in the Gulf of Mexico. It'll probably stay there until the Crew-1 capsule has splashed down a week later.
They had a bit of excitement down the coast at the Cocoa Beach Air Show yesterday. A WW2 era Grumman Avenger did a splash down of its own after suffering a mechanical failure. The pilot is OK and the plane looks to be salvageable.
https://nbc-2.com/news/state/2021/04/17/plane-land...
They've sent one of the recovery ships round to the other side of Florida in case the capsule has to abort and land in the Gulf of Mexico. It'll probably stay there until the Crew-1 capsule has splashed down a week later.
They had a bit of excitement down the coast at the Cocoa Beach Air Show yesterday. A WW2 era Grumman Avenger did a splash down of its own after suffering a mechanical failure. The pilot is OK and the plane looks to be salvageable.
https://nbc-2.com/news/state/2021/04/17/plane-land...
Eric Mc said:
Less than 12 hrs after I posted a link to it 
Flooble said:
The transporter, especially with the "claws" also reminds me of a Thunderbirds model.
Your not the only one.. Spacex as Thunderbirds .. https://youtu.be/tiD8nGD0Q6w
In the Scott Manley vid linked to (a couple of times) earlier he mentions half a dozen launches being required to fuel a single Lunar Starship.
Zubrin has posted that it would need 20 Starship tanker launches per Lunar Starship, whilst The Angry Astronaut is of the view that it will be somewhere between 9 and 13 tanker launches per trip.
All in low Earth orbit, which is pitched as a mitigating factor as any problems are encountered before heading off to the Moon.
That launch rate is going to need quite a fleet of boosters and associated launch and fuelling infrastructure - with contingency for RUDs.
Zubrin has posted that it would need 20 Starship tanker launches per Lunar Starship, whilst The Angry Astronaut is of the view that it will be somewhere between 9 and 13 tanker launches per trip.
All in low Earth orbit, which is pitched as a mitigating factor as any problems are encountered before heading off to the Moon.
That launch rate is going to need quite a fleet of boosters and associated launch and fuelling infrastructure - with contingency for RUDs.
Edited by jingars on Wednesday 21st April 07:01
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff