Lo, on the 4/21/2021, Niklas Holsti did proclaim ...
On 2021-04-21 18:29, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

...
The possibility of being able to replace SLS for Earth-Moon transit
is likely why SpaceX won over the other more specialized solutions.

That's not correct. There have been articles published talking about
the selection.

The other two had serious problems with their proposals.

Yes.


Blue Origin's proposal was disqualified because they essentially
asked for payments before reaching milestones (not allowed).

Not really. That problem with the National Team proposal was noted, but there
is a foot-note in the source-selection statement that says that it was not a
fatal flaw, because it could have been negotiated away. There were some
technical problems and low TRLs for some of the propulsion parts, IIRC. And
no clear path to sustainable or commercial operation (a major redesign was
proposed for that).


Also, the SpaceX proposal was the only one that fit the paltry HLS
funding that NASA is currently getting from Congress.


That was the major reason. That, and the (surprising?) fact that the Lunar
Starship risks turned out not to be higher than the risks of the others.

Even the SpaceX proposal exceeded the money available for the first year(s),
so NASA had to negotiate a delayed payment plan with SpaceX.

Also, this is not the whole enchilada of lunar landings, and may only
cover the first /unmanned/ lunar landing. The other two have been
invited to compete in a second contract bid, and I think Eric Bergen
covered this (briefly).

Also, the VIPER landing is a separate contract won by a startup that we
don't know much about yet, but I think they building something bigger
than an Electron but smaller than a Falcon Heavy. I need to go back to
coverage of that announcement to be more precise.


/dps

--
"I'm glad unicorns don't ever need upgrades."
"We are as up as it is possible to get graded!"
_Phoebe and Her Unicorn_, 2016.05.15