|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX wins single source contract for NASA's crewed lunar lander
SpaceX wins single source contract for NASA's crewed lunar lander! This is really going to **** off a lot of other companies. And by extension, a lot of lobbyists and congress-critters. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX wins single source contract for NASA's crewed lunar lander
On 17-Apr-21 7:05 am, Jeff Findley wrote:
SpaceX wins single source contract for NASA's crewed lunar lander! This is really going to **** off a lot of other companies. And by extension, a lot of lobbyists and congress-critters. Jeff Well, who'd want to bet against SpaceX getting the job done? NASA has seen how easily its money can disappear into a black hole. SLS has been nothing but a money-pit, and Starliner still hasn't carried an Astronaut. This might encourage other companies to be more focussed on building working space hardware, and less on an a drip-feed of NASA cash. Sylvia. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX wins single source contract for NASA's crewed lunar lander
Jeff Findley wrote in :
Indeed. SpaceX's low bid was a huge factor in winning this contract. Given the limited proposed increase in NASA's budget (from the Biden Administration), NASA could not ignore the low price of SpaceX's bid. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...-lunar-lander/ Jeff Have you ever stuck a toy SpaceX rocket up your butt? I like pushing in a Falcon-9, but when I want to shove up a Dragon I need to take a **** first. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX wins single source contract for NASA's crewed lunar lander
In article ,
says... On 2021-04-17 07:52, Jeff Findley wrote: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...x-as-its-sole- provider-for-a-lunar-lander/ Has the interior cabin design been made publc? No. curious about the 2 airlocks and why they are needed. SpaceX likely thought that was a feature that NASA would view favorably. It provides redundancy in an area that is critical. Lunar dust may interfere with the operation of the airlocks, so having a backup makes sense. The other two proposals were only big enough for one airlock. Also, Since the thing lands on new engines mounted on the sides, how close would it be to do away with raptors and just have the landing engines for both landing and Earth-Mooth initial transit? Lunar Starship still need Raptors to get into earth orbit and to perform the TLI burn. Is trans-lunar not even close to be done by those engines, or within realm of the possible? Likely possible, but surely inefficient due to cosine losses. The engines aren't pointed vertical, they're canted off to the sides to prevent impingement on Starship and to minimize the amount of lunar dust that's kicked up. Raptors are still needed for the TLI burn. Also, curious to see how the "iterative development" will be affected since there might now be a priority in developping the Lunar lander, decked out cabin on top etc. Lunar Starship development is just a variant of the Starship that SpaceX is currently developing on its own dime. Getting NASA to pay for lunar Starship development is a good thing for SpaceX as some of the unique features on it would likely apply to a Mars landing Starship. I take it that landing with the new side mounted engines is not even close to be possibeo on Earth? how will they test them? No. Earth has 6x the gravity of the moon. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX wins single source contract for NASA's crewed lunar lander
In article ,
says... On 2021-04-18 07:26, Jeff Findley wrote: Lunar Starship still need Raptors to get into earth orbit and to perform the TLI burn. Likely possible, but surely inefficient due to cosine losses. Since it would this only once, and never need raptors again in its Gateway-Moon trips, is this inefficiency for that once in a lifetime worth not having to haul the raptors and refocus the tanks on those new side thursters? Almost certainly, otherwise SpaceX wouldn't do it. And SpaceX does propose reusing lunar Starship by refueling it in high lunar orbit. Cite: MAY 01, 2020 - NASA SELECTS LUNAR OPTIMIZED STARSHIP https://www.spacex.com/updates/nasa-...ized-starship/ From above: A lunar optimized Starship can fly many times between the surface of the Moon and lunar orbit without flaps or heat shielding required for Earth return. On the other hand, once SLS is killed, SpaceX can turn Lunar Starship into both the lunar lander as well as the Earth-Moon flight at which point you need the raptors to land back on Earth. (and with tiles etc). 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. Blue Origin's proposal was disqualified because they essentially asked for payments before reaching milestones (not allowed). Dynetics changed their design to eliminate the drop tanks on their lander which caused it to be overweight so that the design didn't close. Also, the SpaceX proposal was the only one that fit the paltry HLS funding that NASA is currently getting from Congress. Lunar Starship development is just a variant of the Starship that SpaceX is currently developing on its own dime. But the lunar mission doesn't require landing on earth. It requires real landing legs to land on uneven terrain. Totally different engines for landing on moon. A lunar landing Starship doesn't require it. But it will never get to high lunar orbit without being refueled. And the tanker Starships need to land on earth so they can be refilled and launched again. So the program does require full reuse of both tanker Starship and Super Booster. So there are diverging priorities from the current Starship development. Disagree. Starship is more than just lunar landing Starship. You need a tanker Starship to actually fly lunar landing missions, so earth landing is still the #1 priority of Starship development. Will be interestng to see how far the current iterative tests go before we start to *see* lunar models being tested. I get the feeling that the lunar model isn't getting "iterative design" and they'll do more conventional engineering and design to work instead of test until it works. For one thing, if they can't simulate moon landing, they can't really do iterative design. They can test all the components on earth and then fly an uncrewed lunar landing test, which is in the NASA contract. Next they would fly a crewed lunar landing test, which is also in the NASA contract. Vertical landing of lunar landing Starship isn't a big unknown. Many different vehicles have landed on the moon. Big question is whether the lunar landing legs will be same or very similar to the ones for landing on Earth, or totally different. (lunar legs don't worry about re-entry so could be attached to the outside so they can have greater span for stability when landing. See the renderings on the SpaceX website. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX wins single source contract for NASA's crewed lunar lander
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX wins single source contract for NASA's crewed lunar lander
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX wins single source contract for NASA's crewed lunar lander
On 2021-04-22 21:04, Snidely wrote:
Lo, on the 4/21/2021, Niklas Holsti did proclaim ... ... 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 current SpaceX contract includes one unmanned landing and one manned landing. Of course, that is only the _plan_. But yes, there will be more opportunities. The question is if there is any credible competition for SpaceX at that time. Given the weaknesses and price of the losing proposals from the National Team and Dynetics that may be doubted. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX wins single source contract for NASA's crewed lunar lander
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA crewed lunar lander awards | Jeff Findley[_6_] | Policy | 9 | May 4th 20 02:32 PM |
NASA Adds Shannon Walker to First Operational Crewed SpaceX Mission | NASA via sci.space.tech Admin | Technology | 0 | March 31st 20 05:01 PM |
Ottawa's EMS wins key component design contract for NASA's next giantspace telescope (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 26th 05 05:00 PM |
Aerojet Wins NASA Contract for Electric Propulsion Demonstrator | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | June 3rd 05 12:42 AM |
Aerojet Wins NASA Contract for Electric Propulsion Demonstrator | [email protected] | News | 0 | June 3rd 05 12:42 AM |