NASA crewed lunar lander awards

NASA awards lunar lander contracts to Blue Origin, Dynetics?and Starship
"Between the three contractors, I think NASA has everything it needs to
be successful."
ERIC BERGER - 4/30/2020, 1:00 PM
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020...-lunar-lander-
contracts-to-blue-origin-dynetics-and-starship/

From the article:

Three contracts
The awards, which cover a period of 10 months, were given to the
following teams:

$579 million to the Blue Origin-led "National Team." Blue Origin
will serve as the prime contractor, building the Blue Moon lunar
lander as the "descent element" of the system, along with
program management, systems engineering, and safety and mission
assurance. Lockheed Martin will develop a reusable "ascent
element" and lead crewed flight operations. Northrop Grumman
will build the "transfer element," and Draper will lead descent
guidance and provide flight avionics. It will launch on a New
Glenn rocket.

$253 million to a Dynetics-led team. The company's proposal for
a lunar lander is non-traditional and includes Sierra Nevada
Corporation as a major partner. The ALPACA lander has a pair of
drop tanks that are launched separately, which allow the main
lander to be reused. These tanks are depleted and then
jettisoned during descent. ALPACA could be launched on United
Launch Alliance's Vulcan rocket.

$135 million to SpaceX. The company bid its Super Heavy rocket
and Starship to carry humans to the Moon. The benefit of
Starship is that if the vehicle is successful, it would offer
NASA a low-cost, reusable solution for its needs.

....


Also from the article:

At the end of the initial 10-month contract, NASA may or may
not down-select from three to two lander designs.

And this:

NASA's award for Starship will likely surprise many in the
aerospace community who have viewed the ambitious project with
some skepticism (SpaceX's founder eventually plans to build
hundreds of Starships to settle Mars). But Bridenstine said
NASA could not afford to ignore the potential of this system.

"SpaceX is really good at flying and testing?and failing and
fixing," he said. "People are going to look at this and say,
'My goodness, we just saw Starship blow up again. Why are you
giving them a contract?' The answer is because SpaceX is
really good at iteratively testing and fixing. This is not
new to them. They have a design here that, if successful, is
going to be transformational. It?s going to drive down costs
and it?s going to increase access, and it?s going to enable
commercial activities that historically we?ve only dreamed
about. I fully believe that Elon Musk is going to be
successful. He is focused like a laser on these activities."

So, NASA, at least, understands SpaceX's approach to iterative design
and is o.k. with it. Otherwise, Boeing would have gotten an award, not
SpaceX.

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.

On 2020-04-30 21:56, Jeff Findley wrote:
NASA awards lunar lander contracts to Blue Origin, Dynetics?and Starship
"Between the three contractors, I think NASA has everything it needs to
be successful."
ERIC BERGER - 4/30/2020, 1:00 PM
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020...-lunar-lander-
contracts-to-blue-origin-dynetics-and-starship/

From the article:
...

$135 million to SpaceX. The company bid its Super Heavy rocket
and Starship to carry humans to the Moon. The benefit of
Starship is that if the vehicle is successful, it would offer
NASA a low-cost, reusable solution for its needs.

....

SpaceFlightNow
(https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/04/3...-lunar-lander/)
quotes Doug Loverro from NASA:

"For these initial contracts … given what the contractors proposed, both
Blue Origin and Dynetics proposed solutions that could use Gateway or
could go directly to Orion,� Loverro said. “SpaceX proposed a solution
for this base period that they’re working on that would just go to Orion.�

This is pretty farcical -- the reusable giant Starship will be used just
to ferry a small crew between Orion and the lunar surface. And Orion
will of course be launched by the non-reusable SLS, probably costing
multiples of the Starship cost.

We can at least hope that the Starship will also carry significant
amounts of cargo from Earth to Moon and back.

--
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
. @ .

On 2020-04-30 22:36, Niklas Holsti wrote:
On 2020-04-30 21:56, Jeff Findley wrote:
NASA awards lunar lander contracts to Blue Origin, Dynetics?and Starship
"Between the three contractors, I think NASA has everything it needs to
be successful."
ERIC BERGER - 4/30/2020, 1:00 PM
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020...-lunar-lander-
contracts-to-blue-origin-dynetics-and-starship/

Â*From the article:
Â*Â* ...

Â*Â*Â* $135 million to SpaceX. The company bid its Super Heavy rocket
Â*Â*Â* and Starship to carry humans to the Moon. The benefit of
Â*Â*Â* Starship is that if the vehicle is successful, it would offer
Â*Â*Â* NASA a low-cost, reusable solution for its needs.

....

SpaceFlightNow
(https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/04/3...-lunar-lander/)
quotes Doug Loverro from NASA:

"For these initial contracts … given what the contractors proposed, both
Blue Origin and Dynetics proposed solutions that could use Gateway or
could go directly to Orion,� Loverro said. “SpaceX proposed a solution
for this base period that they’re working on that would just go to Orion.�

This is pretty farcical -- the reusable giant Starship will be used just
to ferry a small crew between Orion and the lunar surface. And Orion
will of course be launched by the non-reusable SLS, probably costing
multiples of the Starship cost.

We can at least hope that the Starship will also carry significant
amounts of cargo from Earth to Moon and back.

More info from nasaspaceflight.com shows that this will be a special
version of Starship without flaps or heatshield, and with special
engines for landing and take-off mounted high up on the sides,
apparently to avoid disturbing the lunar surface. So no return to the
Earth, but (they say) multiple trips between lunar surface and lunar orbit.

--
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
. @ .

In article ,
says...

NASA press release:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...-moon-missions

More info at:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-se...-human-landers


So 967 million to 3 groupd pr $322m per company for 10 months. Nice pork.


Blue Origin is really Northrop Gunman and Lokheed with Blye Origin as
the face of it.

I have to assume thjat Boeing is somewhere behind Dynetics.

Not as far as I know. Boeing bid separately and was eliminated, along
with some other company I'd never heard of.

SpaceX will have to move from producing glorified beer kegs rhat can't
hold pressure to actual rockets pretty soon.

Your derision is the opposite of Bridenstine's praise yesterday of
SpaceX's iterative design process.

February 2021 is when NASA actually selects who gets to go to the moon
and gets more money going forward. So this $967m is an RFP send to the 3
groups who needs to submit proper proposals by February 2021.

Yes. It's money for each to come up with a more refined design to pitch
to NASA early next year.

My bet is that SpaceX will work to beat the 2 others, and then convince
NASA that if they want to land by 2024, to drop requirememt to dock to
Orion or that virtual useless Gateway thing and just let SpaceXuse
Starship from earth to the moon and back.

Nope. Look at the renderings from yesterday and read the articles on
the space websites. This version of Starship has no aerodynamic
surfaces and has no heat shield. It will not be returning to earth.
It's specifically designed for a lunar landing. Note the final landing
engines mounted up high in the renderings. This version is derived from
the Starship design that SpaceX is working on in Texas, but it's also
clearly a distinct version.

Where I am quite curious is how SpaceX will handle fuel for the return
trip. The scenarios was Starship lands on mars and they create methane
and LOX on site to refuel. That isn't gonna happen on the moon in a
couple of years.

They land with all the propellant they need to take off and get back to
Orion. In the lunar 1/6 gravity, this is easier to do than to launch
from Mars with its much higher gravity than the moon.

Considering the weight restrictions of the LEM, I am curious how they
plan to support the landing of a steel Titanic on the moon AND get it
off the moon and back to earth.

Again, this version will *not* return to earth. It will return to Orion
in a very high lunar orbit. Orion will be used to launch and return the
crew, just like the other lander proposals. This is a NASA requirement
of the crewed lunar lander. So SpaceX didn't pitch launching astronauts
or returning them to earth.

And Musk will have to take his pretty steel cones and find some means to
put a docking adaptor on it somewhere so it can dock to either Orion or
Gateway. (I assume the standard is sexual, and if som does this mean
Starship will need to be female ir Orion will dock to it?). Or are these
docking adpators androgenous so the same docking adpator could dock with
Orion , or with Gateway ?

I believe that the docking system used on Orion and Gateway is the very
same one they're going to use to dock Dragon 2 to ISS, so SpaceX already
has plenty of experience with it.

It is more likely to be Dragon2 on a Superheavy and some other lander
waitiung around the moon in my opinion. Or, Starship carries Orion as
cargo and iopens doors to release it when near the moon.

Neither of those is possible given the NASA requirements for the human
lunar lander.

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.

On Thursday, April 30, 2020 at 8:13:18 PM UTC-4, JF Mezei wrote:
NASA press release:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...-moon-missions

More info at:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-se...-human-landers


So 967 million to 3 groupd pr $322m per company for 10 months. Nice pork.


Blue Origin is really Northrop Gunman and Lokheed with Blye Origin as
the face of it.

I have to assume thjat Boeing is somewhere behind Dynetics.

SpaceX will have to move from producing glorified beer kegs rhat can't
hold pressure to actual rockets pretty soon.

February 2021 is when NASA actually selects who gets to go to the moon
and gets more money going forward. So this $967m is an RFP send to the 3
groups who needs to submit proper proposals by February 2021.


My bet is that SpaceX will work to beat the 2 others, and then convince
NASA that if they want to land by 2024, to drop requirememt to dock to
Orion or that virtual useless Gateway thing and just let SpaceXuse
Starship from earth to the moon and back.

Where I am quite curious is how SpaceX will handle fuel for the return
trip. The scenarios was Starship lands on mars and they create methane
and LOX on site to refuel. That isn't gonna happen on the moon in a
couple of years.

Considering the weight restrictions of the LEM, I am curious how they
plan to support the landing of a steel Titanic on the moon AND get it
off the moon and back to earth.

And Musk will have to take his pretty steel cones and find some means to
put a docking adaptor on it somewhere so it can dock to either Orion or
Gateway. (I assume the standard is sexual, and if som does this mean
Starship will need to be female ir Orion will dock to it?). Or are these
docking adpators androgenous so the same docking adpator could dock with
Orion , or with Gateway ?




It is more likely to be Dragon2 on a Superheavy and some other lander
waitiung around the moon in my opinion. Or, Starship carries Orion as
cargo and iopens doors to release it when near the moon.

Are you a former employee of SpaceX with a grudge? Other than that, your open hostility towards them is difficult to reason.

You should be careful making assumptions such as that with Blue origin. Unless you enjoy making silly statements and then being corrected which seems to be your pattern.

In article ,
says...

On 2020-05-01 09:31, Jeff Findley wrote:

Your derision is the opposite of Bridenstine's praise yesterday of
SpaceX's iterative design process.

There is iterative, and then there is a 2024 deadline. My comment had to
do with having iterations needing to advance at faster pace if they are
to meet a 2024 deadline. They can't continue to make weekly beer keg
builds to learn about welding for much longer if they are to meet the
2024 deadline.

Everyone with a clue knows that the 2024 "deadline" simply will not be
met. Considering the delays which continue to mount within the SLS
program, the deadline will be missed regardless of the performance of
the companies ultimately chosen to build crewed lunar landers.

Nope. Look at the renderings from yesterday and read the articles on
the space websites. This version of Starship has no aerodynamic
surfaces and has no heat shield.

The fins came about fairly recently, as did the belly fairing. And
remember that in early drawings, heat shield wasn't depicted either, the
drawings shoed a nice smooth skin too. And these pictures show a white
skin, not a steel colour one.

Yes, it's been coated likely for thermal reasons. You don't want your
LOX/methane to all boil off before you need to launch the crew off the
moon to get them back to Orion.

Not sure how far back these submissions went. But the generic designs
would likely predate the current "SN1 to SN5" that we have seen in 2020.

They have already "iterated" the landing legs section a few times, so I
would not draw any conclusions on engine placement from that image. It
may just mean that there is a shroud that goes lower. Frankly, the legs
don't look realistic if you are to land on the moon vs a perfectly level
paved parking lot.

The contract they got essentially gets them to a PDR (preliminary design
review). A CDR (critical design review) would happen before NASA would
agree to actually use the thing. No doubt changes will happen between
now and then, if they continue as one of the crewed lander providers.
Bridenstine has hinted he'd like to fund all three, but we may only get
two, which would mean one would be cut, likely after PDR of each design.

It will not be returning to earth.

I would not bet money on that. Just because it won't be crewed and part
of the NASA mission, SpaceX might want it to come back to earth because
of the reusability value of the ship.

It simply can't come back to earth without a heat shield and aerodynamic
surfaces. It would burn up on reentry.

And it is reusable. A Starship tanker (or tankers) could refuel it in
high lunar orbit for use in another landing. Reuse doesn't mean it has
to come all the way back to earth. This is not unlike ULA's proposed
ACES reusable upper stage which would also never come back to earth but
would instead be refueled in space.

On the other hand, if the performance requires shedding of everything
not absolutely necessary, then yeah, fins and shield could go and make
the ship disposable.

It's partly due to performance, but mostly due to NASA's requirements
for a crewed lunar lander. They want reusable components to eventually
be refueled at Gateway.

It just seems silly to have a mega huge ship do the landing and take off
from Moon, and then have tiny ship travel back to Earth.

Those are the NASA requirements for all of the crewed lunar landers. If
SpaceX had proposed something different, they would have been eliminated
from the competition for doing so.

engines mounted up high in the renderings. This version is derived
from
the Starship design that SpaceX is working on in Texas, but it's also
clearly a distinct version.

It's a drawing, derived from the "deam" designs of early on.

No, it's not. It's clearly derived from a fairly current iteration of
Starship.

They land with all the propellant they need to take off and get back to
Orion. In the lunar 1/6 gravity, this is easier to do than to launch
from Mars with its much higher gravity than the moon.

They still need to get Starship from the Earth to the Moon (with or
without crew). Unless part of the deal involves what woudl essentially
be a full Mars rehersal where Starship is launched empty from Earth to
LEO, and then fueling starships launched to LEO to fuel up the Moon
starrship whcih then does the trip to the moon.

The SpaceX flight proposal involves first filling up a tanker Starship
in LEO, then launching the lunar Starship to dock with it and fill up
its tanks before heading to the moon. Note that it will take many
flights of tanker Starships to fill the orbital tanker which will then
fill up the lunar Starship. This is the only way to get the delta-V
required and yes, this is exactly how a Mars Starship would be fueled
before heading to Mars.

Again, this version will *not* return to earth.

Neither did the LEM, yet the LEM needed to be super lights with extreme
efforts required to minimize its mass. Yet, now you have some heavy
steel structure that is huge and used solely to get from the tiny Orion
Capsule to do a camping trip to the moon.

Good rehersal for SPaceX to build something that goes to Mars. But
doubtful this would be ready by 2024.

And yet, NASA picked the SpaceX proposal over the Boeing proposal, which
was eliminated from the competition along with some other company I had
never heard of before.

So SpaceX didn't pitch launching astronauts
or returning them to earth.

Am pretty sure they did. But NASA's web pages still have to justify
Orion and SLS.

No, they didn't. When the US Government issues an RFP, you respond to
that RFP. NASA requires that all crewed lunar lander proposals be able
to dock with Orion in high lunar orbit, land a crew on the moon, then
safely return that crew to the Orion in the high lunar orbit. SpaceX's
proposal does exactly that, as does the other two winning proposals.

If that big hunking peace of heavy metal has a huge habitat, airlocks
etc for moon landing, it is somewhat strange to waste its capabilities.

NASA wants a continued lunar presence, not a "flags and footprints"
program that's canceled like Apollo was. Being able to land 100t to
150t of cargo on the lunar surface would be a game changer. That's why
Starship is still in the game. It's high risk in the sort term, but
with potentially a very high reward in the long term.

But with Starship still at the beer keg stage, NASA is likely correct in
not wantingt to bet Astronaiut's lives on a ship whose re-entry from
orbit and powered landing have not proven themselves yet.

Again, NASA didn't ask for a vehicle and spaceship to launch crew from
KSC. They already have that. It's called SLS launching Orion.

And with 3 candidates for the moon landing, the other 2 being "LEM"
like, NASA still has to plan for SLS/OPrion as the "shuttle" between
Earth and Moon orbit.

Again, NASA didn't ask for a vehicle and spaceship to launch crew from
KSC. They already have that. It's called SLS launching Orion.

If, between now and February 2021, SaceX advances from manufacturing
expliding beer kegs to building rockets and testing heat shield and
flyability, or even better, re-entry, I could see their role changing
and being expanded.

SpaceX's proposal includes landing an uncrewed Starship on the moon.
NASA isn't putting a crew on lunar Starship until it proves itself
first.

I believe that the docking system used on Orion and Gateway is the very
same one they're going to use to dock Dragon 2 to ISS, so SpaceX already
has plenty of experience with it.

More concerned about where on Starship such would be installed.

Likely in the nose.

With the
top of the cone occupied with tanks, and striong steel assembly, will
they change that to have an openable cone that would expose docking
adaptor?

The header tanks of Starship won't be needed on the lunar Starship. The
header tanks are way up on top to help control the center of gravity of
Starship when it reenters earth's atmosphere and does its "belly flop".
Since lunar Starship will never return to earth, that feature is simply
not needed anymore. So, the propellant tanks on lunar Starship are all
below the cargo door shown in the renderings.

Also, for a lunar Starship, you want as much mass near the bottom as
possible to make it more stable on the lunar surface. This is the exact
opposite of what is needed for a Starship designed for earth reentry and
landing.

Will be interesting to try to dock such a huge and heavy
structure against light/tiny ones.

I would think that Orion will likely dock with lunar Starship. But, it
really doesn't matter. Since they're both in microgravity, what does it
matter which is active and which is passive? The relative velocity and
direction when they contact is what matters.

Neither of those is possible given the NASA requirements for the human
lunar lander.

Current design does not prevent SpaceX from putting a Dragon2 inside
Starship to do that mission. Would save them from having to design
manned environment in Starship to meet the 2024 deadline.

A Dragon 2 pressure vessel would not be acceptable in this role. It's
simply the wrong shape. But no doubt Dragon 2 systems like life support
will prove to be precursors to what would be used in lunar Starship.

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.

In article ,
says...

On 2020-05-01 09:48, Dean Markley wrote:

Are you a former employee of SpaceX with a grudge? Other than that, your open hostility towards them is difficult to reason.



I see the difference between spin/PR efforts and actual real
deliverables. Musk is unfortunatly very much like Trump, loving to
annoucne stuff and the PR exposure it gives him.

Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Dragon 2, and Cargo Dragon 2 are all
proof that SpaceX can deliver what the customer wants. And in the case
of Dragon 2, they've delivered before the "trusted supplier" delivered
their crewed vehicle.

That's why SpaceX won a NASA contract for cargo delivery to Gateway
(Dragon XL) and why they won this NASA contract to design a lunar
Starship up to what looks like a preliminary design review.

I realise that a big part of this is pushing engineers to push limits.
But that does not change the fact that now all of Musk's
bragging/promises/PR gets translated into products.

Hyperloop is a good example.

Hyperloop isn't part of SpaceX. Hyperloop never had a NASA contract to
actually build a hyperloop. Hyperloop is a technology development
program. That may not look familiar to you because the US has
eliminated a lot of private technology development over the last several
decades. The loss of much of Bell Labs is but one example of this.

It is still not clear to me whether Starship/Super Heavy will turn out
to be revolutionalry or the space equivalent of the Spruce Goose.

We won't know until SpaceX tries, now will we?

The Raptor engines are real, but the ship itself is still vapourware
with likelyhood of major changes quite high.

You are mistaken. SN4 is getting a Raptor installed on it and we might
actually see it fly. SN5 is being built right behind SN4. Musk has
already talked about the design changes they're making to the thrust
structure and bottom tank dome as a result of what they've already
learned from previous tests.

The drawing used by NASA of Starship is absolutely not realistic. So
even if they were submitted at a time when StarShip was to be composites
and light, the landing gear is ludicrous for landing on the moon.

So, you're an expert on lunar landing gear now? Note that the lunar
Starship landing gear isn't fixed in place. Each leg will adjust to
insure that lunar Starship sits level on the surface of the moon.

If they were submitted more recently, it points to SpaceX not yet having
properly studied landing gear designs.

Again, this viewpoint shows your ignorance of the current landing gear
design.

Musk accused a professional diver of being a pedophile after the
professional diver correctly cirticised Musk for proposing a submarine
to reach kids stranded in a flooded cave.

Musk is an idiot on Twitter. He's currently blasting COVID-19
misinformation because he's ****ed Tesla isn't making cars right now.

If you look at the current Ventilator thing in USA, a similar thing
happened with Musk bragging about designing new ventilators from car
parts. They actually built a prpototype box, but despite Musk posting
picture of a page showing orders/deliveries form different hospitals,
none actually got delivered. All PR hype.

I've not been following that closely. To be fair lots of groups have
tried to make new ventilator designs, including NASA. When you have so
many crash projects running at once, most of them are bound to fail.

Musk has delivered lots. But also promised much that won't happen.

You're ignoring Shotwell at SpaceX. She's a huge driving force at
SpaceX. When programs there start to become real (i.e. paying
customers), she makes sure SpaceX delivers.

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.

In article ,
says...

BTW, the §$967m pork will not be distributed evenly between the 3
candidates. The Blue Origin group gets huge chunk of it (about $500m
IIRC) and the other two get what is left of the pie.

Like most NASA contracts like this (multiple companies bidding to work
towards a preliminary design review), it all depends on what is bid and
how NASA evaluated the proposal. The SpaceX proposal is obviously seen
as the highest risk (even though Blue Origin hasn't launched anything
except for its suborbital New Shepherd vehicle).

EVen if SpaceX loses in February, they still get close to $200m pork
subsidy to produce a paper document proposal.

This isn't pork. It's so they can design a lunar lander to the point
that they can go through a preliminary design review conducted by NASA.
As far as I know these contracts are fixed price and milestone based.
So if the milestones aren't met, they don't get the money. That goes
for all three groups that got awards.

In contrast with the other 2 who are designing single purpose
vehicles,
that money ill allow SpaceX to fund a multi purpose re-usable vehicle
that goes way beyond the narrow "land man/woman on Moon in 2024"
political pet project.

So even if SpaceX doesn't get the moon contract, that $200m will be more
productive investment by NASA than the money sent to the other two.

Hopefully. But again, SpaceX's proposal is seen as highest risk. So it
remains to be seen if it survives the PDR.

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.

On May/2/2020 at 15:19, Jeff Findley wrote :
In article ,
says...

BTW, the §$967m pork will not be distributed evenly between the 3
candidates. The Blue Origin group gets huge chunk of it (about $500m
IIRC) and the other two get what is left of the pie.

Like most NASA contracts like this (multiple companies bidding to work
towards a preliminary design review), it all depends on what is bid and
how NASA evaluated the proposal. The SpaceX proposal is obviously seen
as the highest risk (even though Blue Origin hasn't launched anything
except for its suborbital New Shepherd vehicle).

Yes. Just like when they made their proposal for launching astronauts to
the space station, they received less money because their proposal was
higher risk and less advanced than Boeing's. Or maybe it was because
their proposal was more advanced and they needed less money to complete.
That would explain why they will be launching before Boeing.

I think it would make sense for SpaceX to hire someone with expertise in
writing proposals for NASA. Of course, they should continue to focus
mainly on getting the job done. They will probably end up making more
money than Boeing in the astronaut ferrying business.


Alain Fournier

In article ,
says...

On 2020-05-02 15:19, Jeff Findley wrote:

how NASA evaluated the proposal. The SpaceX proposal is obviously seen
as the highest risk (even though Blue Origin hasn't launched anything
except for its suborbital New Shepherd vehicle).

BTW SpaceX only gets $137m according to Scott Manley.

The Blue Origin group has landed on the Moon some 50 years ago.
(Northrop Grumman). Though the NG people are in charge of a Cygnus that
will bring the lander to Moon orbit. Blue Origin makes the landing
module, and Lockheed make the ascent modele which includes the human
telephone booth. (aka: same architecture as LEM).

BTW, Boeing isn't totally out of the game. Dynetic has ULA as
subcontractor, and Boeing is opart owner of ULA :-)

That's a stretch. No one working for Boeing proper will be working on
Vulcan. And there is not likely to be any additional development on
Vulcan needed for these lunar missions. Vulcan is simply a launch
vehicle here.

This isn't pork. It's so they can design a lunar lander to the point

But to SpeceX, it is work they would be doing anyways. An the mooon
model is a simplified version, so doesn't really need a separate
development tree.

This is not true at all. SpaceX didn't have a lunar landing program
until now. Musk's focus has always been on Mars, not the moon. The
only reason they're developing a lunar version of Starship is this NASA
contract.

Those high up engines for lunar landing aren't likely needed on Mars. A
Mars Starship will still need TPS and aerodynamic surfaces because Mars
has a thin atmosphere.

Things that are different, just aren't the same.

So if the milestones aren't met, they don't get the money. That goes
for all three groups that got awards.

But there is no garantee that if 3 reach the milestones, the 3 get full
contract to build and goto the moon. And if none meet the milestones,
then expect ASA to move the goalposts to ensure at least one meets it.


Hopefully. But again, SpaceX's proposal is seen as highest risk.

Getting the the moon appears to be easy for Blue Origin, as Northrop
Grumman uses a Cygnus so would be proven tech.

But when comparing the Blue Origin landing engines (BE-7), whatever
Lockheed will use for ascent module against Raptor, wouldn't Raptor be
considered more mature and less risk?

The landing engines are considered a high risk because SpaceX hasn't
started developing them yet. They're going to be gaseous LOX/methane
engines, not Raptor.

I understand how the LEO refueling would be considered risky. And
building a titanic steel ship to get to Moon means a LOT of mass
compared to the lightweight telephone booth for Blue Origin.

Going forward, SpaceX would also have to be anble to send starship
tankers to moon orbit to refuel the Moon landing one and then come back
to Earth.

LEO is halfway to anywhere in terms of delta-V. Say Starship can put
its max payload of 100-150t into LEO. With in orbit refueling, it can
land that 100-150t of payload on the moon or on Mars. That capability
makes the other two landers look like toys.

So, in orbit refueling is a huge game changer.

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.