
SpaceX, Blue Origin, Dynetics win contracts to land astronauts on moon - gamblor956
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/30/jeff-bezos-elon-musk-win-contracts-spacecraft-land-nasa-astronauts-moon/
======
smoyer
Probably the biggest bit of information in this article is that Boeing
submitted a proposal that was rejected. You launch a defective plane, a
defective crew module and then repeatedly miss deadlines and budgets for a
booster. That appears to be more than the company's lobbyists can overcome!

~~~
vsareto
Boeing seems like a pile of crap with the other issues stacking up against it.
It had its time in the sun, but if you're career-minded, Boeing is probably
not where you want to be.

~~~
ortusdux
I know several career minded engineers that jumped ship 10 years ago.

------
JanSolo
The deadline for this moon landing is 2024; most space followers agree that
it's a crazy deadline. It's 3 years away! It's even crazier when you consider
that the lander hardware has not even been designed, let alone built, tested,
certified and man-rated.

Blue Origin has made a few public statements about having ideas (and maybe
even designs) for a lunar lander. However, given their current rate-of-
progress, I doubt that they could finish it within the time remaining.

SpaceX has built man-rated spacecraft; also they have extensive experience of
propulsive landings and re-usable launchers. Also, they have a reputation for
making fast progress. They're clearly the front-runners here and I think
they're the safest bet to succeed. Still unlikely for 2024 though.

Dynetics is partnered with Sierra Nevada who also have experience of building
spacecraft. However their craft have never been flown manned and their
speciality is in winged, aerodynamic reentry; something which is not necessary
on the moon. Also, their rate of progress is glacial; I consider it very
unlikely that they will be able to design, build, test and certify any kind of
lunar craft before 2030 at the earliest.

~~~
101404
Its 4.5 years to the end of 2024. Not a crazy deadline, but not easy either.

Maybe with this, SpaceX will focus more on development of their actual
Starship+SuperHeavy, rather than mostly focusing on mass production set-up.

Anyway, this it _really_ exciting news.

~~~
JanSolo
Remember that the SLS is what will be used to launch the Artemis missions.
Starship & Superheavy are not in the picture at all for this work, even though
they would be able to do the job and at a much lower price.

Additionally, I doubt that Starship or SuperHeavy will be ready by 2024;
flying, maybe, but reliable enough for manned missions? I don't think so.

~~~
simonh
The article says that the SpaceX submission is for Starship.

I think that’s doable in 4.5 years. They expect to fly and land an unmanned
prototype upper stage this year. A manned upper stage up to 4 years later
doesn’t seem unreasonable. They reckon the upper stage is that hardest part,
the first stage should be much simpler.

~~~
mr_toad
A lot depends on the ability to refuel in orbit. To do that they’ll need
multiple starships flying, and to have worked out the kinks in orbital
refuelling. It might sound trivial, but it’s never been done before.

~~~
nickik
There is a reason SpaceX is not just designing one 'bespoke' rocket. Elon has
said over and over again that the real challenge is producing these in large
numbers and cheaply.

They will actually have to prove out refueling pretty soon under the NASA
contract.

And SpaceX bid also includes flying the system many times until 2024.

So SpaceX will have to do a lot of flights and demonstrate all this stuff to
have a shot at this. So it is good that they are going right into mass
production that is the only way they can prove all these different things
until 2024.

------
pjscott
Here's an article from NASA with more description of what they're building:

[https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-selects-blue-origin-
dyneti...](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-selects-blue-origin-dynetics-
spacex-for-artemis-human-landers)

------
cydonian_monk
In this project, Blue Origin is working with Lockheed Martin and Northrop
Grumman, while Dynetics is partnered with Sierra Nevada Corp. So it makes
sense that Blue Origin received a much larger chunk of money than SpaceX -
they're somewhat unproven in the space, but are partnered with experienced
firms that have been there before and are more likely to deliver. And SpaceX
is probably going to do whatever they plan to do with or without the contract
money. I'm interested in seeing what Dynetics is up to... as I'm sure are a
few others.

Interesting times right now.

~~~
CydeWeys
> they're somewhat unproven in the space, but are partnered with experienced
> firms that have been there before and are more likely to deliver.

I disagree with this characterization. I think SpaceX is more likely to
deliver. The old dinosaurs are years behind and billions over budget on
projects like SLS. SpaceX is the surest bet. They weren't five years ago but
they are now.

~~~
hwillis
It's common for specialty contracts (aerospace, nuclear, defense etc) to be
awarded based on need. The government is conscious of how competitive the
industry is, and tries to keep several firms alive in any one sector
regardless of who is delivering more value. Sometimes it results in
questionable choices.

They don't create contracts just to keep companies afloat (not without a lot
of lobbying, anyway), but they will give a _lot_ more money even if companies
are losing money to wild incompetence. Westinghouse is a good example. They
may be literally losing blueprints to nuclear reactors, but there aren't many
other companies that can make reactors in the first place, and in the slim
chance the government suddenly needs to make a lot (eg every sub sinks at
once), they _really_ don't like relying on unproven designs and manufacturers.

------
Rebelgecko
Definitely a big win for newspace, although I think it's a bit bizarre (and
perhaps self-serving for Bezos) that the headline only mentions 2 of the 3
companies that got awards

~~~
colinplamondon
First, Blue Moon is doing some really interesting things with regularizing
access to the Moon. Clear adapters, clear pricing, it's as much a leap forward
as what SpaceX has done with regularizing access to orbit.

From a scale standpoint, it also plays it safe. No exponential increase in
tonnage over Apollo, but an exponential increase in costs and private access.
That's all interesting as all hell, and props to the Blue Origin team.

Second, Starship is just insanely fucking cool. It's maybe one of the most
ambitious generation on generation leaps ever attempted, by any team of human
beings ever. It's aiming to skip from the Bronze Age to the Industrial Age
overnight. The sheer scale of ambition is just breathtaking.

Dynetics, on the gripping hand, is... yet another government contractor.
Taking a government contract. Developing a paint by numbers solution. Again.
Just like SLS. And the Space Shuttle. And Constellation. And Ares. And every
other slab of corporate welfare has doled out over the past 40 years.

To project my opinions onto OP, I can't imagine Dynetics' contribution here is
getting anyone too hot and bothered.

~~~
chasd00
I couldn't find total mass for Blue Moon but could they just put it on top of
Falcon Heavy and call it done? This article about using Falcon Heavy for Orion
seems to imply it's at least plausible.

[https://hackaday.com/2019/03/25/could-orion-ride-falcon-
heav...](https://hackaday.com/2019/03/25/could-orion-ride-falcon-heavy-to-the-
moon/)

~~~
colinplamondon
This also implies New Glenn won't be ready in time, or human rated in time,
for 2024. New Glenn is supposed to be even more powerful than the Falcon
Heavy.

That said, even if they could have New Glenn ready , it's probably super smart
to tie themselves to some of the legacy aerospace companies.

It aligns a whole lot of lobbyists behind Blue Origin's bids, and brings with
it a lot of expertise on the bidding process.

Blue Origin's relationship with legacy aerospace feels a lot like Microsoft
and IBM.

~~~
garmaine
Blue Origin's timelines have been even more inspirational than Musk's. Like..
Blue Origin hasn't even reached orbit yet.

But to Blue Origin's credit, they're less shy about working with others.
They're developing the engine for ULA's new rocket (presumably their own
competition!), and I doubt they'd have major qualms about launching Blue Moon
on a ULA or even SpaceX rocket, once congress is finally able to admit that
SLS isn't happening.

------
knoke
This question might be a bit naive, but could someone explain to me if the
SpaceX illustration
([https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/p...](https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/starship_moon_astronauts.jpg?itok=dRfA9RhQ))
is feasible at all? From the (many, oh, so many) hours of KSP I've played
landing legs seem to be the way to go with an uneven and uncertain and
especially slightly sloped landing surface and not a flat rocket underside. Or
is there any explanation how Space Ships are supposed to land? Thanks Thanks

~~~
simonh
That’s a really early render, from back when starship was going to be made
from composite materials. At that time they hadn’t figured out the landing leg
system, and anyway it’s changed several times since.

------
wmf
So launch on Orion+SLS then transfer over to Starship for the last mile? What
a crazy plan.

~~~
DannyB2
A second Starship booster can be used to get SLS off the ground as Starship's
payload.

~~~
BitwiseFool
I'm waiting for the SLS Heavy, with two starship boosters on the side instead
of the SRBs.

~~~
wmf
Don't give them any ideas!

------
Causality1
It seems a little odd that a company which has never achieved orbit was
awarded a contract.

~~~
missedthecue
I mean that was the case when we've put men on the moon before

------
thoraway1010
Wasn't spaceX's bid 1/4 the price of Blue Origin / Northrup?

------
oh_sigh
mods, there is a typo in the title. astronaughts is a good nickname for cosmic
dust though.

~~~
smoyer
And it would apparently be a good name for the Boeing lander's contract.

------
nathanaldensr
Title is misspelled: astronauts

~~~
tlb
Fixed, thanks

------
buboard
I don't see any of these happening. People will demand large investment in
biotech after this scare, instead of vanity projects.

~~~
cdolan
“Vanity”. Ha.

I would figure as a member of this forum you’d have a respect for the speed of
technical innovation brought about by the 1960’s space race. Why wouldn’t
similar improvements occur here for intra-solar and inter-stellar space
travel?

Why is it vanity to explore, but “biotech” (which recently seemed to go off
the deep end of “augmented bio-humans who are part sci-fi cyborg”) is not? Did
“people” “demand” “fintech” after 2007-2010?

Edit: “We choose to go to the moon...” feels just as relevant today as it did
in the 1960’s. I want my children to have the opportunity to fly off this pale
due dot and look back.

