• Re: NASA chooses Blue Origin for Moon landing for Artemis V.

    From Snidely@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 19 16:22:24 2023
    JF Mezei scribbled something on Friday the 5/19/2023:

    toot frm NASA making announcement: https://social.beachcom.org/@nasa/110396660009869024


    Is this a sign that NASA is losing confidence in Spacex delivering its
    mega Starship with moon landing capabilities? Or did it always intend to choose second supplier?

    It always intended to choose a second supplier (viz Dragon and
    Starliner). You didn't listen to NASA during the furor Blue Origin
    raised after the first round? NASA chose SpaceX in part because of the
    bang for the buck, but wanted a second supplier, and the two sides
    managed to convince Congress to pungle up a few more dollars.

    At the time, Blue Origin was not considered a mature contender, but now
    more credibility with some actual flight articles of the big engine
    (flight articles; flight pending but expected summer-ish).

    /dps

    --
    "I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
    _Roughing It_, Mark Twain

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JF Mezei@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 19 19:16:03 2023

    toot frm NASA making announcement: https://social.beachcom.org/@nasa/110396660009869024


    Is this a sign that NASA is losing confidence in Spacex delivering its
    mega Starship with moon landing capabilities? Or did it always intend to
    choose second supplier?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Niklas Holsti@21:1/5 to Snidely on Sat May 20 11:51:51 2023
    On 2023-05-20 2:22, Snidely wrote:
    JF Mezei  scribbled something on Friday the 5/19/2023:

    toot frm NASA making announcement:
    https://social.beachcom.org/@nasa/110396660009869024


    Is this a sign that NASA is losing confidence in Spacex delivering its
    mega Starship with moon landing capabilities? Or did it always intend to
    choose second supplier?

    It always intended to choose a second supplier (viz Dragon and
    Starliner).  You didn't listen to NASA during the furor Blue Origin
    raised after the first round?  NASA chose SpaceX in part because of the
    bang for the buck, but wanted a second supplier, and the two sides
    managed to convince Congress to pungle up a few more dollars.

    At the time, Blue Origin was not considered a mature contender, but now
    more credibility with some actual flight articles of the big engine
    (flight articles; flight pending but expected summer-ish).


    Not only that, but the new lander ("Blue Moon Lander") is completely
    redesigned -- actually turned upside down, with the crew compartment at
    the bottom, below the propellant tanks. It is also completely reusable,
    all of it goes down to the surface, and all of it comes back up again
    into NRHO, where it can be reloaded with propellants and reused.

    In unmanned, non-reusable cargo configuration, it can land 30 metric
    tons on the Moon.

    AIUI, it has to be loaded with propellant in NRHO even before it lands
    on the Moon for the first time. There is a separate vehicle that
    transfers propellants from LEO to NRHO.

    Propellants are still liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, with systems to
    cool them so that there is no or very little boil-off, allowing
    long-term storage.

    So the Blue Moon lander seems to have acquired the desirable features of
    the Dynetics Alpaca lander (crew close to the surface, main components reusable). I've not seen the new Dynetics proposal (if that was indeed
    the second of the two proposals), but so far I am not surprised by
    NASA's choice.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Snidely@21:1/5 to All on Sat May 20 09:36:02 2023
    Watch this space, where Snidely advised that...
    JF Mezei scribbled something on Friday the 5/19/2023:

    toot frm NASA making announcement:
    https://social.beachcom.org/@nasa/110396660009869024


    Is this a sign that NASA is losing confidence in Spacex delivering its
    mega Starship with moon landing capabilities? Or did it always intend to
    choose second supplier?

    It always intended to choose a second supplier (viz Dragon and Starliner). You didn't listen to NASA during the furor Blue Origin raised after the first round? NASA chose SpaceX in part because of the bang for the buck, but wanted a second supplier, and the two sides managed to convince Congress to pungle up a few more dollars.

    At the time, Blue Origin was not considered a mature contender, but now more credibility with some actual flight articles of the big engine (flight articles; flight pending but expected summer-ish).

    Also, note that the redesigned blue-ish lander won't carry humans
    before Artemis 5, after SpaceX does A3 and A4. There will be two
    unmanned early article landings somewhere in there, too. SpaceX's
    unmanned landing is before A3.

    /dps

    --
    You could try being nicer and politer
    instead, and see how that works out.
    -- Katy Jennison

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)