NASA Opens SpaceX's Moon Lander Contract To Rivals Over Starship Delays (reuters.com) 61
NASA has reopened SpaceX's $4.4 billion moon lander contract to new bidders like Blue Origin and Lockheed Martin after delays in Starship's development threatened the 2027 Artemis 3 mission. Reuters reports: The move paves the way for rivals such as Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin to snatch a high-profile mission to land the first astronauts on the moon in half a century. "I'm in the process of opening that contract up. I think we'll see companies like Blue get involved, and maybe others," the U.S. space agency's acting chief Sean Duffy, who also serves as U.S. Transportation Secretary, told Fox News' "Fox & Friends" program.
Duffy's comments follow months of mounting pressure within NASA to speed up its Artemis lunar program and push SpaceX to make greater progress on its Starship lunar lander, while China progresses toward its own goal of sending humans to the moon by 2030. It represents a major shift in NASA's lunar strategy, starting a new competitive juncture in the program for a crewed moon lander just two years before the scheduled landing date. Blue Origin is widely expected to compete for the mission, while Lockheed Martin has indicated it would convene an industry team to heed NASA's call.
Starship, picked by NASA in 2021 under a contract now worth $4.4 billion, faces a 2027 moon landing deadline that agency advisers estimate could slip years behind schedule, citing competing priorities. Musk sees Starship as crucial to launching larger batches of Starlink satellites to space and eventually ferrying humans to Mars, among other missions. "They do remarkable things, but they're behind schedule," Duffy said of SpaceX's lunar lander work, adding President Donald Trump wants to see the mission take place before his White House term ends in January 2029.
Duffy's comments follow months of mounting pressure within NASA to speed up its Artemis lunar program and push SpaceX to make greater progress on its Starship lunar lander, while China progresses toward its own goal of sending humans to the moon by 2030. It represents a major shift in NASA's lunar strategy, starting a new competitive juncture in the program for a crewed moon lander just two years before the scheduled landing date. Blue Origin is widely expected to compete for the mission, while Lockheed Martin has indicated it would convene an industry team to heed NASA's call.
Starship, picked by NASA in 2021 under a contract now worth $4.4 billion, faces a 2027 moon landing deadline that agency advisers estimate could slip years behind schedule, citing competing priorities. Musk sees Starship as crucial to launching larger batches of Starlink satellites to space and eventually ferrying humans to Mars, among other missions. "They do remarkable things, but they're behind schedule," Duffy said of SpaceX's lunar lander work, adding President Donald Trump wants to see the mission take place before his White House term ends in January 2029.
by 2027? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see any way competitors will be able to land people on the moon by 2027. I'm not convinced space x can do it either. But reopening the contract at this late stage is a little strange politically. All it will do is delay it further and ultimately cost more. Which may actually be fine for SpaceX who will certainly keep the contract.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sean Duffy used to work for BGR Group, a lobbying firm, that counts Lockheed Martin as one of its clients. I don't have evidence of any guilt of Mr Duffy continuing to listen to his former bosses and their clients, but its weird to consider anyone else might be conceivably ready with a lunar lander prototype in the next 18-24 months. At least SpaceX has *flown* theirs, with demonstrable success.
Or, more likely, this is public pressure on Elon Musk by the Trump Administration to bring him back into t
Re: (Score:3)
You think Musk is gonna give a fuck? He is infected with the tribalism mind virus, do you have any idea how that virus works?
Re: (Score:3)
Objectivity tribe?
Re:by 2027? (Score:5, Interesting)
The manned moon landing could happen sooner if they loosen up on some of the restrictions.
There's a long list of requirements that will add mass and complexity. NASA didn't want to leave landing legs on the moon like was done with Apollo, this means a much heavier lander. The lander is to not be discarded, that comes home too. There's a four person crew requirement, so more people, life support, food, oxygen, etc.
If we went in a mad dash like we did for Apollo then we could do this more quickly. It took how long for Apollo to get from announcing a plan to put bootprints on the moon and getting there? Eight years? Well, we have a lot more experience in getting people into space now than then so there's a lot less of the developing new technology like was done with Apollo. There's more automation available now so maybe we could see this with a single person. I doubt NASA would do that though for all kinds of reasons, but keep it to three people like Apollo and that's weight saved from the four person crew that's planned.
A problem with SpaceX appears to be the amount of fuel they needed to get the manned mission completed kept growing. It's a heavy craft and so will take more energy to move it to the moon in a reasonable time. Getting the fuel to orbit was going to be done by multiple launches because it would not fit on a single rocket. I recall something that the number of launches they calculated had grown to a dozen.
Isn't there a plan for a space station in orbit around the moon to aid in future missions? A kind of semi-autonomous station that can hold people for rest and refuel on the way to and from the moon but not need to be crewed at all times? Then would be a new space station in Earth orbit too, one that unlike the ISS is in a favorable orbit for missions to the moon and Mars. If we do that to simplify logistics then getting to the moon isn't happening by 2027. Do it like we saw with Apollo and it could happen.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not so much about not leaving stuff on the surface, it's about reusability. They want to keep costs down by having the lander do more than one mission. But now it looks like Lunar Gateway won't happen, you have to wonder what the point of that is.
Unfortunately pivoting to a disposable lander probably won't help them now, there just isn't enough time.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so much about not leaving stuff on the surface, it's about reusability. They want to keep costs down by having the lander do more than one mission.
Good, fast, cheap.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A problem with SpaceX appears to be the amount of fuel they needed to get the manned mission completed kept growing. It's a heavy craft and so will take more energy to move it to the moon in a reasonable time. Getting the fuel to orbit was going to be done by multiple launches because it would not fit on a single rocket. I recall something that the number of launches they calculated had grown to a dozen.
The Spacex problems are just starting. While Elmo was placing stars in the eyes of people listening to his spiel, it was almost all concentrated on just the Starship. So with a big heavy rocket needing many launches for fuel, then launches for logistics, this starts to look like the WW2 "The Hump" effort.
And there is the odd part. Where are the plans? I see occasional 3-D renderings, little else. I get a lot of people angry when I note that the Starship rocket might be flashy, but it is a very small part
Re: (Score:1)
And there is the odd part. Where are the plans? I see occasional 3-D renderings, little else. I get a lot of people angry when I note that the Starship rocket might be flashy, but it is a very small part of the effort to go to the moon, and especially Mars.
To answer this (without endorsing Spacex or anyone), a low cost launch system to LEO is a necessary first step. Very few believed it to be possible, so it's premature to make further plans. Even for SpaceX, they have other low hanging uses like Starlink and Artemis that will keep them funded.
During the development of seafaring technology, there were no plans to colonise newfound lands; colonisation came later, through trial and error (and multiple failures).
It’s unwise to make plans before turning
Re: (Score:2)
And there is the odd part. Where are the plans? I see occasional 3-D renderings, little else. I get a lot of people angry when I note that the Starship rocket might be flashy, but it is a very small part of the effort to go to the moon, and especially Mars.
To answer this (without endorsing Spacex or anyone), a low cost launch system to LEO is a necessary first step. Very few believed it to be possible, so it's premature to make further plans. Even for SpaceX, they have other low hanging uses like Starlink and Artemis that will keep them funded.
That isn't how the logistics work though. the Apollo program had essentially everything designed and built well before the Saturn rolled out to the launchpad. There were plenty of adjustments, but you can't just say "The Saturn V first stage is ready, let's design everything else now."
This started to interest me greatly, when I hear how we were going to have a million people living on Mars by 2050. Everything transported by Starship. People, materials
Where are the landing sites? Where are the designs
Re: (Score:1)
The lander is to not be discarded, that comes home too.
No, it most certainly does not.
You are correct that it doesn't sit on the moon, though.
Re:by 2027? (Score:5, Interesting)
SpaceX is contracted to provide a lander, which they plan to be Starship. The idea is they will land it vertically on the moon, similar to their boosters. No catching it like they do on Earth. Then there will be some kind of lift to get the occupants down to the surface.
They are a long way from making it happen. They need to get Starship reliably to orbit, so that they can launch with a payload of fuel. Then they need to perfect in-orbit refuelling. Then trans-lunar injection, lunar orbit rendezvous, and finally landing. Then get it man rated. The idea is for the astronauts to get to lunar orbit on another ship and then transfer, but that depends on other vehicles being available for that.
Blue Origin are also providing a different lander, but are also quite a long way from having it working. SLS and Artemis are both floundering.
Meanwhile the Chinese are working towards a more conservative system. They will do a lunar orbit rendezvous between the lander and crew craft, each of which will make its way there independently. That allows them to use smaller, existing rockets, and the combined vehicles can be a little larger than Apollo too. They have been showing off the lander prototypes for a while, and testing seems to be going well. They have experience from their space station of longer duration missions and life support systems. Their lunar surface suit is coming along well too. They want to land by 2030, which is believable based on their progress so far, and given that they don't have nearly as much to develop as NASA does.
Re: (Score:1)
It could also be a genius move. It's playing to billionaires egos - their dick measuring can now be put to good use getting humanity back onto the moon. It does feel like no one else can really compete here, but ego seems to be a powerful motivator, and at least one rocket even looks like a dick. You may be surprised what comes of this.
Then there's the conspiracy theory... Trump and Musk fall out, Trump makes a call to Nasa... contract re-opens. Either way, same outcome.
Re:by 2027? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see any way competitors will be able to land people on the moon by 2027. I'm not convinced space x can do it either. But reopening the contract at this late stage is a little strange politically. All it will do is delay it further and ultimately cost more. Which may actually be fine for SpaceX who will certainly keep the contract.
This isn't about feasibility. This is a two-fold situation.
Fold 1: Trump believes if he pushes hard enough he can be "The President that took us back to the moon." And his ego absolutely refuses to believe that credit will go to any other president, so SpaceX's timelines slipping past 2027 is a possibility that is absolutely unacceptable.
Fold 2: The public squabble between the brat kings Musk and Trump means that Trump has further incentive to push for more publicly subservient oligarchs to be the face of the space company that plays the role of transport to the surface of the Moon.
Technically, while SpaceX has very little chance of hitting that 2027 target, there's ZERO chance somebody jumping in at this point would hit it. None of the other players that could even think of creating a landing vehicle move nearly as fast as SpaceX, and SpaceX has been playing the game the entire time.
The only other possibility is that the administration wants to spread some extra pork to the other space players. So, maybe we'll see a whole horde of companies getting massive pork funnels set up over their heads for things that never materialize, while SpaceX goes ahead and gets the job done anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Fold 1: Trump believes if he pushes hard enough he can be "The President that took us back to the moon." And his ego absolutely refuses to believe that credit will go to any other president, so SpaceX's timelines slipping past 2027 is a possibility that is absolutely unacceptable.
And I'm betting he'll definitely want something gold that says Trump to be put on the Moon. He's in a build large/expensive legacy things, that we won't be able to easily undo mode, like the new White House ballroom (which may be proceeding illegally) and proposed "Arc de Trump" (officially, "Triumphal Arch") in DC. Tick-tock, time's running out...
Re: (Score:1)
to be honest SpaceX won previous contract by coming up with very optimistic plan in snake oil marketing department. /s
Give it to Russia (Score:5, Funny)
Contract it out to one of the Russian or better yet even a Chinese launch provider, if they're good enough to make MAGA hats they can make rockets.
Re: (Score:2)
This is all to try to beat China back to the moon, so they aren't going to help them by paying them to develop the technology.
Also to get it done before Trump's 2nd term ends. Apparently he's not that confident of getting a 3rd.
The Chinese look on track for around 2030. NASA has fallen behind, partly because it didn't get the funding it needed, partly because contractors fell behind too.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's true. Basically all missions are "low earth orbit", unless you create a GIANT rocket... like the Saturn V. The US did this for the Apollo mission; however, even though they have the blueprints, the rockets literally cannot be made any more because it was designed for a different workforce with different skills.
There's also many advances in computing and engine technology to incorporate. And getting all correct is hard.
The Soviets were never able to
Re: (Score:2)
The Soviets had good engines and a good idea to combine many of them. One that SpaceX has now adopted. They just didn't have the political will or money to get it working.
Anyway, Trump seems keen to get there before China.
Re: (Score:2)
All about trying to beat China? I don't think that's true.
Of course it is.
The first space race was about beating the Soviets. This time it's the Chinese.
We have to have a competitor to prove ourselves against. It is the nature of our society. We do not do things just to accomplish them: we must win.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's true that we can't build the Saturn V. It's just that we have better engines now. Merlin for example has a better specific impulse and much higher thrust to weight ratio. It would be wasteful to build another F-1 engine.
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX Starship can be seen as a descendent of the Soviet attempt to build a moon rocket. Starship has more similarities with the N-1 rocket than the Saturn V.
Re: (Score:2)
SLS Block 2 is quite capable of "getting back to the moon" without 16 Starship launches.
Re: (Score:2)
What would you use as a lander?
Re: (Score:2)
Apollo's LM cost ~$300M (in today's dollars) from blueprint to stacking.
It's not a comparable mission in the slightest, as the LM is tiny and has highly limited capacity and longevity- but that was the point. This isn't about "getting back to the moon".
Re: (Score:2)
Contract it out to one of the Russian or better yet even a Chinese launch provider,
I don't think that the Russian space program has had a successful mission past Earth orbit since 1986. They're not really in the race anymore,
We'll see (Score:2)
Re: We'll see (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An RS25 is far better than any Raptor built at any job except for being easily refuelable on Mars.
There were logical reasons for that.
SuperHeavy is indeed a pretty rad booster.
As for lower cost to orbit, if we're using the metric by which you would measure NASA's via SLS, SpaceX is currently sitting at around $2 billion per kg.
Will it get lower? Sure- once they start putting StarLinks up there and subsidizing the launches with them.
Blue Origin runs expensive rides for the rich! (Score:3)
Re:Blue Origin runs expensive rides for the rich! (Score:5, Funny)
They'll be fine with their moon lander... right up until the moment the parachute opens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Blue Origin has had one successful launch (Score:2)
Has Blue Origin even achieved orbit yet?
Yes, they successfully made orbit with New Glenn: https://spaceflightnow.com/202... [spaceflightnow.com]
Haven't done a second launch yet, but do note that they are providing engines for Vulcan.
With respect to a lunar lander, that's more like a rocket-powered soft landing on Earth, which they now do routinely with New Shepard.
Yes, indeed (Score:2)
There will be loads of company that will accomplish that task faster and cheaper than SpaceX.
Could star ship ever land without the chop sticks? (Score:2)
I guess not, it's a big old lump. SpaceX are the space truckers [imdb.com], they'll get you there, hopefully get you back.
I guess given it's size, it's a good building block for an orbital platform too. Stick a few together, kit them out and you have a space station.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As we have seen even with any amount of theory and computer simulation there is still a lot of trial and error.
Re: (Score:3)
36 successful Starship launches should be no problem for SpaceX.
Why bother at all, if it's that hard? (Score:2)
The eagle and lander pattern worked.
From a commercial perspective, specialising in interplanetary travel or surface exploration feels more efficient. There is not much intersection between those subjects, integration of course.
But wait? (Score:2, Informative)
I'm trying to understand the narrative here.
I understood from many, many Slashdot posts that Elon Musk and Donald Trump were partners in crime and that SpaceX was Elon's tool for milking the US govt for no-bid contracts. How can NASA open this up to other vendors, doesn't that hurt SpaceX? What's the value of a sinecure if it's so easily ignored?
Snark aside, I welcome competition on this; a thriving PRIVATE space industry in the US will be the only thing that can compete with the power of a dedicated Chin
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to understand the narrative here. I understood from many, many Slashdot posts that Elon Musk and Donald Trump were partners in crime and
Huh? Elon Musk funded Donald Trump's presidential campaign, indeed, but I don't see how that makes them "partners in crime." The Supreme Court ruled that billionaires are allowed to fund political action committees. If you think that's a crime, blame the Supreme Court.
that SpaceX was Elon's tool for milking the US govt for no-bid contracts.
SpaceX doesn't get any no-bid contracts; they are just very successful in winning bids. But they win because their bids are typically lower in cost than the competition. The solicitation to provide a lunar lander to NASA was open to anybody wi
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe their bid was accepted at first. They had to fight to get it considered *in addition* to ULA, I think they're called.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe their bid was accepted at first. They had to fight to get it considered *in addition* to ULA, I think they're called.
Their bid won in the first round. It is unlikely that ULA would have put in a bid for the lunar lander (they are solely a launch vehicle company-- the individual companies, Boeing and Lockheed, the components of ULA, were part of the Blue Origin "National Team" bid). https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/16... [cnn.com]
Blue Origin sued NASA to be reconsidered, saying that they didn't know that cost was so important, but lost their case.
Re: (Score:2)
I do find it rather ironic that the article says SpaceX delays are threatening Artemis, given, well....everything ELSE Artemis-related has been pretty much a mess.
https://www.bgr.com/1997942/wh... [bgr.com]
Well, considering that ablative shields, batteries and air conditioning are such cutting-edge technologies, one must expect unexpected problems. /s
What's the value of a sinecure if it's so easily ignored?
Mr. Musk has discovered that there are penalties for lèse-majesté.
Just broadcast from a soundstage (Score:1)
Re: Just broadcast from a soundstage (Score:2)
It is going to take a heck of a lot of launches to build a moon base, and now you want to build a moon base with a sound stage? There isn't even any atmosphere on the moon to carry sound, so all the microphones would need redesigning as well.
If anything, your solution seems to add difficulties.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. From today's QOTD:
"I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated. -- Poul Anderson"
What 'rivals'? (Score:2)
The 'rivals' can't even bring home astronauts from a couple of hundred miles, much less from the moon.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not in their mission profile at all.
Astronauts will be coming home on Orion.
Competing priorities? (Score:2)
"Competing priorities" is another (weasel) way of saying "reusable rockets". We've already been to the moon several times with stupid expensive single-use rockets. That's how NASA has operated and is their general mindset, the shuttle notwithstanding. We'll get there by the deadline with a modern single-use rocket but so what? SpaceX's goal is to get there and back over and over quickly with the same rocket. That's what makes their approach much more difficult but ultimately more useful and less expens
Uh-oh (Score:2)
Uh-oh, Musk shouldn't have pissed off Trump.
the real problem (Score:2)
The real problem is that the moon landing program suffers from second system syndrome. It is far far too complex. The 1969 launch succeeded because it was minimalist. The current one is maximalist, trying all sorts of fancy stuff which is unlikely to all work at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW I consider the Shuttle to be the "second system syndrome" result. But, here's hoping they can achieve *any* category of good/fast/cheap, anyways.