[removed]

I do agree that it fits with nasa strategy. Overall this allows them to have more options for sending cool science payloads out into space. Which is what I think everyone in this sub wants to see more of.

Starship is risky but so were all the other proposals. SpaceX had the most technically adept proposal with the best strategy for mitigating risks. That's why they won and the others did not. And they now get help developing it from nasa.

But there's still a big difference between saying "I'm going to help you build your next generation race car so i can use it for the race season" and "I'm gonna use your race car (without helping) to race in the talladega 500, even though you've only ever built a go kart before now"

So SpaceX won't be able to have a starship based lander ready in time....but some other aerospace company will? As far as jokes go that's a pretty good one

I don't really have a much of a problem with BO getting this contract

However trying to argue that BO getting this is in any way comparable to SpaceX getting their HLS contract is pretty silly and doesn't hold up to much scrutiny

Exactly my point. There is no way a Starship-based lunar lander will be ready in time. In fact, I believe the Starship will not be used as a lander at all and expect to see NASA use a more conventional design.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Starship has flown hops and landed and its from an enterprises that not only has gone to orbit, but is the planet's premier launch service provider.

New Glen is a couple of pictures of incomplete tanks and fairings.

If Blue Origin wants to be taken seriously, they gotta actually make an orbital rocket and actually go to orbit. You can't just burn money without results and expect people to take you seriously. Its been what, 20 years? I think people (and Nasa) have been patient with them.

Then you should know also that starship could be a complete failure too.

But I get it. SpaceX good blue origin bad. That's the thought process around here.

Ive worked for enough startups to know that spending money means nothing.

Starship is further along in development in that a prototype exists, but yeah they are both under development.

Blue origin has spent a billion dollars on manufacturering facilities to build new Glenn. That to me shows they are serious about building it and we should see the first prototype rolling out sometime soon

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |BO|Blue Origin (Bezos Rocketry)| |C3|Characteristic Energy above that required for escape| |EVA|Extra-Vehicular Activity| |FCC|Federal Communications Commission| | |(Iron/steel) Face-Centered Cubic crystalline structure| |GTO|Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit| |HLS|Human Landing System (Artemis)| |SLS|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |SOP|Standard Operating Procedure| |ULA|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)| |USAF|United States Air Force|

|Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |Starlink|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation|

^(11 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 15 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8542 for this sub, first seen 10th Feb 2023, 15:53]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])

Nah, blue origin bad SpaceX good. How dare they snub SpaceX or so goes the Elon simps in /r/space

>Blue origin has a similar rocket, blue Glen.

Do they, though?

The nuances of both are different but there are similarities, and it fits with NASA strategy of helping to foster the commercial launch industry.

it's definitely risky and a stretch to rely on starship for the moon lander, there are many untested capabilities that have to be developed. It's a developmental rocket, and got the contract.

Blue Glenn is similar in that it's a developmental rocket, and got the contract.

Well a middle class man with $300,000 to his name certainly isn’t going to afford anything in the space industry

While I agree that people are being too harsh, there is quite a difference. SpaceX has experience building not one, not two, but 3 separate orbital rockets. One of them that was previously holding the title for most powerful operational rocket (and uses 27 engines on the first stage). So it makes sense that nasa would trust them to be able to develop their 4th rocket that uses 33 engines and is in a less complex configuration despite being a larger rocket.

The contracts were also very different. No one has a working human landing system for the moon. They're development contracts. The whole point is developing something new and having nasa oversight into some of the technical challenges. This launch contract isn't about development. Nasa isn't going to be helping blue origin get new Glenn ready. Instead they are putting faith that this company that has never developed an orbit rocket can develop one of the most powerful orbital rockets. And have it working by late next year.

Blue has experience developing new Shepard which is far different, but also still shows engineering competency and definitely gives reason to believe in new Glenn coming eventually. But it's still very different scenarios than HLS.

This take is laughably bad and shows a real lack of understanding or intelligence. New Shepard may not be an orbital rocket, but you're vastly under stating the amount of hard engineering that has to go into a vehicle like that. Developing rocket engines in and of itself is one of the hardest parts. And the rest isn't much less difficult. Last time nasa tried to get something similar developed, they failed.

This mission doesn't cost a billion dollars either. The class of mission it is in puts it at under 80 million. Blue origin is all but guaranteed to be taking a big loss in money to launch this payload. And despite your paper towel tube, they actually do have a track record of doing complex engineering and a plan to have a partially reusable heavy lift launch vehicle, unlike you.

Lastly, nasa has always, and I mean always, done things through contracting. Saturn v, space shuttle, SLS, all made by contractors. Nasa owned those designs but again, made by contractors. Not to mention even back decades ago they were launching satellites on rockets that they didn't own. This is no different. They also still do things in house.

Your terrible argument is like saying nasa shouldn't by cars from Ford. And instead should build them from scratch rather than giving tax payer money to Ford, a billion dollar company. It's completely ignorant of how things work for one. And for two, it shows a lack of understanding about why nasa would use services rather than doing every single thing in house. It would be a bigger waste of tax payer money to do it your way.

So instead it is more beneficial to nasa to use the rocket developed by blue origin which has near totally been funded by bezos and his money. So i reiterate that your complaints are just laughably unintelligent and, well, pointless.

People are criticizing NASA for contracting blue origin and a developmental rocket, but apparently ok to look the other way for NASA contracting a developmental rocket for something of much higher consequence

Blue origin has as invested billions of dollars into the development of the Blue Glenn rocket.

It's going to become another player in the commercial launch industry and NASA wants that to happen.

I don't see any problem here

Hmm.

NASA awarded pretty big contracts to spacex for lunar lander and starship. That's a platform under development and not at all proven yet.

Blue origin has a similar rocket, blue Glen. NASA wants more commercial launch providers, so a mission like this to cut the teeth of new Glen is a great thing.

Don't you mean the "revised launch date"?

The taxpayer dime NASA gets is a grain of sand in the US taxpayer budget, if you took it all out you wouldn't even notice. Sorry.

The irony is that NASA finding is net positive for the economy, at least has been, honestly not sure of current status but if this is the hill you want to fight on, we can have a look of any recent info on the topic.