Starship and Blue's Lander

[darkenfast]

Enjoy! I'm voting for Starship on Mars first.

[kevinof]

The Blue “national” plan is now looking like a smaller version of the Starship plan with depots and multiple tanker flights, refuelling etc.  Ie “immensely complex and high risk”. It has a lot of moving parts and lots of tech to develop but across multiple partners.

I think at least 8-10 years.

[zodiacchris]

Give that BO haven’t even reached orbit yet and we have witnessed the development pace over the last 20 years, I feel that this is a fig leaf insurance undertaking to placate those in Congress who think SpaceX won’t deliver and to offer a hypothetical second option to land Astronauts. It might get to the unmanned lander test at some stage, but once the Starship lunar lander is operational and has a couple of successful missions under the belt I doubt anyone will want a mission architecture that relies on an unproven and less capable system. The empty weight of the lander is meant to be 16 tonnes, it’s back to shaving grams off bolts, unlike Starship with its excess capabilities. Plus BO still has to develop new tech for this and the mission architecture is complex.

If things work out and Starship lands on Mars and flight rates increase, the BO lander will just fade away IMHO…

[John Santos]

It's way too soon to guess if either, both or neither will ever happen, let alone guess which will be first.

[Nomadd]

It's way too soon to guess if either, both or neither will ever happen, let alone guess which will be first.

 No it's not.

[DeimosDream]

Do the Blue Origin pathfinder landers count?

One of Blue's strengths over dynetics was their promise to make two self-funded pathfinder landing attempts in 2024/2025 to mature their tech before the Uncrewed Flight Test of the sustainable lander.

[DanClemmensen]

The Blue “national” plan is now looking like a smaller version of the Starship plan with depots and multiple tanker flights, refuelling etc.  Ie “immensely complex and high risk”. It has a lot of moving parts and lots of tech to develop but across multiple partners.

I think at least 8-10 years.

The main difference is that all of the pieces of the SpaceX scheme are Starship variants, so they have a great deal of commonality. By contrast, the BO architecture appears to use several very different types of hardware.

[Metalskin]

As a pure armchair enthusiast, I reckon BO will land on the moon before SpaceX lands on Mars, from my perspective one seems far harder than the other.

Now, if you had've asked who will land on the moon first, then that would be a totally different kettle of fish! I just think the comparison is flawed. Of course if SpaceX do get to Mars before BO get to the moon, well that would be highly amusing ;-)

[trimeta]

Do the Blue Origin pathfinder landers count?

One of Blue's strengths over dynetics was their promise to make two self-funded pathfinder landing attempts in 2024/2025 to mature their tech before the Uncrewed Flight Test of the sustainable lander.

I would say at the very least, if they're not nearly seven meters wide, they don't count for the purposes of this poll. Subscale demonstrators are very helpful for testing fundamental technologies, but they're not the "real" lander.

[Metalskin]

Do the Blue Origin pathfinder landers count?

I would argue no. The pathfinder landers are technology testing only and from what I'm reading, most prob. wont be even close to the final product. Now, if it's a barebones of the final product, using the same launch vehicle, etc, then sure. But I just cannot see how that will be. Not in those timeframes.

[c4fusion]

I really think the timeline of landing the 2 are pretty similar but I am going to give it to starship because it’s a big shiny rocket.

[Robotbeat]

Do the Blue Origin pathfinder landers count?

One of Blue's strengths over dynetics was their promise to make two self-funded pathfinder landing attempts in 2024/2025 to mature their tech before the Uncrewed Flight Test of the sustainable lander.

The pathfinders may be based of Astrobotic’s Peregrine or Griffin. But no, I don’t they should count except for the full scale uncrewed demo of the current crewed Blue Origin lander.

[Robotbeat]

The Blue “national” plan is now looking like a smaller version of the Starship plan with depots and multiple tanker flights, refuelling etc.  Ie “immensely complex and high risk”. It has a lot of moving parts and lots of tech to develop but across multiple partners.

I think at least 8-10 years.

The main difference is that all of the pieces of the SpaceX scheme are Starship variants, so they have a great deal of commonality. By contrast, the BO architecture appears to use several very different types of hardware.

Is there a diagram of this?

[punder]

I didn’t think it through, hit the Blue button, thought for a few seconds, and now I want to change my vote! 

TOO LAAAAATE!!

[DanClemmensen]

The Blue “national” plan is now looking like a smaller version of the Starship plan with depots and multiple tanker flights, refuelling etc.  Ie “immensely complex and high risk”. It has a lot of moving parts and lots of tech to develop but across multiple partners.

I think at least 8-10 years.

The main difference is that all of the pieces of the SpaceX scheme are Starship variants, so they have a great deal of commonality. By contrast, the BO architecture appears to use several very different types of hardware.

Is there a diagram of this?

For Starship HLS, here is the diagram with three SS variants (Depot, Tanker, HLS) plus one booster:
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Artemis_III_CONOPS.svg
The commonalities include one engine type (two variants), all methalox, and all using 9m stainless steel rings.

For BO architecture, you need to infer it from all the named pieces/parts, starting with the New Glenn pieces. I have not seen a diagram.

[jongoff]

I have a lot of reservations about Blue's ability to execute on their proposed architecture (at least it's a good architecture though!), but I think Starship Mars landings are a lot further out than many think. I'd be surprised if SpaceX gets even an uncrewed Starship successfully to the Martian surface before the end of the decade.

I voted that Blue gets an uncrewed lander safely on the lunar surface first.

~Jon

[Robotbeat]

The Blue “national” plan is now looking like a smaller version of the Starship plan with depots and multiple tanker flights, refuelling etc.  Ie “immensely complex and high risk”. It has a lot of moving parts and lots of tech to develop but across multiple partners.

I think at least 8-10 years.

The main difference is that all of the pieces of the SpaceX scheme are Starship variants, so they have a great deal of commonality. By contrast, the BO architecture appears to use several very different types of hardware.

Is there a diagram of this?

For Starship HLS, here is the diagram with three SS variants (Depot, Tanker, HLS) plus one booster:
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Artemis_III_CONOPS.svg
The commonalities include one engine type (two variants), all methalox, and all using 9m stainless steel rings.

For BO architecture, you need to infer it from all the named pieces/parts, starting with the New Glenn pieces. I have not seen a diagram.

The most annoying thing to me about how NASA handles these bids, contracts, and opportunities is the lack of just some simple diagrams like the Artemis III conops.

[Blackjax]

I think it is a tossup for who will make the attempt to land first but I think the 2 year window for launching to mars and the travel time will introduce a lot of delays in the test cycle, making it challenging for SpaceX to rapidly iterate and refine their hardware & landing process to achieve a SUCESSFUL landing.  Perhaps they are successful and it works during the very first window they launch in, but I think that is both a literal and metaphorical long shot. So with reluctance I have to give it to Blue who now have a contract, and consequently an incentive, to stop dragging their feet.

[Eric Hedman]

The Blue “national” plan is now looking like a smaller version of the Starship plan with depots and multiple tanker flights, refuelling etc.  Ie “immensely complex and high risk”. It has a lot of moving parts and lots of tech to develop but across multiple partners.

I think at least 8-10 years.

The main difference is that all of the pieces of the SpaceX scheme are Starship variants, so they have a great deal of commonality. By contrast, the BO architecture appears to use several very different types of hardware.

Is there a diagram of this?

For Starship HLS, here is the diagram with three SS variants (Depot, Tanker, HLS) plus one booster:
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Artemis_III_CONOPS.svg
The commonalities include one engine type (two variants), all methalox, and all using 9m stainless steel rings.

For BO architecture, you need to infer it from all the named pieces/parts, starting with the New Glenn pieces. I have not seen a diagram.

The most annoying thing to me about how NASA handles these bids, contracts, and opportunities is the lack of just some simple diagrams like the Artemis III conops.

The tax paying public isn't there priority right now.  I checked Lockheed Martin's website a little while ago and there isn't even any mention of their contribution.  Hopefully they will be a little more transparent in the coming months and put out some useful information.

[tyrred]

Starship will land unmanned on Luna first and then Mars second.... before Blue even lands anything on Luna.