Poll

Which company or team will be selected by NASA to build the Artemis V HLS lander, under NextSTEPs Appendix P?

The National Team (Blue Origin, LM, Draper, Astrobotics, Honeybee)
35 (38.5%)
Dynetics/NG
42 (46.2%)
Someone else
14 (15.4%)

Total Members Voted: 91

Voting closed: 05/19/2023 02:45 am


Author Topic: Who Will Be Selected to Build the Artemis V Lander (To Be Announced 5/19)  (Read 12986 times)

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6815
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 4009
  • Likes Given: 1707
According to press releases like this one (https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-select-second-lunar-lander-partner-for-artemis-moon-mission), NASA will be announcing a second company to build a "sustainable" lunar lander, under the NextSTEP Appendix P BAA. They'll be announcing the winner on Friday, 5/19 at 10am EDT. Who do you think it will be, and why?

So far we know for sure that two teams submitted bids: The National Team led by Blue Origin, and including LM, Draper, Astrobotic, and Honeybee Robotics, and a team led by Dynetics and Northrop Grumman. I don't know if we know explicitly that they're the only two in the running, or just the only two who've publicly stated they're in the running.

Voting for this one will only be open until Thursday evening.

~Jon

Online Galactic Penguin SST

While I am slightly in favor of what Dynetics has presented (at least during the previous competition, there had been few updates for the whole competition of this contract) - the lower profile lander looks really useful for carrying cargo - I just can't see NASA not picking up the "New National Team" proposal. All those big companies on that (probably conservative) design have everything to lose if they dropped the ball again this time, and I'm sure they have worked to get just enough ticks for the lander to be picked.

I wonder if anyone else submitted a proposal, they probably would have bragged about this by now but...
Astronomy & spaceflight geek penguin. In a relationship w/ Space Shuttle Discovery.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48857
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 82660
  • Likes Given: 37216
I went with the National Team too for the same reason: I don’t see them failing a second time and I think they have the greater resources to improve their bid more than Dynetics can from before.

Offline lightleviathan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 170
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 49
I voted for Dynetics, mostly because I haven't seen the new design yet. However, I do see how the New National Team could win the bid.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6815
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 4009
  • Likes Given: 1707
I voted Dynetics. I haven't seen Blue's updates, but I have seen some of Dynetics, and they were pretty impressive, and leaning into it pretty hard.

~Jon
« Last Edit: 05/17/2023 12:41 pm by jongoff »

Offline DeimosDream

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Atlanta
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 49
Dynetics, but that might be wishful thinking. Last time around they got dinged hard on negative mass, and also for having the highest bid price. The first has got to have been fixed. The second... we'll find out.

Honorable mention to "nobody: sorry, no budget."

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2654
  • South Africa
  • Liked: 953
  • Likes Given: 2081
While I like the Alpaca, Dynetics loses cool points for not going full Space:1999 Eagle on the design.

I think Blue & co will get it due to having a suborbital rocket and a rocket engine launching almost aaaany day now and the usual space pork. By getting the award, this also strengthens Draper and Astrobiotics as separate cargo delivery services.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5682
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4455
  • Likes Given: 1851
The question is still imprecise. There is still at least the contractual potential for NASA to award zero, one, or more than one contract on 5/19 under Appendix P, and we won't necessarily know which one will be initially selected for Artemis V. After that, we won't know if any Appendix P lander will actually fly for Artemis V until much closer to the launch date. If things slip, NASA may choose to fly a version of Starship HLS on that mission and defer the Appendix P lander to a later mission.

Based on past events, either NASA will pick BO or congress will force NASA to do another "competition" for a third lander. The problem is that there are not enough planned lunar landings to make even the first lander (Starship HLS) profitable, and each additional lander reduces the number of landings for other landers.

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2357
  • USA
  • Liked: 1971
  • Likes Given: 979
I voted NT for the obvious reasons. Chief among them that JB will spend whatever $$ he needs to have BO associated with the Artemis program. With budgets looking constrained for the foreseeable future, I just don't see Dynetics being able to offer the financial flexibility that a BO bid can. And since nobody has a design that comes close to Starships capability, private funding allotments will be the arbiter of this decision.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline punder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1244
  • Liked: 1839
  • Likes Given: 1443
Can’t make up my mind. This will be a politically motivated pick, based on corporate Congressional “representation.” (Unlike KL’s original reason-based pick, for which her club membership was duly cancelled.) So, LM vs NG. The NT has additional Congressional-district diversity in the form of Draper et al, so maybe they get the edge.

Am I being too cynical? Probably. Not.  :D

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1829
  • USA
  • Liked: 1496
  • Likes Given: 2592
Can’t make up my mind. This will be a politically motivated pick, based on corporate Congressional “representation.” (Unlike KL’s original reason-based pick, for which her club membership was duly cancelled.) So, LM vs NG. The NT has additional Congressional-district diversity in the form of Draper et al, so maybe they get the edge.

Am I being too cynical? Probably. Not.  :D
Not at all. The national team sold their bid based on how much congressional pork it produces. It may be sad, but 100% true.

Offline theonlyspace

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
  • Rocketeer
  • AEAI Space Center, USA
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 825
Hope it is a lander that the crew can fly to a safe landing or manually abort if necessary. Also one where the crew module  is close to the ground not 100 feet in the air  Not Space X
« Last Edit: 05/17/2023 05:05 pm by theonlyspace »

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6815
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 4009
  • Likes Given: 1707
For fun, here was a poster Dynetics was showing at the LSIC workshop a few weeks ago.

~Jon
« Last Edit: 05/17/2023 05:13 pm by jongoff »

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
other: all bids rejected

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39283
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25276
  • Likes Given: 12124
For fun, here was a poster Dynetics was showing at the LSIC workshop a few weeks ago.

~Jon
you can carry 21 tons of liquid oxygen back up to NHRO, but how much propellant does it need at NHRO to land on the Moon empty?

What is the wet mass and dry mass of the Dynetics lander?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline pochimax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • spain
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 81
Voted for Dynetics / Grumman lander. I' m in love with the concept.

And with Grumman onboard there is a lot of pork barrel in place to satisfy Congress.

On the other hand:

Blue NT is a bit less NT,  but you forgot Boeing is now teaming with Blue.

I wonder if they are planning to lauch a full extra SLS for the Artemis V lander. (especulation)

Offline pochimax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • spain
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 81
other: all bids rejected

no

"..., the agency will announce the company selected to develop a sustainable human landing system..."

Offline jdon759

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 108
I don't know.   I hope ALPACA/LLAMA, but I'm afraid of NT's political power.  Also, I recall Blue hinting at a very different design from the initial proposal, which we haven't seen at all yet.

However, a surprisingly large number of people are voting "Other."  Is there something going on that most of us are unaware of?  Do I need to join L2 to find out?
Where would we be today if our forefathers hadn't dreamt of where they'd be tomorrow?  (For better and worse)

Offline jstrotha0975

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
  • United States
  • Liked: 344
  • Likes Given: 2684
I chose the Blue origin team because they have more money and influence, though I prefer Dynetics.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6815
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 4009
  • Likes Given: 1707
other: all bids rejected

Because NASA would totally setup a press conference teasing the next company to work on HLS landers just to say "Psych! We're going with none of the above!"...

Edit: I see someone else beat me to the punch on that one.

~Jon
« Last Edit: 05/17/2023 08:48 pm by jongoff »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0