Poll

Who willl successfully land (unmanned), first: Starship on Mars, or Blue's Lander on the Moon?

Starship (unmanned), on Mars.
35 (50%)
Blue's Lander (unmanned), on the Moon.
32 (45.7%)
Other result (explain in comments).
3 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 70

Voting closed: 06/18/2023 08:19 pm


Author Topic: Starship and Blue's Lander  (Read 7329 times)

Offline darkenfast

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1532
  • Liked: 1827
  • Likes Given: 8669
Starship and Blue's Lander
« on: 05/19/2023 08:19 pm »
Enjoy! I'm voting for Starship on Mars first.
Writer of Book and Lyrics for musicals "SCAR", "Cinderella!", and "Aladdin!". Retired Naval Security Group. "I think SCAR is a winner. Great score, [and] the writing is up there with the very best!"
-- Phil Henderson, Composer of the West End musical "The Far Pavilions".

Offline kevinof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1594
  • Somewhere on the boat
  • Liked: 1869
  • Likes Given: 1262
Re: Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #1 on: 05/19/2023 08:26 pm »
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.

Offline zodiacchris

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
  • Port Macquarie, Australia
  • Liked: 1473
  • Likes Given: 1310
Re: Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #2 on: 05/19/2023 09:01 pm »
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…

Offline John Santos

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 143
Re: Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #3 on: 05/19/2023 09:15 pm »
It's way too soon to guess if either, both or neither will ever happen, let alone guess which will be first.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8833
  • Waikiki
  • Liked: 60397
  • Likes Given: 1295
Re: Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #4 on: 05/19/2023 09:19 pm »
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.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline DeimosDream

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • Atlanta
  • Liked: 103
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #5 on: 05/19/2023 10:46 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: 05/19/2023 10:51 pm by DeimosDream »

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5357
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4196
  • Likes Given: 1694
Re: Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #6 on: 05/19/2023 10:52 pm »
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.

Offline Metalskin

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 110
  • Brisbane, Australia
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 1588
Re: Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #7 on: 05/19/2023 11:03 pm »
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 ;-)
How inappropriate to call this planet Earth when it is quite clearly Ocean. - Arthur C. Clarke

Offline trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1665
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2127
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #8 on: 05/19/2023 11:05 pm »
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.

Offline Metalskin

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 110
  • Brisbane, Australia
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 1588
Re: Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #9 on: 05/19/2023 11:13 pm »
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.
How inappropriate to call this planet Earth when it is quite clearly Ocean. - Arthur C. Clarke

Offline c4fusion

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 176
  • Sleeper Service
  • Liked: 113
  • Likes Given: 169
Re: Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #10 on: 05/19/2023 11:21 pm »
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.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39255
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25206
  • Likes Given: 12104
Re: Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #11 on: 05/20/2023 12:38 am »
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.
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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39255
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25206
  • Likes Given: 12104
Re: Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #12 on: 05/20/2023 12:39 am »
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?
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 punder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Liked: 1822
  • Likes Given: 1428
Re: Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #13 on: 05/20/2023 12:46 am »
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!!

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5357
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4196
  • Likes Given: 1694
Re: Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #14 on: 05/20/2023 01:58 am »
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.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6792
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3924
  • Likes Given: 1635
Re: Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #15 on: 05/20/2023 03:42 am »
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
« Last Edit: 05/20/2023 03:43 am by jongoff »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39255
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25206
  • Likes Given: 12104
Re: Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #16 on: 05/20/2023 04:43 am »
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.
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 Blackjax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 138
Re: Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #17 on: 05/20/2023 02:21 pm »
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.

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2299
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1947
  • Likes Given: 1128
Re: Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #18 on: 05/21/2023 12:17 am »
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.

Offline tyrred

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 919
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 748
  • Likes Given: 20370
Re: Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #19 on: 05/21/2023 09:10 am »
Starship will land unmanned on Luna first and then Mars second.... before Blue even lands anything on Luna.

Offline daedalus1

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 927
  • uk
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #20 on: 05/21/2023 09:47 am »
After the first successful launch of Starship and the first successful launch of New Glenn, then we will get a clearer vision of the future ability.

Offline DeimosDream

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • Atlanta
  • Liked: 103
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #21 on: 05/22/2023 02:24 pm »
I didn't think much of them the first time around, but National Team's new improved proposal seems remarkably well designed, planned, and motivated. I'm thinking only a 12-24 month schedule slip: 2028, or possibly early 2029. Thanks to the pathfinders I think the first landing will be a success.

Assuming SpaceX's first Mars landing attempt (likely a 2026 launch) is a "valuable learning experience" or similar then Starship's first successful landing is likely to be mid 2029.

It will be a close race. Maybe Starship will nail the Mars landing first try, or maybe Blue will discover storable LH2 is an epic headache with chronic delays, but on balance I think Blue is slightly more likely to land on the Moon before Starship lands on Mars.

Offline lightleviathan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 160
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #22 on: 05/22/2023 10:02 pm »
The more I think about it, the more I think that Blue will make it first.

Offline ppb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 183
  • San Francisco Bay Area
  • Liked: 196
  • Likes Given: 159
Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #23 on: 05/23/2023 04:01 am »
The more I think about it, the more I think that Blue will make it first.
Why? What of their accomplishments so far makes you think they can manage to pull off this complicated deep space system at all, let alone be first?
« Last Edit: 05/23/2023 04:02 am by ppb »

Offline lightleviathan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 160
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #24 on: 05/23/2023 02:22 pm »
The more I think about it, the more I think that Blue will make it first.
Why? What of their accomplishments so far makes you think they can manage to pull off this complicated deep space system at all, let alone be first?

New Shepard really ironed out a lot of doubts for me (hydrogen propulsion, propulsive landings, crew capsule, along with more recent pictures of their BE-7 engine components. While they still have a lot of things that need to be ironed out, like cryogenic fuel and oxidiser transfer, SpaceX shares a lot of those same issues. Blue is going for a less ambitious system with hardware that shares at least some commonality with their previously flown systems. And I didn't even mention the fact that they are partnered with the maker of Orion, which has flown a deep space mission, Boeing, who while I despise, has built cryogenic hydrogen tanks for over 40 years, and Astrobotic, which has the heritage of Masten which has completed more than 600 flights, all in the name of lunar lander development. SpaceX is doing everything themselves, and while they have the immense experience of Falcon 9, and the quick development of Raptor, I'm not sure if these and their quick execution alone will make them first.
« Last Edit: 05/23/2023 02:27 pm by lightleviathan »

Offline kevinof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1594
  • Somewhere on the boat
  • Liked: 1869
  • Likes Given: 1262
Re: Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #25 on: 05/23/2023 02:35 pm »
Booster doesn’t use hydrogen, NS capsule is not the same as one that will go to orbit so has almost zero value and I am sceptical they can bring much of the learnings from landing NS to the NG stack. Add in they have no orbital experience, no ops experience and are working on maybe 6/7 different projects at the same time.

The more I think about it, the more I think that Blue will make it first.
Why? What of their accomplishments so far makes you think they can manage to pull off this complicated deep space system at all, let alone be first?

New Shepard really ironed out a lot of doubts for me (hydrogen propulsion, propulsive landings, crew capsule, along with more recent pictures of their BE-7 engine components. While they still have a lot of things that need to be ironed out, like cryogenic fuel and oxidiser transfer, SpaceX shares a lot of those same issues. Blue is going for a less ambitious system with hardware that shares at least some commonality with their previously flown systems. And I didn't even mention the fact that they are partnered with the maker of Orion, which has flown a deep space mission, Boeing, who while I despise, has built cryogenic hydrogen tanks for over 40 years, and Astrobotic, which has the heritage of Masten which has completed more than 600 flights, all in the name of lunar lander development. SpaceX is doing everything themselves, and while they have the immense experience of Falcon 9, and the quick development of Raptor, I'm not sure if these and their quick execution alone will make them first.

Offline lightleviathan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 160
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Starship and Blue's Lander
« Reply #26 on: 05/23/2023 02:42 pm »
Booster doesn’t use hydrogen, NS capsule is not the same as one that will go to orbit so has almost zero value and I am sceptical they can bring much of the learnings from landing NS to the NG stack. Add in they have no orbital experience, no ops experience and are working on maybe 6/7 different projects at the same time.

The more I think about it, the more I think that Blue will make it first.
Why? What of their accomplishments so far makes you think they can manage to pull off this complicated deep space system at all, let alone be first?

New Shepard really ironed out a lot of doubts for me (hydrogen propulsion, propulsive landings, crew capsule, along with more recent pictures of their BE-7 engine components. While they still have a lot of things that need to be ironed out, like cryogenic fuel and oxidiser transfer, SpaceX shares a lot of those same issues. Blue is going for a less ambitious system with hardware that shares at least some commonality with their previously flown systems. And I didn't even mention the fact that they are partnered with the maker of Orion, which has flown a deep space mission, Boeing, who while I despise, has built cryogenic hydrogen tanks for over 40 years, and Astrobotic, which has the heritage of Masten which has completed more than 600 flights, all in the name of lunar lander development. SpaceX is doing everything themselves, and while they have the immense experience of Falcon 9, and the quick development of Raptor, I'm not sure if these and their quick execution alone will make them first.

New Shepard is powered by the BE-3PM engine, which used cryogenic liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. And while they don't have orbital experience, their partners do and New Glenn is probably a year or less from flight. Blue has experience with things, and their partners have even more. Stop acting like they haven't done anything for 20 years.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1