Poll

So, anyone want to guess if Blue Origin will be ready for Artemis V?

Yeah, they'll build a robust lander with time to spare.
6 (20%)
They will need many waivers for non-conforming hardware, but they'll make it.
3 (10%)
They will delay Artemis V by some noticeable time span, but eventually they will make it.
13 (43.3%)
SpaceX will have to provide hardware for Artemis V.
8 (26.7%)
Other (please specify)
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 30

Voting closed: 06/01/2023 07:41 pm


Author Topic: Starship Artemis Contract & Lunar Starship  (Read 1270532 times)

Offline TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5159
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3774
  • Likes Given: 705
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2020 on: 11/15/2021 05:43 pm »
NASA’s Management of the Artemis Missions
Submitting OIG:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration OIG
Report Description:
In this audit, we assessed the schedule and projected costs for the first several missions of the Artemis program and NASA's ambitious effort to return humans to the Moon and establish a long-term presence.
Date Issued:
Monday, November 15, 2021

https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-22-003.pdf

Nice find.  A couple of quotes from the executive summary:

Quote
While the Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Division—which includes HLS, Gateway, and next-generation spacesuits—is working on an integrated master schedule (IMS) for Artemis III that incorporates Exploration Systems Development (ESD) Division programs—SLS, Orion, and Exploration Ground Systems—the draft version does not include information on programs critical to Artemis that are outside of AES and ESD. Given the time needed to develop and fully test the HLS and new spacesuits, we project NASA will exceed its current timetable for landing humans on the Moon in late 2024 by several years.

Quote
When aggregating all relevant costs across mission directorates, NASA is projected to spend $93 billion on the Artemis effort up to FY 2025. We also project the current production and operations cost of a single SLS/Orion system at $4.1 billion per launch for Artemis I through IV, although the Agency’s ongoing initiatives aimed at increasing affordability seek to reduce that cost.

[bold mine]

$4.1B, with no LSS.  So... $5B per lunar surface mission?

Even if Starship tankers are completely expendable, can only take 100t of prop to LEO per launch (requiring 22 launches), cost $150M per launch, an F9/D2 costs $220M, and the LSS itself costs $500M and isn't reusable, then an LSS staged out of LEO with the crew brought to/from LEO via F9/D2 only costs $4B.

PS:

NASA management didn't concur with the following two recommendations:

Quote
(3) develop an Artemis-wide cost estimate and update it on an annual basis; (4) maintain an accounting of per-mission costs and establish a benchmark against which NASA can assess the outcome of initiatives to increase the affordability of ESD systems;

Quelle surprise.
« Last Edit: 11/15/2021 05:49 pm by TheRadicalModerate »

Offline dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2395
  • Liked: 2697
  • Likes Given: 5201
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2021 on: 11/15/2021 06:01 pm »
NASA management didn't concur with the following two recommendations:

Quote
(3) develop an Artemis-wide cost estimate and update it on an annual basis; (4) maintain an accounting of per-mission costs and establish a benchmark against which NASA can assess the outcome of initiatives to increase the affordability of ESD systems;

Quelle surprise.

Yes, and this aligns with something Jim Free said in the recent teleconference: that NASA believes mission-based pricing misses the point, and that instead we should consider the costs of establishing capabilities which NASA can leverage repeatedly for years to come.

Intellectually I am sympathetic to this perspective, especially when I see folks amortizing the cost of development to arrive at a per-mission figure. And certainly this thinking works well for a more commercial-driven NASA that focuses on R&D and buys services from industry – especially so with highly reusable hardware.

That said, it's also a convenient way to bury the fact that a four-person capsule costs $1B per instance... and another $300M for its service module.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Offline TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5159
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3774
  • Likes Given: 705
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2022 on: 11/15/2021 07:39 pm »
Yes, and this aligns with something Jim Free said in the recent teleconference: that NASA believes mission-based pricing misses the point, and that instead we should consider the costs of establishing capabilities which NASA can leverage repeatedly for years to come.

Intellectually I am sympathetic to this perspective, especially when I see folks amortizing the cost of development to arrive at a per-mission figure. And certainly this thinking works well for a more commercial-driven NASA that focuses on R&D and buys services from industry – especially so with highly reusable hardware.

That said, it's also a convenient way to bury the fact that a four-person capsule costs $1B per instance... and another $300M for its service module.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The tap-dancing is growing increasingly frenzied on this thing.

Just so there's no confusion, also from the OIG report:

Quote
The $4.1 billion total cost represents production of the rocket and the operations needed to launch the SLS/Orion system including materials, labor, facilities, and overhead, but does not include any money spent either on prior development of the system or for next generation technologies such as the SLS’s Exploration Upper Stage, Orion’s docking system, or Mobile Launcher 2.

Offline TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5159
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3774
  • Likes Given: 705
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2023 on: 11/15/2021 08:10 pm »
One other little tidbit from the OIG report:

Quote
In the near-term, the SLS is the only launch vehicle with the capability to lift the 27-metric ton Orion capsule to lunar orbit. However, in the next 5 to 7 years other human-rated commercial alternatives may become available. These commercial ventures will likely capitalize on multiple technological innovations, making them lighter, cheaper, and reusable. Further driving down costs is the competition between aerospace companies such as SpaceX and Blue Origin. Although Congress mandated that NASA build the SLS and Orion for its space exploration goals in 2010, the Agency may soon have more affordable commercial options to carry humans to the Moon and beyond.[56] In our judgment, the Agency should continue to monitor the commercial development of heavy-lift space flight systems and begin discussions of whether it makes financial and strategic sense to consider these options as part of the Agency’s overall plan to support its ambitious space exploration goals.

____________
[56] As an example, SpaceX is designing the Starship to fly astronauts from Earth to its destination and back on the same spacecraft. Congress’s mandates are found in: Pub. L. No. 111-267, 124 Stat. 2805.

It seems as though the OIG has finally decided to hoist the Jolly Roger.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but this might be the first time anybody at NASA has ever officially said, "There's going to be a better, cheaper way to do what SLS and Orion are currently planned to do, and we should consider using it."

Kinda interesting timing that NASA felt compelled to issue the OPOC EPOC RFI before this came out.
« Last Edit: 11/15/2021 09:23 pm by TheRadicalModerate »

Offline dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2395
  • Liked: 2697
  • Likes Given: 5201
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2024 on: 11/15/2021 08:23 pm »

The tap-dancing is growing increasingly frenzied on this thing.

Just so there's no confusion, also from the OIG report:

Quote
The $4.1 billion total cost represents production of the rocket and the operations needed to launch the SLS/Orion system including materials, labor, facilities, and overhead, but does not include any money spent either on prior development of the system or for next generation technologies such as the SLS’s Exploration Upper Stage, Orion’s docking system, or Mobile Launcher 2.

Yes, it’s astounding. That $4.1B is the fully-loaded “standing army” figure, but sans any development costs.

Congress clearly wants that standing army. Given how the agency is funded and prioritized by the legislature, it’s understandable why NASA would push back on the OIG’s recommendation. It’s bad optics for all involved.

What is it that Zubrin is fond of saying? With space exploration we should “spend money to do things,” but NASA is funded such that it “does things to spend money.”
« Last Edit: 11/15/2021 08:28 pm by dglow »

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13506
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11894
  • Likes Given: 11169
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2025 on: 11/15/2021 08:41 pm »
Lee Jay  ... I often think he’s pushing the envelope a bit given he’s a moderator

In Lee Jay's defense, there are no rules that say a moderator can't have an opinion and be able to freely express it, whether or not anyone else agrees or disagrees. The only rule that applies to him specifically as a moderator is to be fair and consistent in his moderation efforts. Except for that, he, as a member of this forum, is free to participate in any and all discussions that he wishes to. He is free to express his opinion as he sees fit, without regard to any alleged orthodoxy; as are the rest of us.

Whether Lee Jay is or isn't a mod? Off topic.
Whether Lee Jay can have an opinion or not? He can, but off topic.

ANYway: I'm a mod. I have opinions. Some of them are not very popular. That's OK. As long as I express them with decorum all is well. AND, if I don't, I get called on the carpet about it by Chris B. As I should.

Not that you asked, but ... I vehemently disagree with Lee Jay about almost everything but see no problem with their participation in the conversation, even if they actually were a mod rather than just having the mod bit turned on.

Whether Elon is immoral[1] or immortal? Off topic.
Whether Elon is a polymath? He is, but off topic.
Whether history will look on him as greater than Edison and Ford and Carnegie combined? It will, but off topic.

A bit late to the party since y'all veered back on topic mostly but that's me...


1 - someone[2] did a very amusing typo for immortal and of course I pounced.
2 - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50806.msg2310320#msg2310320
« Last Edit: 11/15/2021 08:43 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9108
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2026 on: 01/08/2022 07:08 am »
Interesting analysis written by an enthusiast: Lunar Starship Thermal Management by Ozan Bellik, 5/1/2021

Offline Slarty1080

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2823
  • UK
  • Liked: 1902
  • Likes Given: 834
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2027 on: 01/08/2022 11:28 am »
Lee Jay  ... I often think he’s pushing the envelope a bit given he’s a moderator

In Lee Jay's defense, there are no rules that say a moderator can't have an opinion and be able to freely express it, whether or not anyone else agrees or disagrees. The only rule that applies to him specifically as a moderator is to be fair and consistent in his moderation efforts. Except for that, he, as a member of this forum, is free to participate in any and all discussions that he wishes to. He is free to express his opinion as he sees fit, without regard to any alleged orthodoxy; as are the rest of us.

Whether Lee Jay is or isn't a mod? Off topic.
Whether Lee Jay can have an opinion or not? He can, but off topic.

ANYway: I'm a mod. I have opinions. Some of them are not very popular. That's OK. As long as I express them with decorum all is well. AND, if I don't, I get called on the carpet about it by Chris B. As I should.

Not that you asked, but ... I vehemently disagree with Lee Jay about almost everything but see no problem with their participation in the conversation, even if they actually were a mod rather than just having the mod bit turned on.

Whether Elon is immoral[1] or immortal? Off topic.
Whether Elon is a polymath? He is, but off topic.
Whether history will look on him as greater than Edison and Ford and Carnegie combined? It will, but off topic.

A bit late to the party since y'all veered back on topic mostly but that's me...


1 - someone[2] did a very amusing typo for immortal and of course I pounced.
2 - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50806.msg2310320#msg2310320
Yes "thanks" for pointing that out!  ;D now corrected...
My optimistic hope is that it will become cool to really think about things... rather than just doing reactive bullsh*t based on no knowledge (Brian Cox)

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8210
  • Liked: 6922
  • Likes Given: 2975
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2028 on: 01/11/2022 12:28 pm »
Yes, and this aligns with something Jim Free said in the recent teleconference: that NASA believes mission-based pricing misses the point, and that instead we should consider the costs of establishing capabilities which NASA can leverage repeatedly for years to come.

Intellectually I am sympathetic to this perspective, especially when I see folks amortizing the cost of development to arrive at a per-mission figure. And certainly this thinking works well for a more commercial-driven NASA that focuses on R&D and buys services from industry – especially so with highly reusable hardware.

NASA cannot properly answer the question "should NASA pursue a commercial service for this particular capability?" without including the entire program costs.

Some people want to ignore the development costs entirely, which implies that NASA should not even ask that question. Which is absurd... considerably more so than including development costs (and the anticipated number of missions) when calculating a per mission cost.

Doubly so when the patently ridiculous view that "we're only going to pay for development once" is floated to justify ignoring development costs. NASA has ongoing plans for SLS development into the 2030s, and Shuttle development never ended either. SLS will not get cheaper. It will cost $2B to $3B per year, regardless of flight rate, until it dies.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25596
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2029 on: 01/11/2022 12:38 pm »
Another issue is:

We have proof that the commercial contracting method will gain other users. Not only Falcon 9, now the most commonly launched rocket in the world, but even Crewed Dragon itself is seeing other, non-governmental uses. Spreading costs, growing the industry, increasing overall safety by increasing flightrate. This will be true for Starship as well.

This same thing isn’t true for SLS. It will never be used commercially.
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 ulm_atms

  • Rocket Junky
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
  • To boldly go where no government has gone before.
  • Liked: 1641
  • Likes Given: 1017
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2030 on: 01/11/2022 01:02 pm »
You don't know that.

F9's parachute landing never worked.  F9 second stage was never made to survive entry and be reused.  Falcon Heavy has never had crossfeed.  Dragon has never landed propulsively.  All of these things were *easier* than what they are doing now with SH and SS.  The odds that SH + SS will eventually be successful and fully-reusable are not 100%.  The odds they will meet the current expectations for the costs of these things are closer to 0 than to 100.

Lee, my disagreement with your argument is that you are presenting a particular effort to meet a goal as if that was the goal itself.  F9 parachute landing was not the goal, first stage recovery was.  Parachutes were a method examined to attain that goal, but propulsive landing made parachutes unnecessary.  Goal met.   Same with second stage recovery.   The goal was a fully reusable ship.  Recovery of the second stage was examined as a method to accomplish that goal and retrofitting an existing rocket wasn’t cost or payload effective.  Musk has never abandon the goal of a fully reusable ship, he instead began work on a ship that was designed to be fully reusable from day one.  Goal in progress, not abandoned as your post implies.   Regarding Crossfeed, the goal was to increase FH payload.  Crossfeed was one method examined to do this.   During that effort, Merlin efficiency was improved to the point that F9 could now cover the lower end of the FH market and FH without CF could carry more payload as well.  The need for crossfeed was greatly diminished if not entirely eliminated.  That, along with the work on Starship, would not only make the development and testing effort unnecessary, work on crossfeed would very likely have slowed work on Starship.  Goal of lifting more FH payload met, with the additional benefit of more cost efficient F9 launches replacing many FH launches.   Dragon propulsive landing was tested, but NASA pulled the plug.   Landing the crew propusively is the goal and has not been abandoned, it is being made so integral with Starship and will have been tested hundreds if not thousands of times before ever being used by astronauts, so NASA can’t get cold feet.  Again, in progress.  Your argument appears to be that when innovating your larger goals are less important than the particular methods you are using to meet those goals.  Based on your arguments, you should not switch if a more promising approach is presented.   Edison would never have tried his ’10,000 times’ to invent the lightbulb, he would have instead spent the decades until his death continually trying and failing to make his first attempt work.

Now, as the moderator, could you reprimand me and get us all back on topic?

See bold above:

I really wish people would stop saying this as it is 100% wrong.  NASA did not pull the plug on propulsive landing for Dragon.  NASA came up with a list of what needed to be done to certify the landing system for their use and SpaceX pulled the plug on it and went with a water landing instead.  SpaceX decided the process to certify the propulsive landing system was not worth it so SpaceX dropped it.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12365
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 8125
  • Likes Given: 4057
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2031 on: 01/11/2022 02:37 pm »
AJW and ulm_atms are both correct.
NASA did not pull the plug on propulsive landing of Dragon. However, the requirements that NASA put in place to certify that method - for NASA Crew aboard - were so stringent that there was not enough time for SpaceX to meet those requirements within the schedule time remaining for Dragon to become operational. Therefore SpaceX pulled the plug on propulsive landing, as ulm_atms stated. However, it is an ungodly stretch of the imagination to even think that NASA did not know that their new requirements were unmeetable in the time remaining. Any thinking person has to know that NASA was fully aware that these requirements would therefore force SpaceX to abandon propulsive landing. Was that by design? Everyone that I've spoken to at the agency (off the record of course) says that it was. In other words, SpaceX got played. Musk accepted temporary defeat (Starship was already brewing) and moved on.

I've set the record straight. Further thoughts on this need to be taken elsewhere as it does not contribute to the discussion wrt Lunar Starship.
« Last Edit: 01/11/2022 02:42 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline volker2020

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
  • Frankfurt, Germany
  • Liked: 335
  • Likes Given: 883
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2032 on: 01/11/2022 03:38 pm »
I am not sure, whether we should care, whether NASA did intentionally put the requirements for propulsion landing so high, that SpaceX was unable to meet the schedule or not.

I guess apart from anybody agreeing that propulsion landing would be cool (and helpful when talking about other planets), I guess no body will claim, that it would be less complicated than parachutes + water. It adds new error vectors (and the explosion of capsule during testing is just one reminder), add additional complexity, and would have bound a lot of engineering capacities at SpaceX for a while.

I for one, be very content with this decision, leading SpaceX to commit to Starship.

Offline Vultur

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2207
  • Liked: 937
  • Likes Given: 184
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2033 on: 01/11/2022 05:41 pm »
I am not sure, whether we should care, whether NASA did intentionally put the requirements for propulsion landing so high, that SpaceX was unable to meet the schedule or not.

In this context, I think only in the sense that it means that SpaceX giving up on propulsive landing for Dragon doesn't demonstrate it was technically infeasible or SpaceX was incapable.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25596
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2034 on: 01/11/2022 05:58 pm »
Difficulties with parachutes shouldn’t be underestimated.
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 steveleach

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2790
  • Liked: 3330
  • Likes Given: 1113
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2035 on: 01/11/2022 06:04 pm »
Wait, what? Is SpaceX proposing to land lunar Starships with parachutes?

Or has the conversation drifted off-topic slightly?

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3691
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2645
  • Likes Given: 2288
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2036 on: 01/12/2022 01:04 am »
"Slightly"

Offline marsbase

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 444
  • North Carolina
  • Liked: 493
  • Likes Given: 102
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2037 on: 01/12/2022 02:11 am »
I really wish people would stop saying this as it is 100% wrong.  NASA did not pull the plug on propulsive landing for Dragon.  NASA came up with a list of what needed to be done to certify the landing system for their use and SpaceX pulled the plug on it and went with a water landing instead.  SpaceX decided the process to certify the propulsive landing system was not worth it so SpaceX dropped it.
I can always create certification standards that you will not find economically feasible to meet.  That does not mean that you could not have met the goal in an economically feasible manner.  SpaceX had to take NASA by the hand and lead them to the most long term cost effective solution which involves reusability and propulsive landing.

Online DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1735
  • Liked: 1222
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2038 on: 01/12/2022 04:07 am »
I really wish people would stop saying this as it is 100% wrong.  NASA did not pull the plug on propulsive landing for Dragon.  NASA came up with a list of what needed to be done to certify the landing system for their use and SpaceX pulled the plug on it and went with a water landing instead.  SpaceX decided the process to certify the propulsive landing system was not worth it so SpaceX dropped it.
I can always create certification standards that you will not find economically feasible to meet.  That does not mean that you could not have met the goal in an economically feasible manner.  SpaceX had to take NASA by the hand and lead them to the most long term cost effective solution which involves reusability and propulsive landing.

Look at how challenging it was to certify the parachute landing mechanism, even with Cargo Dragon flying already. Propulsive landing certification? Umm, right.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6892
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 10525
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2039 on: 01/12/2022 07:24 am »
AJW and ulm_atms are both correct.
NASA did not pull the plug on propulsive landing of Dragon. However, the requirements that NASA put in place to certify that method - for NASA Crew aboard - were so stringent that there was not enough time for SpaceX to meet those requirements within the schedule time remaining for Dragon to become operational. Therefore SpaceX pulled the plug on propulsive landing, as ulm_atms stated. However, it is an ungodly stretch of the imagination to even think that NASA did not know that their new requirements were unmeetable in the time remaining. Any thinking person has to know that NASA was fully aware that these requirements would therefore force SpaceX to abandon propulsive landing. Was that by design? Everyone that I've spoken to at the agency (off the record of course) says that it was. In other words, SpaceX got played. Musk accepted temporary defeat (Starship was already brewing) and moved on.
There is one more wrinkle to the tail:
At the time of initial dragon Rider development (and Red dragon), the plan for Starship was a large diameter capsule with canted forward-firing retropropulsive entry and landing. R&D for Dragon landing under powered descent fed directly into Strarship work for sub-scale testing, and Red Dragon was to provide sub-scale testing for the whole EDL sequence.
When Starship switched design and EDL CONOPs (no longer a capsule, no longer undergoing supersonic retropropulsion), the SpaceX-internal R&D reasons for Dragon powered landing and Red Dragon vanished. That left purely economic (reduced Dragon re-use costs, customers for Red Dragon) as the sole drivers for their existence. At that point the 'increased' NASA standards for safety (they were high from the start) meant projected costs for developing and certifying propulsive landing for Dragon were higher than for parachutes, so propulsive landing was canned. That meant Red Dragon would need to sustain the entire R&D cost on its own, and there were vanishingly few customers at the original price, so that got canned too.
In hindsight, the parachutes proved to be more trouble than expected - and uncovered the decades old parachute model error - and Superdraco still needed to be present for abort, so development costs may not have been as far apart as expected. The limited Dragon 2 low altitude flight tests may also have played a part in the landing-thruster concept for Lunar Starship, giving some initial experience in that flight regime.

Tags:
 

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