Starship and Artemis

[_MECO]

When worlds collide.
When agendas collide.
When architectures collide.
When visions collide.

You get this: Artemis vs Starship. In a sane world, SpaceX should let NASA expendable / expensive / obsolete system land first, for the glory of post-Apollo return; Phase 1, exploration with limited capability systems, Apollo style.
And then, together, SpaceX and NASA would introduce a Phase 2 - more akin to colonization & resources, where Starship / BFR takes over. NASA buying Starships Dragon 2 style, the ISS being replaced by a lunar base.

It would be a face saving for both entities.

After all, NASA already made the most difficult pyschological move in 2006, when Shuttle-MPLM was replaced by COTS for ISS cargo delivery.
And then crewed spaceflight followed, at least partially: no Orion for LEO, Dragon 2 and CTS-100 instead.

Consider that SpaceX is a privately owned corporation which is going to dump all of its resources into developing Starship with every intention of making the system a profitable venture. Constant growth is needed, and considering how long SLS/Artemis is either likely going to take until fruition or (coughcancellationcough) that if SpaceX were to halt the development or maturation of Starship until then "to save face" the move could totally kill them.

I know that Moon/Mars has less to do with Starship's near-term success than Starlink does economically- and theoretically SpaceX could focus on Starlink while Artemis proceeds- but even still they're going to need to create an entire fleet of Starships to generate profit or simply avoid bankruptcy. While that happens, SLS is going to start to look really bad. It just isn't sane  to ask a private company to commit suicide for this reason.

[Navier–Stokes]

https://twitter.com/TrevorMahlmann/status/1187738662534045697
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1187737280997408769

Bridentine: we anticipate that SpaceX’s Starship will be competing for lunar  lander program, but don’t know for sure. No options off the table. #IAC2019

[DistantTemple]

We want Starship to fly to orbit next year, we want to land on the Moon with cargo and people by 2022.

[DistantTemple]

We want Starship to fly to orbit next year, we want to land on the Moon with cargo and people by 2022.

Baron: Is point-to-point space travel happening any time soon?
Shotwell: Any time I talk about timelines I turn myself into a liar.
We want Starship to fly to orbit next year, we want to land on the Moon with cargo and people by 2022.; Michael Sheetz (@thesheetztweetz) 25 October 2019
Hope I have done this right - removing the script!

[pochimax]

I remember this from August

SpaceX’s Koenigsmann: We have Falcon Heavy as the product for cargo services in support of NASA’s Artemis program. Falcon 9 will soon be able to provide crew transportation, too. Then we’ll phase in new vehicles like Starship.

But some weeks ago, in September, Brindestine said that guidelines from the HLS are only to guide firms in its bids. So it was possible for SpaceX to bid Starship both for cargo contracts to Gateway and for human landing on the Moon, if they present a good explanaition and good costs fot its bid.

We will see in the next weeks what has done SpaceX for the cargo contracts and what will do for the human landings. (1st november end date)

[DigitalMan]

We want Starship to fly to orbit next year, we want to land on the Moon with cargo and people by 2022.

That right there will put things into an interesting perspective.  If SpaceX manages to land cargo and people on the moon in 2022 it is 2 years before NASA's goal.  It could certainly throw Artemis into a spin.

[JonathanD]

That right there will put things into an interesting perspective.  If SpaceX manages to land cargo and people on the moon in 2022 it is 2 years before NASA's goal.  It could certainly throw Artemis into a spin.

Lotta "ifs" there though.  They will have needed to figure out on-orbit refueling, and probably have multiple tankers.  I'd give a cargo flight by 2022 on the lunar surface a 50/50% chance.  People? No way.

[DistantTemple]

That right there will put things into an interesting perspective.  If SpaceX manages to land cargo and people on the moon in 2022 it is 2 years before NASA's goal.  It could certainly throw Artemis into a spin.

Lotta "ifs" there though.  They will have needed to figure out on-orbit refueling, and probably have multiple tankers.  I'd give a cargo flight by 2022 on the lunar surface a 50/50% chance.  People? No way.

Since SX is projecting (we believe) low prices compared with the other projects, Could NASA afford to contract SX to deliver cargo, if not crew, to the moon, with staged milestone payments. For example $200M for 50 tonnes on the moon's surface by the 2024 HSF landings! It would be a handy leg-up towards development costs!
There could even be a HSF version with a timeframe after 2024 for political correctness, which SX may be able to compress. Perhaps with LOC risk projections from flight history - which SX may fulfill much more quickly than NASA publicly acknowledges!!!
People by 2022 according to GS!!! That only has to be a couple of "test pilots" (OK "test pilots participants/on-flight-observers") not a fully evolved and validated system.

[DistantTemple]

If NASA turns down the opportunity to contribute to development, or pay for freight or HSF seats, Who else might pay for the same, if SX offered the facility internationally?
I think the risk of this will make sure that we see what Bridenstine suggested "habitats" either rigid or expandable, and other freight at the very minimum, and NASA coming up with some contract and milestone payments to maintain some kind of first place in the que.
What happens if Yusaku Maezawa offers 3/4 billion to be the first on the surface? Would SX have to turn it down for political reasons? At the very least there would have to be Americans as well!
Still if Artemis has funding problems impacting its progress, or other political headwinds, the blame for Artemis not being first can be foisted elsewhere, and used for all sorts of political and business purposes! And SX's success can be claimed as a success for American business.

Maybe Boeing et al will suddenly find reason to speed up and loose some extra costs!

[ThePonjaX]

You get this: Artemis vs Starship. In a sane world, SpaceX should let NASA expendable / expensive / obsolete system land first, for the glory of post-Apollo return; Phase 1, exploration with limited capability systems, Apollo style.
And then, together, SpaceX and NASA would introduce a Phase 2 - more akin to colonization & resources, where Starship / BFR takes over. NASA buying Starships Dragon 2 style, the ISS being replaced by a lunar base.

In a sane world SLS should has been canceled years ago and Spacex/BO are competing for contracts to deliver cargo/humans to the moon.

[su27k]

I remember this from August

SpaceX’s Koenigsmann: We have Falcon Heavy as the product for cargo services in support of NASA’s Artemis program. Falcon 9 will soon be able to provide crew transportation, too. Then we’ll phase in new vehicles like Starship.

But some weeks ago, in September, Brindestine said that guidelines from the HLS are only to guide firms in its bids. So it was possible for SpaceX to bid Starship both for cargo contracts to Gateway and for human landing on the Moon, if they present a good explanaition and good costs fot its bid.

We will see in the next weeks what has done SpaceX for the cargo contracts and what will do for the human landings. (1st november end date)

I expect they'll use FH + Dragon 2 for Gateway cargo, and Starship for HLS.

Gateway cargo is a service contract, there's no development funding, so it makes sense to use their existing hardware. Also it requires docking with Gateway plus a long stay at Gateway, much easier to do with Dragon 2 than with Starship.

For HLS, I think Shotwell couldn't make it clearer, there's no other reason for Starship to land humans on the Moon than Artemis. Add to this Bridenstine's comment, I think it's pretty much a sure bet.

[rocambole]

I assume that she meant "Mars" when she said "Moon" in relation to 2022 and 2024.

If so, it was some derp!, because the interviewer and she said the Moon multiple times, including mentioning the dearmoon lunar flyaround in 2023.

Not saying it wasn't a mistake, because it would make more sense if she were talking about Mars.

On Sat Oct 19 at the Mars Society banquet, Paul Wooster from SpaceX said they could use Starship to go to Mars and the Moon - they wouldn't have to stop going to the Moon in order to go to Mars. 


And a little later he said SpaceX is still planning to launch cargo to Mars in the 2022 time frame.


So I'm concluding that SpaceX is actually going to build enough Starships and Super Heavies to try to reach BOTH the Moon and Mars by 2022!

Since the window for Mars is more rigid, that cargo Starship might actually launch before their lunar mission in 2022.

[pochimax]

Let me repeat it, to set it clearly

it is possible for SpaceX to bid Starship for human landing on the Moon, if they present a good explanaition and good costs for its bid.

We will see in the next week what will Sx do for the human landings. (1st november end date)

So it is possible for SpaceX to land NASA astronauts in 2024 with Starship within Artemis program funding.

[ThomasGadd]

Let me repeat it, to set it clearly

it is possible for SpaceX to bid Starship for human landing on the Moon, if they present a good explanaition and good costs for its bid.

We will see in the next week what will Sx do for the human landings. (1st november end date)

So it is possible for SpaceX to land NASA astronauts in 2024 with Starship within Artemis program funding.

I agree it is likely that SpaceX will bid Starship primary but Dragon secondary. 
Look at what the competing systems for HLS will  be all capsule based which is what NASA understands. 

After Starship builds flight time it will be phased in. 

[Ludus]

We know that Dear Moon requires a crewed Starship by 2023 and that’s extremely ambitious. Just building it by 2023 is super ambitious. Significant sums have been paid in advance for it so it’s a serious project though.

Dear Moon is significantly less ambitious as just a Lunar Flyby than a lunar landing and return. That would require more propellant transfer launches at minimum and just a lot more risk.

So while 2022 landing cargo on the moon one-way, 2023 Dear Moon crewed Flyby followed by 2024 Lunar crewed landing is super ambitious, landing cargo and crew on the moon in 2022 just seems like a simple mistake. I don’t think she meant to say that.

[Eka]

I expect even the first Starships to land on the moon will return. NASA wants more real regolith. A Starship could return tons. A telehandler boom system placed on a Tesla truck skateboard would be able to move containerized cargo a safe distance away allowing takeoff. Give the boom a quick attach system, and it could be used for all sorts of uses. Possible attachments include, but are not limited to, forklift forks, payloader buckets, bulldozer blades, augers, object gripers, jackhammer heads, cable trencher/layer, arc welder head, and even NASA Science Modules. Astronauts could teleoperate the rovers from inside their habitats, or let the rovers do their work autonomously. A science module could even instruct the rover where to go.

A combined Communications and Power Tower provides communications back to Earth, and cell service for rovers, etc. It also has chargers for charging the rovers. Remember that snake like automatic charger hookup video? A large self deploying solar array is used for generating power it uses, and stores excess in a space ready Powerwall. Many of these towers could be placed around the area to provide redundancy.

Tesla snake automatic charger hookup video.


I kinda went crazy with an ecosystem of equipment over the past couple days which the above is just part of. I think it got too large to post in this thread. The core of it is simplicity, redundancy, reusability for other uses. Redundancy is paramount due to possible failures due to unanticipated issues. Reusability is also fundamental. We can't anticipate all possible needs.

A couple telehandlers with grippers could hold tank sections in place while a telehandler with a welding head welds them together. A telehandler with a griper could place large fussed regolith bricks to make a landing pad. Of course one would need a kiln to fuse the bricks, and a loader to put the regolith into the forms. A drying and sorting plant for extracting water and other volatile compounds from the regolith, then sort it into fine, medium, and coarse piles. Different brick shapes can be made for other uses. The water can be frozen into large blocks, and moved to a shaded place by a telehandler. No need for containers.

[sanman]

Why wouldn't SpaceX bid for Artemis participation, in order to net money for Starship's development?

Since Starship's specs are very ambitious compared to other current contenders, then is it possible that Starship for Artemis would feature truncated specs in order to facilitate NASA's own ambitious timelines?

[TrevorMonty]

 Current known bids for Artemis is Blue's National Team, Boeing and SpaceX. NASA wants to pick two. I think National Team is one given skill sets of team and their existing technology.

That just leaves a choice between Boeing and SpaceX.  I hope NASA picks SpaceX as it will give a lower cost alternative to SLS

[Eric Hedman]

Current known bids for Artemis is Blue's National Team, Boeing and SpaceX. NASA wants to pick two. I think National Team is one given skill sets of team and their existing technology.

That just leaves a choice between Boeing and SpaceX.  I hope NASA picks SpaceX as it will give a lower cost alternative to SLS

The biggest hurdle SpaceX may have in being selected is whether or not NASA believes they can get Starship working in the time frame NASA has in mind.

[CJ]

Current known bids for Artemis is Blue's National Team, Boeing and SpaceX. NASA wants to pick two. I think National Team is one given skill sets of team and their existing technology.

That just leaves a choice between Boeing and SpaceX.  I hope NASA picks SpaceX as it will give a lower cost alternative to SLS

The biggest hurdle SpaceX may have in being selected is whether or not NASA believes they can get Starship working in the time frame NASA has in mind.

Agreed, but, a complicating issue is that NASA has zero chance of achieving the schedule NASA has in mind. Even if they get a massive burst of funding (incredibly unlikely IMHO) manned landings by 2024 isn't really plausible - they don't even have a lander design yet, plus they are predicating this on doing Gateway first.

Starship, assuming it works, might actually be the only means of achieving the Artimis time goal, mission goals, and more importantly, staying within funding. It's a gamble, of course - but so are their current plans.

If Starship sees orbit by the first half of next year, I think that would retire a lot of the timeline risk.