I couldn't disagree more. Aircraft Carriers are military and doesn't apply and U.S airlines purchase both Boeing and Airbus. The equivalency is not the same.Regardless, two providers is about capability, redundancy and fostering development within the industry.
It really sounded like NASA was doing contortions to justify paying billions for a second company.With SLS only launching every 2 years or so, there will only be 4-5 landings per decade. Redundancy is meaningless in this system, because only the lander would have it. SLS and Orion wouldn't. You gain nothing but more expense.They went out of their way to shape a bidding process where spaceX is banned from competing, JUST to make sure old space can come along for the ride.
But the downside is that without the threat of SpaceX, there's no incentive for any of the other companies to bid low anymore, and most of them (all except Blue Origin) probably doesn't have significant amount of money to put in in the first place. So why should Bezos put in his extra $2B now that he knows he won't be facing off with SpaceX?
So NASA basically created a kiddie pool for the other landers to play in, because otherwise they'll just get bulldozed by Starship, which is pretty much what will happen if they went ahead with LETS. In exchange for playing along, SpaceX gets some development dollars and an extra crewed mission, plus direct line to the service contract. Overall not a bad strategy if the intent is to get a 2nd lander no matter what.But the downside is that without the threat of SpaceX, there's no incentive for any of the other companies to bid low anymore, and most of them (all except Blue Origin) probably doesn't have significant amount of money to put in in the first place. So why should Bezos put in his extra $2B now that he knows he won't be facing off with SpaceX?Looks to me the average cost of SLD is heading towards $10B at least, and NASA will need a $2B annual increase of HLS budget, which Congress will all but certain to underfund, the question is what will happen then?Best case scenario: NASA fully fund Option A/B which gives them two landings and a capable provider for service contract, cut back on SLD to show Congress they need to put their money where their mouth is.Worst case scenario: NASA tries to cut back both Option A/B and SLD, slow walking SpaceX, frakked off Elon goes public with epic twitter drama ensues...
SpaceX can bid for Option B! (Incidentally, only SpaceX is eligible for Option B because you need to win an award under Option A to be eligible for Option B).
The directors of NASA hired to continue Artemis after the Option A lunar landers competitors had been sacked by SpaceX win, wish it to be known that they have just been sacked by SpaceX Option B. Artemis has been completed in an entirely different style at great expense and at the last minute.
This time around, the contract comes with a very explicit asterisk of "if we don't have funding then there won't be a contract at all". Alongside the outcome of the litigation over HLS being that NASA can indeed just not select your contract if it's too expensive to fund, Appendix P bidders are on notice that if they bid high under the idea that 'NASA will have to pick someone no matter what the cost!' they may just end up with nothing at all.
Quote from: deadman1204 on 03/24/2022 02:52 amIt really sounded like NASA was doing contortions to justify paying billions for a second company.With SLS only launching every 2 years or so, there will only be 4-5 landings per decade. Redundancy is meaningless in this system, because only the lander would have it. SLS and Orion wouldn't. You gain nothing but more expense.They went out of their way to shape a bidding process where spaceX is banned from competing, JUST to make sure old space can come along for the ride.I have a different interpretation, but I'm probably wrong. Assuming SpaceX accepts this arrangement and actually submits the Option B bid, they are guaranteed to get the lander contract for Artemis V. But that's a reusable lander, so it will be sitting in NRHO (or perhaps in LEO), available to compete for landing services for subsequent missions against any shiny new "Appendix P" landers. The competitors must provide either a lower mission cost or superior capabilities. If they can, NASA wins. If they cannot, NASA still wins.Furthermore, since NASA is buying a service instead of a lander, SpaceX is free to use the hardware for a private "Polaris"-type mission to land Jacobson someone on the Moon: send a Crew Dragon to meet HLS in LEO, HLS can refuel in LEO and go LEO-lunar surface-NRHO, refuel again in NRHO, and return to LEO. The first such trip requires a new depot in NRHO which SpaceX can charge to Option B. Each trip requires a bunch of tanker flights to refill the two depots.
Dumb question: it appears that the Appendix P lander is supposed to also convey heavy cargo from NRHO to the lunar surface. How is the cargo supposed to get to NRHO, and how is it supposed to be transshipped to the lander?
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 03/24/2022 03:41 amDumb question: it appears that the Appendix P lander is supposed to also convey heavy cargo from NRHO to the lunar surface. How is the cargo supposed to get to NRHO, and how is it supposed to be transshipped to the lander?Not a dumb question. But you kinda could've figured out the answer yourself. This is where the tie-in to SLS comes looking around the corner. The heavy cargo is supposed to be flown there on SLS Block 1B, towed by Orion. Similar to how Orion will tow the iHab and ESPRIT modules to NRHO.The robot arm on Gateway will assist in transferring the cargo into the lander's cargo hold.
Launch vehicle constraints could get interesting for Appendix P. Both the National Team and Dynetics offerings used multiple New Glenn or Vulcan launchers but were marginal even for two crew sorties. Upscaling to four crew could be problematic for these architectures (or at least become immensely complex and high risk).Other non-Starship options are limited. SLS would be very expensive and pose cadence issues. Expendable New Glenn perhaps? But the obvious choice would be Falcon Heavy which will be mature, highly capable, cheap, and available at a high cadence in the timeframe.
Quote from: ThatOldJanxSpirit on 03/24/2022 09:55 amLaunch vehicle constraints could get interesting for Appendix P. Both the National Team and Dynetics offerings used multiple New Glenn or Vulcan launchers but were marginal even for two crew sorties. Upscaling to four crew could be problematic for these architectures (or at least become immensely complex and high risk).Other non-Starship options are limited. SLS would be very expensive and pose cadence issues. Expendable New Glenn perhaps? But the obvious choice would be Falcon Heavy which will be mature, highly capable, cheap, and available at a high cadence in the timeframe.Dynetics could carry 4 astronauts even under Option A. National Team could only carry 2 astronauts under Option A. But I suspect that the National Team no longer exists anyways.
