Possible cost-reduction possibilities for the NASA portions of MSR

[VSECOTSPE]

Oh really, so you're saying NASA just randomly picked the MSR proposals to fund without any validation at all?

Read what I wrote.  I wrote that one study among seven with a max value of $1.5 million and no follow-on downselect or funding against a multi-billion dollar mission that the program office is developing its own architecture for internally does not validate a Starship architecture for MSR.  In fact, being chosen for an architecture study under any circumstances does not validate the architecture being studied, by definition.

I did portray the situation factually and accurately,

No, with respect to your and Skran’s contention that NASA should now pursue a Starship architecture for MSR you wrote:

given NASA chose SpaceX to do a study of Starship MSR.

You’re wrong.  Being chosen for a study does not validate an architecture.

unlike someone who didn't even know NASA's cryo-refueling test failed on orbit then double down on his ignorance instead of admitting mistake.

I don’t know what RRM3 has to do with the current discussion, but flight tests experience technical failures all the time and still provide valuable data, often enough to move on to the next step despite the technical failure.

Regardless, again, it’s not about validating your old posts (or mine).  It’s about accurately portraying the situation with respect to these industry studies for MSR.  If you need validation, seek it offline, not here.

[ulm_atms]

thespacecow, your arguments aren't completely without merit, but VSECOTSPE has literately been inside the NASA bureaucratic machine for a long time.  VSECOTSPE is not wrong and you should be aware enough that when you start replying sarcastically like above, you are the one losing credit.  I personally thank VSECOTSPE for the posts.  Been nice having someone from the inside explain some things that make no sense from the outside.  It is appreciated by this member anyways.

NASA studies a lot of things all the time but it doesn't go anywhere.  SS for MSR may, who knows, but basically stating they are going with SS due to the study is incorrect exactly as VSECOTSPE explained.

[thespacecow]

Oh really, so you're saying NASA just randomly picked the MSR proposals to fund without any validation at all?

Read what I wrote.  I wrote that one study among seven with a max value of $1.5 million and no follow-on downselect or funding against a multi-billion dollar mission that the program office is developing its own architecture for internally does not validate a Starship architecture for MSR.  In fact, being chosen for an architecture study under any circumstances does not validate the architecture being studied, by definition.

Actually what you wrote is "it doesn’t validate anything", which implies NASA did not do any work when selecting Starship for MSR, which is categorically false. As the source selection document stated, each proposal was evaluated by a panel of 10 peer reviewers with scientific and technical expertise, then Program Officer made recommendations based evaluation result and programmatic/budget considerations, and Selection Official made the final pick.

So by definition some validation is done on the architecture.

I did portray the situation factually and accurately,

No, with respect to your and Skran’s contention that NASA should now pursue a Starship architecture for MSR you wrote:

given NASA chose SpaceX to do a study of Starship MSR.

You’re wrong.  Being chosen for a study does not validate an architecture.

Yes, it does to some extent, since it's obvious that NASA wouldn't pick proposals randomly.

If you need validation, seek it offline, not here.

Hey, I thought this is not about me, funny that in the end you still made it about me.

[thespacecow]

thespacecow, your arguments aren't completely without merit, but VSECOTSPE has literately been inside the NASA bureaucratic machine for a long time.  VSECOTSPE is not wrong

That's just argument from authority, a logical fallacy.

As I said before in this thread: "If Elon Musk proved anything, it's that to do ground breaking work in the space industry, you have to have a healthy skepticism of authority and experts. The same is true if you want to make reasonable future predictions in a world where SpaceX exists.

Do you not remember Charles Bolden saying FH is a paper rocket while SLS is real? Do you not remember Ariane exec saying reusability is a dream? Do you not remember Jim losing bet against SpaceX even though he has insider info from his work? Didn't you guys claim in this very thread that Starship is not suitable for MSR?"

NASA studies a lot of things all the time but it doesn't go anywhere.  SS for MSR may, who knows, but basically stating they are going with SS due to the study is incorrect exactly as VSECOTSPE explained.

I never stated that NASA will 100% go with Starship for MSR, let alone basing it on a study. In fact I explicitly stated earlier in this thread that "Of course this doesn't mean NASA will pick Starship for MSR in 2025, that's far from assured. "

What I'm arguing is that "What's wrong is people still claiming Starship is unsuitable for MSR even after NASA's move.", suitability for the mission is very much a criteria when NASA was selecting the proposal.

I hope I don't need to explain the difference between being suitable for a mission and will 100% be selected for the mission. e.g. many people on this forum think Starship and other commercial heavy lift is suitable for replacing SLS, but it doesn't mean NASA will actually select them to replace SLS.

[VSECOTSPE]

So by definition some validation is done on the architecture.

SpaceX submitted a proposal to fund a study to examine an MSR architecture.  SpaceX did not submit the architecture.  By definition, NASA cannot validate (or not) SpaceX’s MSR architecture until after it has been studies and submitted by SpaceX.

Yes, it does to some extent, since it's obvious that NASA wouldn't pick proposals randomly.

NASA picked a proposal to study an MSR architecture from SpaceX.  NASA did not pick an MSR architecture from SpaceX.  In fact, there is no path for NASA to pick (as in select, fund, and develop) an MSR architecture from SpaceX even after SpaceX submits one.