NASA requests proposals for 2nd Artemis moon lander

  1. I don't expect they'll get much different answers than the first time they asked around 2019 or 2020. I guess they're asking again because this counts as a separate competition?

  2. They have some reason. They all lost because their proposals were crap. I can't remember which one but I recall that one required material with negative mass in order to work.

  3. Well this option is supposed to be different from the first competition. They are supposed to be “sustainable” designs, so 1-2 stage vehicles, preferably reusable, less single use hardware.

  4. Where is the solicitation/contract for SLS and Orion redundancy? If you can't get crew to the lander(s), it doesn't matter how many lander options you have.

  5. They need starship anyway for HLS, there is no reason they couldn’t contract spacex in the future if they need SLS redundancy. But if that happens it’ll be the death of SLS.

  6. Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

  7. SpaceX was the only serious proposal the first time around, I don't think NASA is in any way implying they're doing a bad job somehow.

  8. It’s way more like the teacher wanting to give one of the dumber kids in class a chance to give the answer instead of always calling on the one smart kid every time.

  9. While I support SpaceX's efforts, I do think the ship is too tall. However, I don't expect all new version of a lander that would work with NASA budget.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Author: admin