AgBQ-00 said:

---

Looking like a scrubbed status for the day.

---

Scrub

We are getting into the 30 day window on when NASA will award contract(s) for HLS. Also, video below discussing the 3 is pretty great, imho.

I think the common logic is if NASA choose the BO option there won't be enough left over for one of the other two. NASA loves redundancy so that's why people are optimistic about the other two.

I think the most likely result is BO/national team win, because Starship is not mature enough yet for that award. It's absurd, but I think the 30 foot ladder is seen as less risky, despite what those of us not working for the government might say.

The concoction of big contractors and overall design itself also will bring on some nostalgia for the Nasa folks about Apollo.

It may seem silly, but I do think SpaceX' odds improve by around 25 percent or so if they manage to stick the current Starship landing well (as in, not too fast this time). Still, let's not forget to hold congress in some contempt for making a dual award improbable;

Quote:

---

Another reason why the selection may be hard is the shortfall in funding for HLS. NASA received $850 million for the program for fiscal year 2021, only about one-fourth of its original request. That's forced NASA to revise its plans to the program, and is a key reason why the previous goal of a 2024 human landing is now widely considered out of reach.

"We got a lot of money from Congress this year," Kirasich said, while acknowledging it fell short of original plans. "We're looking at that very closely."

Both he and Kathy Lueders, NASA associate administrator for human exploration and operations, emphasized that maintaining competition is a key part of the program. "Competition having multiple suppliers for us is an extremely important principle. It's on our minds," he said.

Lueders noted that the Option A awards are for development of landers through an initial demonstration only. A separate procurement will follow for landing services "over the next year," she said, analogous to how the initial Commercial Orbital Transportation Services awards to support development of commercial cargo vehicles for the International Space Station were followed by separate Commercial Resupply Services contracts for cargo transportation services.

"People mix those two up," she said, confusing the Option A awards with later contracts for lander services. "This initial award is just for us investing in a demonstration for a lander."

"Our big challenge is, how do we continue to make sure that we have competition for when we're doing our services awards for the landers?" she said. "Competition is very important."

---

Another space aside, the Boeing Starliner is now stacked on it's Atlas V I believe, but they are shooting for a mid-May unmanned test flight (after the next manned Crew Dragon one, oh BTW). The Starliner was supposed to be fully operational by 2015, and then later 2017, for anyone looking to laugh at absurd DoD/gov't contract failures this am. Boeing has stated it is taking a $410 million charge to build/test this second one after the absurd software/integration failures on the first one.

So that guy spent 43 minutes saying the first option was ridiculously expensive, a poor design that looked exactly like a MS paint picture in the bid specs, that takes by far the longest timeline to achieve and overall grades as a failure (according to his criteria) and yet they are the hands down favorite to win the bid because it slow schedule takes 0 risk and that's what NASA does nowadays. Take no risk at all.

We have heard this story before. If that's what they end up choosing it won't be 2032 in his timeline. It will be 2040-never.

PJYoung said:

---

---

Makes me more thankful for spacex in general. If the future of space flight and exploration was in the sole hands of NASA it would be a foregone conclusion that China would be ahead in every way by 2030.

Mathguy64 said:

---

So that guy spent 43 minutes saying the first option was ridiculously expensive, a poor design that looked exactly like a MS paint picture in the bid specs, that takes by far the longest timeline to achieve and overall grades as a failure (according to his criteria) and yet they are the hands down favorite to win the bid because it slow schedule takes 0 risk and that's what NASA does nowadays. Take no risk at all.

We have heard this story before. If that's what they end up choosing it won't be 2032 in his timeline. It will be 2040-never.

---

He's not wrong, frankly.

I will just reiterate that there is perhaps more significance than some realize in the formation of a Caribbean/ALCE space authority/agency long term. This is something we discussed/posted a ways back in this thread. Short story: if flight clearances/launches can be approved in international waters without technology export limitations or FAA politics (ITAR, namely), then costs will drop precipitously indeed.

NASA has been a great agency as far as human space exploration is concerned over the past 70 years net, but is not the future.

Lunar starship mockup referenced here, as well as starship next steps;

Are they going to launch into a cloud deck?

Unlikely, hopefully it clears.

Noon to 5 pm is the current NET per EA.

https://everydayastronaut.com/when-will-sn11-launch-live-updates/

Mathguy64 said:

---

So that guy spent 43 minutes saying the first option was ridiculously expensive, a poor design that looked exactly like a MS paint picture in the bid specs, that takes by far the longest timeline to achieve and overall grades as a failure (according to his criteria) and yet they are the hands down favorite to win the bid because it slow schedule takes 0 risk and that's what NASA does nowadays. Take no risk at all.

We have heard this story before. If that's what they end up choosing it won't be 2032 in his timeline. It will be 2040-never.

---

Not a lot of doubt in my mind that NASA will pick that option. Keep in mind that it's not just BO, but also Lockheed and Northrup Grumman (who made the LM for Apollo). So you have a lot of "tradition" and politics going that direction as well.

The end result is a Chinese-Russian moonbase with NASA lagging behind by 10 years or more. Honestly, pessimistic as I am, I'll say if they pick the BO/LM/NG option, just go ahead and put a bullet in Artemis, it's toast.

NASA and congress should be forced to watch For All Mankind.

I've watched season 1 and two of the newest episodes in season 2. It's interesting, but it turned into a SJW propaganda lovefest. Gotta make sure the LGBTQ, minorities, and women all get to the moon and snub mean whitey males.

The advancement of minorities is shown to be political in the show. Not sure why that's offensive to you.

I watched it, and while yes it did have plenty of PC crap in it (it's on/by Amazon after all), it was overall fun to watch.

I was annoyed by it a few times (ok probably more than a dozen times) but it's to the point it takes a lot to offend me especially if it's a topic I like. No longer willing to cede to hollywood the ability to tick me off, basically.

nortex97 said:

---

Unlikely, hopefully it clears.

---

It's not forecast to improve. Right now the best day for wind and clouds to launch looks to be Wednesday. That's why I was wondering if they need clear (ish) weather to get the data they need.

The satellite looks bad right now:

I don't think they really need clear weather (meaning no fog) but I think they prefer it just for visual purposes (cameras for the landing etc). Maybe some 30 minute window opens up this afternoon, fingers crossed.

Its the premise that is so spot on. NASA stagnated in the early 70s, partly because of politics and funding and partly because of a lack or willingness to push the envelope. Had that not happened, imagine where we would be today. Also the original Jamestown Base design (Canister slung between two tank/engine pods) bears a striking resemblance to the second of the three HLS designs.

NASA has not provided a whole lot of innovation in terms of ROCKET ENGINEERING outside of the RS25 SSME.

They've proven to be AWESOME when it comes to space exploration - JUNO, Perseverance, MAVEN, Kepler, Dawn, Phoenix Lander.

Just imagine if tomorrow they could appropriate the entire budget for the SLS into new space probes/landers/observatories. They could even have a bunch of science missions constrained to the fairing of the Falcon 9. $12B worth of science instruments launched on commercial vehicles would be dope.

Aaaaand we're scrubbed for the day. The reason? FAA inspector can't make it to Starbase today...

I **** you not...

SpaceX should be paying the retainer to keep those people on site. With their constantly changing schedule it would be worth it.

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

Aaaaand we're scrubbed for the day. The reason? FAA inspector can't make it to Starbase today...

I **** you not...

---

Once again, this is why they need to prioritize moving to sea launches asap. The FAA/US airspace/road/trailer home (Boca Chica) restrictions are absolutely costing them at least a month's worth of launches per year, maybe even 90 days.

I wonder if there were any FAA inspectors on site before Jan 19.

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

Aaaaand we're scrubbed for the day. The reason? FAA inspector can't make it to Starbase today...

I **** you not...

---

Y'all are seriously that indignant SpaceX doesn't get to just fly their experimental rockets any time they want? The things you find to get upset about. In my day, we waited years between test flights and we liked it.

In all seriousness, while I think SpaceX has shown they can safely operate their vehicles at Boca Chica, this still experimental and there is still a public use issue. Any time SpaceX flies, they are getting exclusive use of airspace and seas that are otherwise freely available for us all to use. That means there is some paperwork and oversight involved.

I think you'll also find - as oil & gas knows - that it is extraordinarily expensive and logistically challenging to operate offshore. That probably isn't going to be a net gain over waiting for the FAA guy to show up.

Yes, it is flicking ridiculous that am entity the size of the FAA feels the need to delay a company doing the same thing they've been doing in a test campaign. They've proven over and over again they're doing it safely, what the hell does annisnpector need to be on scene for.


This is the agency that gave a man back his pilots license after nearly taking out a plane full of passengers because he greased the right palms, but won't let me have my pilots license because I take anxiety meds twice a month.

And public use? Dude they shut down whole cities worth of airspace to fly one politician in, the hour or so for a rocket launch is not an encumberance.

Quote:

---

This is the agency that gave a man back his pilots license after nearly taking out a plane full of passengers because he greased the right palms,

---

That would be....?

Look... Yeah mess like this happens all the time between public and private but it sure as heck doesn't make it right.

If you were building your home or remodeling and the GC waited around all day for the city inspector and finally bumped your schedule and sends his crews to another site because the inspector didn't show up you'd be pissed too. Your entire schedule slips because a .gov entity can't keep their end of the bargain yet they have sole power to hold up your entire project.

It's not just wrong. It's, in my opinion, almost criminal. Wonder what the cost to SpaceX is to be ready to launch and be scrubbed by the government. Sure weather could have scrubbed them. Mechanical issues could have scrubbed them. If it were a range violation that scrubbed them they could have the person arrested for trespass.

But no... An incompetent Federal Bureaucracy scrubbed their launch because they decided they wanted to be there

TriAg2010 said:

---

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

Aaaaand we're scrubbed for the day. The reason? FAA inspector can't make it to Starbase today...

I **** you not...

---

Y'all are seriously that indignant SpaceX doesn't get to just fly their experimental rockets any time they want? The things you find to get upset about. In my day, we waited years between test flights and we liked it.

In all seriousness, while I think SpaceX has shown they can safely operate their vehicles at Boca Chica, this still experimental and there is still a public use issue. Any time SpaceX flies, they are getting exclusive use of airspace and seas that are otherwise freely available for us all to use. That means there is some paperwork and oversight involved.

I think you'll also find - as oil & gas knows - that it is extraordinarily expensive and logistically challenging to operate offshore. That probably isn't going to be a net gain over waiting for the FAA guy to show up.

---

Funny thing about that analogy; oil and gas have found it worthwhile to invest hundreds of billions into ever deeper offshore platforms/rigs over many decades, partly to get away from the regulations and limits of drilling on dry land. Every time one was built it was deemed "wow, this is too far/expensive" by some. I don't think they'll take over Perdido next year but I think it is realistic to say there are similar values to scale.

SpaceX, whether you realize it or not, is committed to rapid iterative prototypes/developments, and I think they have similarly committed massive capital/resources (including engineering/production both) toward this effect. Delays impact this type of project disproportionately (meaning logarithmically for you engineering types).

'Y'all' may think 'we' just simplistically want them to fly 'whenever they want' but the truth is the limitations have been a big impediment, and if they are to succeed prior to running out of capital they will need to develop a way around the regulatory limits. There's not frankly a fantastically high amount of great uses of air space around Boca Chica, too. We're not talking about shutting down O'hare/LAX/Dulles etc.

Sigh. This pisses me off so much.

Good Lord.

They should just pay one to sit on site full time

Was he onsite Friday?