toot frm NASA making announcement:
https://social.beachcom.org/@nasa/110396660009869024

Is this a sign that NASA is losing confidence in Spacex delivering its
mega Starship with moon landing capabilities? Or did it always intend to
choose second supplier?

JF Mezei scribbled something on Friday the 5/19/2023:
>
> toot frm NASA making announcement:
> https://social.beachcom.org/@nasa/110396660009869024
>
>
> Is this a sign that NASA is losing confidence in Spacex delivering its
> mega Starship with moon landing capabilities? Or did it always intend to
> choose second supplier?

It always intended to choose a second supplier (viz Dragon and
Starliner). You didn't listen to NASA during the furor Blue Origin
raised after the first round? NASA chose SpaceX in part because of the
bang for the buck, but wanted a second supplier, and the two sides
managed to convince Congress to pungle up a few more dollars.

At the time, Blue Origin was not considered a mature contender, but now
more credibility with some actual flight articles of the big engine
(flight articles; flight pending but expected summer-ish).

/dps

--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

On 2023-05-20 2:22, Snidely wrote:
> JF Mezei  scribbled something on Friday the 5/19/2023:
>>
>> toot frm NASA making announcement:
>> https://social.beachcom.org/@nasa/110396660009869024
>>
>>
>> Is this a sign that NASA is losing confidence in Spacex delivering its
>> mega Starship with moon landing capabilities? Or did it always intend to
>> choose second supplier?
>
> It always intended to choose a second supplier (viz Dragon and
> Starliner).  You didn't listen to NASA during the furor Blue Origin
> raised after the first round?  NASA chose SpaceX in part because of the
> bang for the buck, but wanted a second supplier, and the two sides
> managed to convince Congress to pungle up a few more dollars.
>
> At the time, Blue Origin was not considered a mature contender, but now
> more credibility with some actual flight articles of the big engine
> (flight articles; flight pending but expected summer-ish).

Not only that, but the new lander ("Blue Moon Lander") is completely
redesigned -- actually turned upside down, with the crew compartment at
the bottom, below the propellant tanks. It is also completely reusable,
all of it goes down to the surface, and all of it comes back up again
into NRHO, where it can be reloaded with propellants and reused.

In unmanned, non-reusable cargo configuration, it can land 30 metric
tons on the Moon.

AIUI, it has to be loaded with propellant in NRHO even before it lands
on the Moon for the first time. There is a separate vehicle that
transfers propellants from LEO to NRHO.

Propellants are still liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, with systems to
cool them so that there is no or very little boil-off, allowing
long-term storage.

So the Blue Moon lander seems to have acquired the desirable features of
the Dynetics Alpaca lander (crew close to the surface, main components
reusable). I've not seen the new Dynetics proposal (if that was indeed
the second of the two proposals), but so far I am not surprised by
NASA's choice.

Watch this space, where Snidely advised that...
> JF Mezei scribbled something on Friday the 5/19/2023:
>>
>> toot frm NASA making announcement:
>> https://social.beachcom.org/@nasa/110396660009869024
>>
>>
>> Is this a sign that NASA is losing confidence in Spacex delivering its
>> mega Starship with moon landing capabilities? Or did it always intend to
>> choose second supplier?
>
> It always intended to choose a second supplier (viz Dragon and Starliner).
> You didn't listen to NASA during the furor Blue Origin raised after the first
> round? NASA chose SpaceX in part because of the bang for the buck, but
> wanted a second supplier, and the two sides managed to convince Congress to
> pungle up a few more dollars.
>
> At the time, Blue Origin was not considered a mature contender, but now more
> credibility with some actual flight articles of the big engine (flight
> articles; flight pending but expected summer-ish).

Also, note that the redesigned blue-ish lander won't carry humans
before Artemis 5, after SpaceX does A3 and A4. There will be two
unmanned early article landings somewhere in there, too. SpaceX's
unmanned landing is before A3.

/dps

--
You could try being nicer and politer
> instead, and see how that works out.
-- Katy Jennison