upvote
> Blue origin was _just_ selected to be the first moon lander mission

Just a rover [1].

Blue Moon is one of the two lander contractors. But pretty much everyone thinks Artemis is Starship HLS or bust.

Does Blue Origin not have another pad? (Did they blow up a pad or a test stand?)

[1] https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-selects-blue-origin-t...

reply
>Blue Moon is one of the two lander contractors. But pretty much everyone thinks Artemis is Starship HLS or bust.

That isn't my impression of NASA/government opinion. Starship HLS is seen as the eventual option, as is obvious from the testing campaign. It'll get there eventually and offer unprecedented capability, but it's very clearly several years out.

Blue's option was being seen as the faster option due to having a less risky critical path. The rocket was already orbital, fewer refueling flights were needed, the engines weren't pushing the limits of materials technology, no reusable heat shield to worry about.

Though, ultimately it's worth keeping in mind that the landers aren't actually the current bottleneck in the program. The space suits are in total development hell.

reply
> Blue's option was being seen as the faster option due to having a less risky critical path

Source? (Not doubting, and it sounds vaguely familiar.)

> the landers aren't actually the current bottleneck in the program. The space suits are in total development hell

The neat thing about Artemis is it’s pushing so many boundaries that it’s reasonable to debate the actual bottlenecks. I still think launch is it, since even without spacesuits you can do robotic construction. (Hell, even without HLS you can ship nuclear power stations and solar panels and rovers.)

reply
I was speaking mainly off my reading of the discussions on the internet in recent months, but I'm assuming the impression stems from this OIG report https://oig.nasa.gov/news/artemis-lander-program-faces-sched...

It seems to point to rising costs on SpaceX's end, and in my reading, is very critical of them compared to BO.

>The neat thing about Artemis is it’s pushing so many boundaries that it’s reasonable to debate the actual bottlenecks. I still think launch is it, since even without spacesuits you can do robotic construction

I believe that suits are still important because you can't really do much with a crew there without them. There aren't even new EVA suits available. And, of course politically, it's going to be seen very poorly if they can't do a "One small step for a man..." moment.

reply
That’s a fair criticism. I’m just never remembering anyone thinking BO was the safer option.
reply
Can't we, at worst, use Apollo-level suits - maybe actial suits? - for small Moon walks?
reply
As mentioned, Apollo suits are neither safe, nor in working condition now. Even the EVA suits on the ISS (which are only usable for space walks) are decades old and just barely being kept going.

The US simply hasn't been able to bring new spacesuits into use for a long time, every single time, the costs and timelines have spiraled. Probably because a lot of the knowledge has been lost to old age, and the new guys need some time to relearn those lessons and improve on them.

reply
No. One, they don’t exist in working condition. Two, the tolerances and materials were unacceptable by modern standards. (And for modern purposes. We’re going there to do shit. Not be Boy Scouts.)
reply
deleted
reply
> I still think launch is it, since even without spacesuits you can do robotic construction.

The plans for Artemis are public, and they don't include any robotic construction before a manned landing.

Neveemind that the idea of a moon base is fanciful, I think it's very unlikely to happen in anything resembling current world climate.

reply
> plans for Artemis are public

They also change every time a Congressional staffer sneezes. If the space suits don’t work, a pivot would be easier than having the space suits with no rocket to put them on.

reply
Really the least risky thing right now would probably be if BO retooled their lander to fly on a Falcon Heavy. If asked, SpaceX could probably launch 4 Falcon Heavies to orbit before Blue Origin could launch as many New Glenns.

I really don't think there's anything particularly derisked about NG + Blue Moon 2 compared to Starship HLS.

reply
Falcon Heavy has a much smaller max payload diameter (~4.6m) compared the New Glenn (7m), I doubt the landers (MK2 especially) can be retooled to fit without essentially starting from scratch.
reply
The issue is that Blue Moon is designed to have its hydrogen fuel topped off by the second stage of New Glenn, which isn’t possible on Falcon or Starship.
reply
> Does Blue Origin not have another pad? (Did they blow up a pad or a test stand?)

The explosion happened at their only completed pad.

They reportedly have a second pad under construction (for the larger "9x4" variant of New Glenn) but I've not seen a lot of detail about how far along it is.

Would not be surprised to see them accelerating construction of the new pad.

reply
> But pretty much everyone thinks Artemis is Starship HLS or bust.

Right now it seems like it's Axiom or bust, with their suits. The suits have missed a lot of milestones, and there's not much point in going to the Moon without suits. Latest NASA OIG report put them somewhere in the 2030s at best...

reply
Can always use the existing ISS suits modified for the moon.
reply
Heh, I don't think so. The ISS suits have their own problems, are custom made for the ISS, are bulky AF, and "modified for the moon" might take longer than expected.
reply
The Moon is frankly a totally different environment. Lunar dust is notorious.

Also the ISS suits themselves are being replaced, by Axiom, because they are failing in near-fatal ways periodically.

reply
Been thinking about this quite a bit. I think every lunar airlock will end up with a wash station and will end up using basic water sprays to get the job done. Soil compactors can be used outside to compact the dust and prevent it from being an issue during moon walks as well. I think once a moon base is established most moon walks will be on-base where dust would have been dealt with in the first few years and then after that it's basically like walking on compacted soil so it won't be loose.

And if you're wondering why they might use water for this well... water will be abundant and basically every habitat will have a municipal water hookup. A moon base might quickly find itself with several hectares of water and no where to put it. Might even end up injecting it into the ground where the water will be able to maintain it's liquid state (moon crust quickly reaches room temperature only a few dozens of meters underground).

reply
We can turn the regolith into Lunarcrete too. It's moon concrete. Mars with nice sidewalks.

https://techport.nasa.gov/projects/118526

reply
Yup. That gets us to the stone age on the moon. I'm a big fan of bootstrapping the moon's industrial capacity straight to the industrial age. We need not only concrete production but also steel, water, etc. The faster we bootstrap all this stuff the faster the moon will feel like any other place you can go. I think there's gonna be hardware stores on the moon within the century.
reply
They blew up LC-36.
reply
Blue Origin's lunar architecture is designed for a maximum of twelve moon landings per year for the Blue Moon Mk2 without using Orion and the same $4 billion budget per Orion+SLS flight.

SpaceX's architecture requires a second cislunar starship for the return trip. That will mean at most four moon landings per year and even that is optimistic. The large size of Starship makes return trips and lunar refueling really unattractive. If SpaceX wants to compete they will need to build a dedicated cislunar vehicle.

reply
Blue Origin is years away from New Glenn launching once a month. SpaceX will be doing that with Starship far sooner than BO.
reply