NASA just announced selection of three entries to receive an initial NASA contract to design a manned lunar lander to transport people and cargo back and forth from NASA's planned Gateway space station in lunar orbit to the Moon's surface.
"SpaceX has been selected to develop a lunar optimized Starship to transport crew between lunar orbit and the surface of the Moon as part of NASA's Artemis program!"
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1255907211533901825
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-select...an-landers
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/...-starship/
The other winning entries were Jeff Bezos' less ambitious Apollo-style Blue Moon lunar lander and for Dynetics' interesting but less ambitious Alpaca lander.
Blue's getting paid $579 million for the initial funding. Dynetics is getting $253 million. And SpaceX $135 million.
Ars Technica explains the differences in contract sizes this way: "Bridenstine said the individual award amounts do not reflect a ranking or preference on the space agency's behalf. Rather, he said, the awards are based upon the amounts requested by each of the three teams and the scope of work they proposed to complete over the next 10 months. "Some people might look at the dollar amounts and think we’re playing favorites," he said. "And we’re really, really not." "
So NASA's going to look at progress in ten months and then award additional funding based on how well things are coming along. (This is where Elon's frantic pace might pay off better than creeping along at government contractor speed.
NASA seems to acknowledge that Starship is something of a stretch. It's far more risky than the other two options, but it offers vastly more upside if it succeeds.
Ars Technica quotes Bridenstine:
"SpaceX is really good at flying and testing—and failing and fixing," he said. "People are going to look at this and say, 'My goodness, we just saw Starship blow up again. Why are you giving them a contract?' The answer is because SpaceX is really good at iteratively testing and fixing. This is not new to them. They have a design here that, if successful, is going to be transformational. It’s going to drive down costs and it’s going to increase access, and it’s going to enable commercial activities that historically we’ve only dreamed about. I fully believe that Elon Musk is going to be successful. He is focused like a laser on these activities."
Which at the very least outs Bridenstine as a space-geek... He personally seems to like the sexiest Sci-Fi option, with two safer options if it doesn't pan out.
And it's conceivable that
SpaceX hiring Bill Gerstenmaier might be paying some dividends. Where NASA used to consider Starship to be Elon's crazy folly, now they are starting to take it seriously.
NASA describes the SpaceX plan this way, "Several Starships serve distinct purposes in enabling human landing missions, each based on the common Starship design. A propellant storage Starship will park in low-Earth orbit to be supplied by tanker Starships. The human-rated Starship will launch to the storage unit in Earth orbit, fuel up, and continue to lunar orbit."
SpaceX renders of the newly announced lunar optimized Starship
No, those aren't spotlights. They are engines, Superdraco-style rocket thrusters. The Moon's gravity is so low that it doesn't take much rocket thrust to land and take off there. The engines (three sets of three) are mounted high up to minimize kicking up lunar dust and rocks.
Blue's far less risky entry (NASA graphic)
Dynetics' Alpaca lander (NASA image)
![[Image: dynetics-human-lander.jpg]](https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/dynetics-human-lander.jpg)