[Alupis]

Seems they're working on it, at least[1].

Did they not bid because of the Starship funding SpaceX is already receiving? If you knew you had zero chance of winning, why bother bidding?

> Not to mention that they are owned by Lockheed and Boeing.

Not sure your point here? Is that supposed to be a negative thing? Both companies have a massive amount of aerospace experience going back decades.

[1] https://www.ulalaunch.com/missions/commercial-crew

[kiba]

Seems they're working on it, at least[1].

ULA has never designed a crew spacecraft. They're just launching it.

The Starliner is a Boeing product.

Not sure your point here? Is that supposed to be a negative thing? Both companies have a massive amount of aerospace experience going back decades.

And yet why did NASA chose SpaceX over dynetic, which is full of old companies?

SpaceX is an 18 years old company who developed the Falcon 1, Falcon 9(with further 4 iterations), the first Dragon, Dragon 2(with Cargo and Crew variant). They also achieved reusability with supersonic landing, an industry first.

Boeing mismanaged their Starliner program to the point that they failed their test flight due to program mismanagement and now have to wait years before they can relaunch Starliner, and thus SpaceX was able to start their commercial crew contract first. Boeing also drastically mismanaged the SLS program. As it is years behind schedule and cost billion of dollars.

Lockheed Martin? I don't know much about except the constant controversy surrounding their F-35 program.

I'll have to say this: decade of experience means not much if you're slow, inefficient, and do shitty jobs.

It's not like SpaceX lack decades of experience either. They have industry veterans too, not just fresh graduate from schools. One of the reasons that they were able to get anywhere in the early days was because they have folks who knows the space industry and able to work with the military.

[Alupis]

> The Starliner is a Boeing product.

ULA is Lockheed Martin + Boeing.

> controversy surrounding their F-35 program.

Fair enough, I'm not fan of the F-35 program either. Although it's not entirely Lockheed's fault... the mandate to have a one-size-fits-all aircraft for all branches of the military was doomed to fail from inception. The military knew it, and I'm certain so did Lockheed and all their contractors. Congress didn't want to hear that though... thinking it would lead to costs savings (oh, how hindsight is 20/20).

At a minimum, there should be two competing designs - built through flight testing (if not built to completion and maintained in conjunction to avoid any future safety groundings that stall USA human space flight capabilities). It's nutty to put all eggs into SpaceX's basket.

I also hardly believe saving money on such an important mission is important at all. Getting people there and back safely is paramount to saving what amounts to rounding errors in today's spend-happy congressional budget.

[kiba]

At a minimum, there should be two competing designs - built through flight testing (if not built to completion and maintained in conjunction to avoid any future safety groundings that stall USA human space flight capabilities). It's nutty to put all eggs into SpaceX's basket.

I am sure that the starship program will have the most test flight of any spacecraft development program. I have the uttermost confident in them.

That said, I agreed with you that we shouldn't put all our eggs into SpaceX's basket, no matter how good they are. We just don't have insight in NASA's thinking here, only guesses.

I also hardly believe saving money on such an important mission is important at all. Getting people there and back safely is paramount to saving what amounts to rounding errors in today's spend-happy congressional budget.

What gives you that impression? It seems like NASA gave all the money to SpaceX alone, which is 2.9 billion dollars. The only way that there would be more money is if NASA gets a bigger budget for their lunar program, which would making awarding more than one competitors a more viable option.

[Alupis]

> What gives you that impression?

People often cite the extraordinary cost per launch of missions such as this, and how SpaceX can reduce that cost (allegedly) via reusability, etc. I just don't think saving a few bucks on a mission of this importance is worth-while. I'd, personally, much rather return to the moon first, and then figure out if reusability even makes sense later on (if we are to continue going to the moon with any sort of regularity).

After all, SpaceX's goal with Starship isn't to do NASA's bidding, it's to push a private company to Mars.

> The only way that there would be more money is if NASA gets a bigger budget for their lunar program

Which is quite sad. $2.9 billion to go to the moon, and hundreds of billions for congress-critter pet projects in the last few "stimulus" packages. We really cannot find more money to throw behind such important achievements?

[kiba]

People often cite the extraordinary cost per launch of missions such as this, and how SpaceX can reduce that cost (allegedly) via reusability, etc. I just don't think saving a few bucks on a mission of this importance is worth-while. I'd, personally, much rather return to the moon first, and then figure out if reusability even makes sense later on (if we are to continue going to the moon with any sort of regularity).

A reusable rocket must be more robust to do what it do while also being much more difficult to accomplish. It's also how we increase safety, which will happen with rapid reusuability.

A reusuable rocket cannot afford to cut corner like an expendable rocket.

Just because a rocket is more expensive doesn't mean it's safer.

The fact that SpaceX is launching more rockets than everyone else means it will be a safer vehicle due to rapid increase in flight experience. More flights mean we iron out more flight.

They're not cutting corners here.

[Alupis]

> A reusable rocket must be more robust to do what it do while also being much more difficult to accomplish. It's also how we increase safety, which will happen with rapid reusuability.

> A reusuable rocket cannot afford to cut corner like an expendable rocket.

I don't buy this logic, and seems rather hand-wavy. Soyuz and it's launch vehicle are not reusable, for instance, and still holds the safety record for launch vehicles.

> Just because a rocket is more expensive doesn't mean it's safer.

Of course not. But a pressure to drive the per-launch cost downwards will indeed lead to shortcuts being taken. We won't actually know how safe the vehicle is until it's launched successfully a great number of times.

> The fact that SpaceX is launching more rockets than everyone else

That's just factually incorrect.

> it will be a safer vehicle due to rapid increase in flight experience

I'm not so sure that's how this works. Starship was never considered as a lunar-bound vehicle - and whatever lander module they're going to build will be a brand new design, designed by folks who've never built a lander before (pretty much all space agencies/corps are in this boat right now). There's no way launching satellites into LEO or even visiting the ISS (also in LEO) builds any sort of experience for landing on the moon.

> They're not cutting corners here.

NASA certainly is, by having a single design. We'll have no idea if it's even a good design - with no reference for an alternative.

One thing is for sure though... the lander will look like it's out of Star Wars and will have some silly name.

[nickik]

> > The Starliner is a Boeing product.

> ULA is Lockheed Martin + Boeing.

You still seem to misunderstand. Yes ULA is LM+Boeing.

However the Starliner has nothing to do with ULA. Its simply a Boeing project.

Just as the Orion is LM product.

ULA does not do anything with the Starliner except launch it.

LM in space domain had massive cost overruns with Orion and just recently had another major fuckup that requires them to do another 6 month work on it. Only because Boeing with SLS is performing even worse do they not get as much criticism for their terrible execution.

> At a minimum, there should be two competing designs

Tell that to congress.