NASA Opens SpaceX's Moon Lander Contract To Rivals Over Starship Delays (reuters.com)
- Reference: 0179847972
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/25/10/22/0358206/nasa-opens-spacexs-moon-lander-contract-to-rivals-over-starship-delays
- Source link: https://www.reuters.com/science/us-seek-rival-bids-artemis-3-spacex-lags-nasa-chief-says-2025-10-20/
> The move paves the way for rivals such as Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin to snatch a high-profile mission to land the first astronauts on the moon in half a century. "I'm in the process of opening that contract up. I think we'll see companies like Blue get involved, and maybe others," the U.S. space agency's acting chief Sean Duffy, who also serves as U.S. Transportation Secretary, [2]told Fox News' "Fox & Friends" program .
>
> Duffy's comments follow months of mounting pressure within NASA to speed up its Artemis lunar program and push SpaceX to make greater progress on its Starship lunar lander, while China progresses toward its own goal of sending humans to the moon by 2030. It represents a major shift in NASA's lunar strategy, starting a new competitive juncture in the program for a crewed moon lander just two years before the scheduled landing date. Blue Origin is widely expected to compete for the mission, while Lockheed Martin has indicated it would convene an industry team to heed NASA's call.
>
> Starship, picked by NASA in 2021 under a contract now worth $4.4 billion, faces a 2027 moon landing deadline that agency advisers estimate could slip years behind schedule, citing competing priorities. Musk sees Starship as crucial to launching larger batches of Starlink satellites to space and eventually ferrying humans to Mars, among other missions. "They do remarkable things, but they're behind schedule," Duffy said of SpaceX's lunar lander work, adding President Donald Trump wants to see the mission take place before his White House term ends in January 2029.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/science/us-seek-rival-bids-artemis-3-spacex-lags-nasa-chief-says-2025-10-20/
[2] https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1840609043221398
Give it to Russia (Score:3)
Contract it out to one of the Russian or better yet even a Chinese launch provider, if they're good enough to make MAGA hats they can make rockets.
Re: (Score:2)
This is all to try to beat China back to the moon, so they aren't going to help them by paying them to develop the technology.
Also to get it done before Trump's 2nd term ends. Apparently he's not that confident of getting a 3rd.
The Chinese look on track for around 2030. NASA has fallen behind, partly because it didn't get the funding it needed, partly because contractors fell behind too.
We'll see (Score:2)
Blue Origin doesn't even have flown its new rocket other then one partially failed test, so I doubt they can create a suitable moonlander AND its delivery rocket within 2 years. At this point SpaceX is still the best bet. Many spaceprograms are far behind schedule, hell, SLS itself was also years behind schedule and way WAY over budget. I wonder how much SpaceX already got for the contract or if its a contract where they only get paid when the mission is flown.
Re: We'll see (Score:2)
Well, it failed to land first stage. But they are closer to do that than everyone else except SpaceX.
Blue Origin runs expensive rides for the rich! (Score:2)
Has Blue Origin even achieved orbit yet?
by 2027? (Score:2)
I don't see any way competitors will be able to land people on the moon by 2027. I'm not convinced space x can do it either. But reopening the contract at this late stage is a little strange politically. All it will do is delay it further and ultimately cost more. Which may actually be fine for SpaceX who will certainly keep the contract.
Re: (Score:2)
You think Musk is gonna give a fuck? He is infected with the tribalism mind virus, do you have any idea how that virus works?
Re: (Score:1)
The manned moon landing could happen sooner if they loosen up on some of the restrictions.
There's a long list of requirements that will add mass and complexity. NASA didn't want to leave landing legs on the moon like was done with Apollo, this means a much heavier lander. The lander is to not be discarded, that comes home too. There's a four person crew requirement, so more people, life support, food, oxygen, etc.
If we went in a mad dash like we did for Apollo then we could do this more quickly. It took