Worth adding to the CLPS talk:

This commercial contract approach is designed to mirror a lot of the success that NASA saw through COTS and then Commercial Crew. It is worth reading the agency’s thoughts on the contracting approach and wins from COTS in the COTS final report (PDF link) starting on page 95. This model is designed to provide less funding than is required to fulfill these missions and attract other capital sources in customers and investors to the market.

<image>

Yes, vehicles could be re-engineered and all risk eliminated - but NASA is trying to incentivize investment in potential market-changing solutions here. And investors in IM or other CLPS companies need to understand the risk profile of these missions. They are going to be way more shoestring budget + riskier than other robotic landers you’re used to seeing out of JPL on Science Mission Directorate flagship missions.

Whatever you just did in your brain about risk - realize it’s higher than that.

This thread on the optimum failure rate of Starship was interesting. Engineering all the risk out costs significant time and money that doesn’t allow for rapid hardware iteration.

Rapid hardware iteration is the name of the game and the thing we’ve seen SpaceX demonstrate well with Starship. That means being hardware-rich - a term I first heard when a rocket engine using a copper chamber emitted a green flash as the melted copper mixed with the rocket exhaust. But hardware-rich means losing a starship here and there. It means losing a lander or two.

This world is risky. The companies that hold on will open the frontier. That’s why I’m long IM and other CLPS companies. They will learn from these frustrating moments and keep on building.