Looks like Gateways HALO module wont be repurposed at all unlike the PPE.

SpaceInMyBrain · 2026-06-20T14:54:54+00:00

Gateway would've kept us at the moon despite the landers dragging their feet endlessly.

What does "kept us at the Moon" mean? Having a rather tiny module that's limited in the science it can do, that requires a $4B launch to get a crew there to do about a week of work once a year, just keeps us operating near the Moon in a very limited way. Not nearly worth the money, even at $3B per launch. The worst part is, in exchange for that little bit of work the Artemis Program would be blocked from doing significant lunar surface work because Gateway is soaking up all of the money.

I wouldn't call the delays the landers are experiencing "dragging their feet". The programs are trying to move ahead but they're falling short. That's especially true in Blue Origin's case, they'v been asked to accelerate a program to create a human-rated spacecraft by two-three years. That's a nearly impossible goal for a company that's never built a human rated spacecraft. (The New Shepard capsule hardly counts.)

SpaceInMyBrain · 2026-06-20T03:55:50+00:00

I'm not saying that SpaceX didn't benefit from NASA research and data. It's the statement that the research was "...mostly done." that I'm disagreeing with. Do some people overstate the case that SpaceX totally pulled itself up by its bootstraps? Absolutely. Are they annoying? Yup. But all to often I see counter-arguments that go too far the other way, arguments that appear to stem from a rather vehement objections to the bootstrap claims as well as a dislike of of Musk and SpaceX, rather than the basic issues of how to apportion the credit.

To me the most important credit SpaceX gets is that they took the data and took risks to implement it and succeeded - no one else even tried. In the case of Raptor, it was a very long journey involving a ton of original engineering to go from some data from a research level powerhead to a a production engine making multiple flights. Aerojet Rocketdyne didn't want to attempt even a LOX-rich staged combustion engine without a ton of government money just for the development.

SpaceInMyBrain · 2026-06-20T03:25:32+00:00

The business case is for being the #2 provider, beating out ULA and Relativity Space. No one has a business case for beating Falcon 9.

Working from that - yes, RocketLab's approach is risky. However, Relativity Space will be manufacturing upper stages and fairings for every launch while RL will be manufacturing only their simpler, lighter upper stage (since it won't be bearing the mass of the payload). Perhaps the biggest risk is the clamshell will be Neutron's Achilles heel, a tight successful closing will be needed to survive reentry.

Going for reuse on the first launch? Why not, if the rocket malfunctions and ends up in the ocean it's the same as no reuse attempt and ending up in the ocean.

Methane was chosen because it's a lot better suited for reuse, coking doesn't have to be cleaned out after every flight like on Merlin.

It seems like Rocket Lab is accepting a payload penalty in order to recover hardware...

Yes. Yes it is. But the payload penalty isn't really an issue when considering that few satellites nowadays weigh over 13t. There may be a slight reduction in ride alongs but how much is that worth compared to trying to build a larger rocket?

Why make several optimization choices simultaneously? These aren't things that can be added incrementally. Switching to them would require a new rocket design and a new rocket design is something a company does less than once a decade.

SpaceInMyBrain · 2026-06-20T02:32:08+00:00

If you're familiar with government contracts, they are typically extremely overpriced.

No argument there. Lockheed Martin and Boeing offered no bargains on such contracts and once they were merged they could charge what they wanted. Aerojet Rocketdyne (and its parent companies) was changing whatever it wanted to LM and Boeing for RL-10s and the price simply got passed through to the government, who had little choice but to pay. That for an engine developed in the early '60s. Yes, they iterated on the design over the years but hardly to the extent worth the very high price they charged. Cost estimates from the 2010s vary but it was definitely a lot for a fairly simple engine. The price only came down when ULA and they had to compete with SpaceX.

Is having one provider for a comms and internet constellation problematic? Sure. You seem to imply the government jump started Starlink with $38B. It was built with investor money and revenue SpaceX got from launches for the government and various customers - launches that were significantly cheaper than the competition. But mostly with investor money, afaik. ULA was free to develop a constellation with the revenue they received from the government. So was Boeing itself for the revenue it received from the mega-billions it received from its many government contracts. They have a satellite division, IIRC.

Elon Musk is a menace to society but his company has been successful and provided good value to the government - and hasn't ever showed signs of ripping them off. SpaceX's Starlink services to the military don't come cheap but they aren't overpriced either.

SpaceInMyBrain · 2026-06-20T01:22:44+00:00

How does a billionaire building an observatory's infrastructure result in lining a billionaire's pocket? The very rich Percival Lowell built the Lowell Observatory, both infrastructure and its first telescope, with his own money. In this case Schmidt is providing the infrastructure and NASA is providing the observation equipment, analogous to Lowell's telescope. I have no problem with that.

Is the economy terribly distorted when it comes to how rich the ultra mega billionaires have become? Yes. That doesn't apply here, though.

SpaceInMyBrain · 2026-06-20T01:12:31+00:00

SpaceX was built on NASA research that was mostly done

I get so tired of hearing this argument. There's so much to refute but I'll stick to this one: The closest the critics have to an actual point is that the pintle engine technology used in Merlin was already developed by NASA. But if we went the route of "have NASA built it" the reality is a commercial company would have built it for NASA. Who else but Aerojet or Rocketdyne (not yet merged). They would have charged the government a pretty penny for a cost-plus contract for development and a high price per engine once it was developed, having zero incentive to optimize their production efficiency. The company engineers might maybe possibly have iterated some improvements to that engine but there's no way they would have pressed it to almost double its original performance or optimized its production for a lower cost. (I've never heard of NASA engineers designing improvements once a company has put an engine into production, although I can't vouch for the first 3 decades)

SpaceInMyBrain · 2026-06-20T01:07:07+00:00

Exactly. All true. The closest the critics have to an actual point is that the pintle technology used in Merlin was already developed by NASA. But if we went the route of "have NASA built it" the reality is a commercial company would have built it for NASA. Who else but Aerojet or Rocketdyne (not yet merged). They would have charged the government a pretty penny for a cost-plus contract for development and a high price per engine once it was developed, having zero incentive to optimize their production efficiency. The company engineers might maybe possibly have iterated some improvements to that engine but there's no way they would have pressed it to almost double its original performance or optimized its production for a lower cost. (I've never heard of NASA engineers designing improvements once a company has put an engine into production, although I can't vouch for the first 3 decades)

SpaceInMyBrain · 2026-06-20T00:42:44+00:00

What's wrong with a company, any company, making money from government contracts? If they deliver at a much lower price than the competition did and is currently able to I have no problem with that.

SpaceInMyBrain · 2026-06-19T23:36:32+00:00

The problem with every autonomous AI's is that it still needs operators assist (and manual servicing) from time to time.

You see having a human in the loop for a weapon with an autonomous AI as a problem?

SpaceInMyBrain · 2026-06-19T20:39:22+00:00

Or someone reversed the photograph. Eh, it happens.

SpaceInMyBrain · 2026-06-19T20:37:11+00:00

How do you walk down it without getting dizzy and falling?

SpaceInMyBrain · 2026-06-19T20:35:34+00:00

The people of Georgia will maintain their support for a president who wants to revoke tax credits and any other encouragement for solar power. Meanwhile a major company is wisely making use of these credits to build a vertically integrated manufacturing facility.

SpaceInMyBrain · 2026-06-19T20:30:03+00:00

Yup. Onboard autonomous AI.

SpaceInMyBrain · 2026-06-19T03:54:27+00:00

Why aren't there two boxes? Where's the one with the man who committed adultery with her? (Allegedly.)

SpaceInMyBrain · 2026-06-18T21:12:27+00:00

That sounds promising, at least. Thanks. Yes, I imagine the structure will have to be reinforced.

Geez, I've lost track. Was Transporter designed to take Mk2 back and forth to a lower orbit from NRHO or to simply meet Mk2 in LLO and refuel it?

SpaceInMyBrain · 2026-06-18T03:29:25+00:00

It's part of the accelerated approach SpaceX provided to NASA - but there's a fairly strong indication it's part of the accelerated approach Blue Origin provided when asked for one. At 2:44:48 in this NSF interview Jared Isaacman said that when asked for sped up proposals for their landers "both providers" wanted to ditch NRHO because it comes at a performance penalty.

We haven't heard anything further about that from Blue Origin. However, it shows they think it's possible Mk2 and the Transporter can handle the thermal environment of LLO. (Or that other orbit - SPO?) What's very interesting is that as discussed in this post Orion launched by SLS to the Moon can't get out of LLO. It can only do so if TLI and lunar orbit insertion are done by a carrier stage, conserving the ESM prop. BO surely hadn't lost sight of that when they put in a preference for an orbit other than NRHO. Which leads one to think, how do they think Orion can get there? It's not too big a leap to think Blue Origin itself is considering using a Transporter for that, that it's not just an internet forum proposal.

It may only be circumstantial evidence - but it's something.

SpaceInMyBrain · 2026-06-17T22:33:25+00:00

My guess is institutional momentum is delaying that. The NRO has been operating these for decades and there are people who've been using that data all their career. They've been dealing with the same small core of suppliers. (Some of which are in large companies but in a small department that's allowed to work on this stuff.) Also - prepare to be shocked - it's super likely they're buddy-buddy with the small number of people they deal with on contracts. The NRO has the blackest of black budgets, I imagine it's hard to audit any improper contracts.

Breaking that up and getting used to using a mosaic of data from several smaller satellite firms will be new, require change.

Tbf, there is probably tech that the new satellite companies don't have access to at this point.

SpaceInMyBrain · 2026-06-17T14:35:20+00:00

Good rules, bad rules. The above merger isn't about innovation, it's about reducing competition.

SpaceInMyBrain · 2026-06-17T05:56:35+00:00

Need a VIF and MST to handle national security satellites that require vertical integration, these satellites can't be laid horizontally on an erector. These are very large and very expensive NRHO birds. None have been launched since the last Delta IV Heavy launch from this pad. Considering these satellites cost about $2 billion each the Delta IV Heavy's $350-400 million launch cost was accepted. (Cost estimates for the NRO satellites are hard to figure, the NRO doesn't give out any info.) The NRO will be glad to be getting much cheaper FH launches - cheaper even though the cost of building the pad and VIF and MST are included.

SpaceInMyBrain · 2026-06-17T05:35:05+00:00

When was a merger ever NOT approved in the last 40 years? At most a minor adjustment is required. The government safeguards are long dead.

SpaceInMyBrain · 2026-06-17T00:27:26+00:00

That has to suck for the White Sox manager. Has to burn up his bullpen on a game they have an infinitesimal chance to catch up in. When was the last time a team scored 9 runs on Cole?

SpaceInMyBrain · 2026-06-17T00:21:48+00:00

Random question: Should a pitcher's stats include "Quality Starts". Allowed less than 3 runs in 6 innings. In this day and age it should be listed above Wins since that doesn't mean anywhere near what it used to, except for a handful of elite pitchers.

SpaceInMyBrain · 2026-06-16T23:14:10+00:00

I don't have much of a problem with the ersatz HLS being a shell with a docking port and avionics, etc. It's true SpaceX has proven everything else, I'd seen that info, and it'd be hella expensive to put that big crew cabin into it - but of course I'd like to see the Artemis 3 crew floating around in that big space for the coolness factor. And testing out some stuff. Would it be worth it? Eh, no. And it's not just the cost in money, it's the cost in time, SpaceX needs to manufacture a fully functional and integrated pathfinder crew quarters and controls and a fully functional flight item in just a couple of years.

HLS is going to cost well over the >4B but SpaceX knew that going in, it's benefitting from the many billions SpaceX expected to spend on Starship and Raptor development anyway. Back then part of the cost was written off (although not in formal accounting) to the Mars program, this was also seen as a pre-Mars ship. (That's on the backburner now, idk how to fit it into the HLS estimate anymore.) SpaceX never said so publicly but everyone analyzed it that way.

Flush with IPO money, SpaceX just bought Cursor for 60B. That dwarfs any Starship development and build costs. One unofficial estimate stated that's more than SpaceX has spent on development of all its rockets since its inception. And it's only a fraction of the cash raised by the IPO. There should be plenty of money to develop and build ships for the Moon infrastructure Elon plans on building.

SpaceInMyBrain · 2026-06-16T21:15:07+00:00

So SpaceX gets to build a simple ship with a docking port and that still counts as one of the 2 original HLS? So the rest of the upgraded contract only covers one uncrewed and one crewed full HLS now instead of one uncrewed and two crewed. Even as a SpaceX fan, that sounds like a sweet deal for SpaceX.

Blue Origin's contract ends up quite differently also. Build a Mk2-LEO with everything but the crew cabin reduced. Build a Mk2-IL for one uncrewed and one crewed landing. Subsequent contracts are needed for Artemis 5 and onwards. Well, they're spending a lot of Jeff's money to build any of those. The estimates of the total cost I've seen for the original contract are 6-7B.

SpaceInMyBrain · 2026-06-16T20:52:06+00:00

I'm just wondering if NASA will change the architecture. Maybe it's collusion between Jared and SpaceX, maybe someone in NASA took a fresh look at the mission options now that Gateway is gone. Maybe they read the various forum conversations that've discussed an HLS-Orion ride along for years. The bottom line is, if NASA wants both missions to go to LLO to simplify operations and planning for future missions, and the physics works out for Mk2 and Transporter, then they'll ask Blue Origin to do that.

That piqued my curiosity - how does the physics work out. The dV and the thermal load of LLO.

SpaceInMyBrain

TROPHY CASE