I was wrong about Artemis

I was hugely surprised by NASA HLS selection. SpaceX actually proposed Starship. And asked just 135 million of funding. If this proposal came from any other company beside SpaceX, if would be immediately dismissed. Their proposal is FOUR TIMES cheaper than the National Team, that is closest to the old space as you can get. In many ways, Blue Origin behaves like old space company. Deep pockets of its owner are its main credibility. They seem to have gradual, low risk approach to development. So their proposal will work. But in many ways, it seems to be rehash of Apollo/Constellation approach. Do it the way the NASA would do it. So it will work. Eventually. But costs, overruns, delays...we can expect the Constellation, SLS, Orion repeating itself.

The second winner....maybe it is me, but that is the ugliest spacecraft I have ever seen. By far. I know. Function before appearance. And the design seems to be well thought-out. But still...it is ugly. And the debris issue with low positioned engines seem to be augmented and really a high risk for this lander. But the main risk is having 25 partners.....anyone who had worked on larger projects with several independent organisations without clear leader, knows how painful it is. An old proverb says: Where there are many midwives, children will be feeble. This is not going to work. National team at least have clear separation of responsibilities among Transfer, Descent and Ascent Elements with clear interfaces. They will be cheaper. And they will be late. I hope I will be wrong. 

And that leaves SpaceX Starship. This is like pitching iPhone to feature phone users. They want to call and text. Something small, that can easily fit into the pocket. Simple, stable, reliable, optimized for long standby time. And you propose them something with giant screen, Internet connection, apps, games, over the air updates, maps, navigation, songs, video....ah yes, and with capability to do calls and text. For a quarter of the price?

How was their proposal rated: average on managerial aspect. Funny. I think the same was said COTS, CRS and CCP. They don't deliver on time. They are not dependable. Others are better. Well, that is correct. Especially when others provide a rehash of the previous generation technology. But Space Shuttle was late. It took nine years. F-35 was late. Hubble was late. And over budget. So is JWST. Every major breakthrough project was late and over budget. Except Apollo. It was way over projected budget. But still SpaceX took the risk of offering Starship. And NASA took the risk of selecting it (for now). I did not see it coming. I really thought that both parties will take a low risk approach. SpaceX needs the money, and finally got first government investment into Starship program. It is low, a single RS-25 engine costs more that this initial design effort.

And yet, SpaceX has advanced more than other two winners. They have the working transfer, ascent and descent engine actually produced in high volume (already at serial number #30). They have working tank production line. Which produces a new propellant tanks every two weeks. Compared to SLS first stage team, which took....how many years? And can produce one, maybe two per year?

They are the only US company that completed design and has recent flight heritage with active docking. By the end of the design phase (in February 2021), they will perform 4-6 active dockings using IDSS on Dragon. Compared to 0 among others. They will have 2-3 uses of their life-support system. Compared to 0 among others. They will perform more than 70 powered landings. And probably they will have at least 10 powered ascents and landings using the Starship itself. Compared to....zero again?

There are high technological risks for Lunar Starship, that is true. But the risky element is not lunar landing. It is reusability of Starship tankers. Can they really reenter, land and launch again? That is a major technical obstacle. If that is not achieved, fueling Lunar Starship will be too expensive. 

Liquid transfer in space has been proven several times. But never at such a massive scale. Going from several kg to several hundred tons.....that is orders of magnitude difference. But how is that different? Will it fail because pipes are wider? This is low risk if tankers can land and be reused again. That makes cost of iterative development for in-space fluid transfer low cost and low risk. 

The remaining issue is actual lunar landing. And that is the main risk. Starship is not designed well for landing on unprepared surface. It is the missing piece which was not critical until now, but will become critical for continuation of HLS funding for SpaceX.