Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ukulele_Maestro t1_j7zo1po wrote

The nuances of both are different but there are similarities, and it fits with NASA strategy of helping to foster the commercial launch industry.

it's definitely risky and a stretch to rely on starship for the moon lander, there are many untested capabilities that have to be developed. It's a developmental rocket, and got the contract.

Blue Glenn is similar in that it's a developmental rocket, and got the contract.


wgp3 t1_j802fdg wrote

I do agree that it fits with nasa strategy. Overall this allows them to have more options for sending cool science payloads out into space. Which is what I think everyone in this sub wants to see more of.

Starship is risky but so were all the other proposals. SpaceX had the most technically adept proposal with the best strategy for mitigating risks. That's why they won and the others did not. And they now get help developing it from nasa.

But there's still a big difference between saying "I'm going to help you build your next generation race car so i can use it for the race season" and "I'm gonna use your race car (without helping) to race in the talladega 500, even though you've only ever built a go kart before now"


Ukulele_Maestro t1_j807jbv wrote

Yeah blue origin will be losing money on this launch. Seems pretty good for NASA.