From: niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid   
      
   On 2021-04-21 18:29, Jeff Findley wrote:   
   > In article , jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca   
   > says...   
   >   
   >> ...   
   >> The possibility of being able to replace SLS for Earth-Moon transit   
   >> is likely why SpaceX won over the other more specialized   
   >> solutions.   
   >   
   > That's not correct.  There have been articles published talking about   
   > the selection.   
   >   
   > The other two had serious problems with their proposals.   
      
   Yes.   
      
      
   > Blue Origin's proposal was disqualified because they essentially   
   > asked for payments before reaching milestones (not allowed).   
      
   Not really. That problem with the National Team proposal was noted, but   
   there is a foot-note in the source-selection statement that says that it   
   was not a fatal flaw, because it could have been negotiated away. There   
   were some technical problems and low TRLs for some of the propulsion   
   parts, IIRC. And no clear path to sustainable or commercial operation (a   
   major redesign was proposed for that).   
      
      
   > Also, the SpaceX proposal was the only one that fit the paltry HLS   
   > funding that NASA is currently getting from Congress.   
      
      
   That was the major reason. That, and the (surprising?) fact that the   
   Lunar Starship risks turned out not to be higher than the risks of the   
   others.   
      
   Even the SpaceX proposal exceeded the money available for the first   
   year(s), so NASA had to negotiate a delayed payment plan with SpaceX.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)