MNASA is reportedly putting a lot more money into a Moon base.
CHow much are we talking?
MOuter Space Today on X claims one point three billion dollars in transport contracts and a ten billion dollar lunar delivery program.
CEight companies, per the post. That is real money.
MHold on. Those numbers aren't confirmed by NASA yet. That's the account's claim, not an official announcement.
CSo either a brilliant scoop or a very expensive rumor.
MNot how rumors work. What is confirmed: NASA picked SpaceX and Blue Origin for the human landers.
CRight. Two very different engineering approaches to the same Moon shot.
MI want to see both fly. But "selected" is not "landing."
CI like Blue Origin's reusability play. New Glenn eventually gets costs down if it flies.
M"Eventually" is doing a lot of work. There's a new delay.
CI was getting to that. Martian Alpha on X points to Reuters and CNBC reporting New Glenn's next flight is now January 2027.
MPushed from late 2026. Amazon's satellite launches and a Moon lander both wait on that rocket.
CAnd that's why you don't build a national space plan around one vehicle.
MYou build around vehicles that actually launch. Falcon flies all the time.
CFalcon is winding down! That's the whole problem. SpaceX is moving to Starship, everyone else is behind.
MIf Falcon winds down before New Glenn is certified, we don't have redundancy. We have a hole.
CExactly why the military is spreading money around鈥攖o guarantee more than one rocket.
MAh, the Pentagon as rocket venture capitalist. What could go wrong?
CBetter than hoping SpaceX has a perfect decade. Competition made Falcon cheap. We need competitors.
MCompetition is great when it's real. Paying companies that miss dates is a subsidy.
CThey're hitting milestones, just slower. New Glenn reached orbit. That's not nothing.
MReaching orbit once every two years is a museum piece, not a transport system.
COh, come on. You're comparing them to Falcon after twenty years of flights.
MPayloads don't care how new you are. Schedules slip, and the Space Force pays the price.
CSo what's your answer? Let the military keep buying only Falcon while others struggle?
MMy answer is don't bank on a ten billion dollar lunar program until you have a second rocket that flies on time.
CSo you'd delay Artemis indefinitely?
MI'd stop pretending launch delays won't hurt. That's all.
CThen we'd never leave low Earth orbit. At some point you have to commit and push through.
MYou can commit and still be realistic about dates.
CSpoken like someone who has never built a rocket.
MI don't need to build one to read a calendar.
CFine. On the calendar: Owen Gregorian on X highlighted an Ars Technica report鈥攎ilitary brass are nervous about launch supply.
MThat's the real headline. The Space Force relies on Falcon Heavy for some of its biggest national security launches.
CAnd they don't want a single point of failure. They're looking to prop up other commercial providers.
MPropping up. You mean paying for launches that might not happen on time.
CThey have to guarantee demand. Otherwise nobody invests in new rockets.
MOr they could make Starship work sooner. That's the actual solution.
CStarship isn't certified for national security payloads either! This is not a one-company show.
MI'm not saying one company! I'm saying don't write checks to rockets that can't fly and pretend the schedule is fine.
CThe military isn't pretending. That's why they're nervous. That's the story.
MThen we agree on the problem: a launch crunch.
CAgreeing on the problem is not agreement, but it's a start.
MIt's more than Washington usually gets.