CNASA has awarded contracts to eight companies for a permanent Moon base, and the ceiling is ten billion dollars.
COuter Space Today posted the breakdown on X: a ten-year lunar delivery program, with about one point three billion in launch and transport task orders already in motion.
MLet's be clear: that ten billion dollar figure is a cap on future task orders, not money NASA has handed over. But it is a real expansion.
CThe Moon base is finally moving from studies to actual supply runs.
MAnd they have two different human landers in development. That's the interesting part.
CSpaceX's Starship and Blue Origin's Blue Moon. NASA says the 2028 landing is Artemis Four, and it depends on in-orbit refueling for the SpaceX lander.
MSo the whole schedule still hangs on Starship's orbital refueling. That's not a small if.
CAnd Blue Origin has never landed a person, a rover, or even a brick on the Moon. It's not a shoo-in either.
MI'm not saying it is. I'm saying if Starship slips again, you want a second option.
CA backup only helps if it's ready. NASA is not going to wait for the slower one.
MProbably not. But look at the other side: the military is already nervous about launch supply.
CStephen Clark at Ars Technica has a piece on that. The Pentagon is trying to prop up other launch companies as SpaceX moves away from its current Falcon rockets.
MWinding down the proven rockets before Starship is certified for national security payloads. That's the crunch.
CThat's SpaceX's plan. Starship replaces Falcon. The military just doesn't like a gap.
MQuilty Space is flagging a possible launch shortage. You can't put a GPS satellite on an experimental rocket.
CBut paying companies that haven't flown is how you get slow, expensive launches. Let the market handle it.
MThe market doesn't build rockets just in case. That's why the Pentagon buys assured access.
CSo you want the government to be a venture capitalist for rockets?
MI want more than one provider so a single problem doesn't ground national security. We learned that lesson.
CThat's exactly backwards. The faster Starship flies, the smaller the gap. Propping up weak competitors slows that down.
MStarship is not a national security rocket yet. Until it is, winding down Falcon leaves a real hole.
CThen keep Falcon flying longer. That's the answer, not funding rockets that haven't flown.
MYou're betting the country's launch capability on one company's test program. That's not a conservative bet.
CI'm betting on the one that actually lands boosters and flies every week. That's not a wild bet.
MAnd if Starship hits a real failure, the military has no fallback because the Falcons are parked. That's the nightmare.
CFalcon doesn't have to be parked. But you can't run a military launch program on maybes from startups.
MYou can't run it on one rocket family that the company is already winding down.
CYou keep saying winding down like the Falcon disappears instantly.
MThe direction matters. When the manufacturer says Starship is the future, the Air Force has to plan for that.
CThen plan by flying Starship through the same certification they'd give anyone. Stop trying to buy a whole new industry.
MThis is the same argument for two Moon landers. Redundancy costs more, but the alternative is putting everything on one.
CNo, the Moon lander race is different. NASA is paying two companies to develop landers it won't use both of. That's not redundancy, that's a design contest with taxpayer money.
MIt's insurance. If orbital refueling has problems, Blue Moon still gives them another option.
CInsurance that costs billions and has never flown. I'd rather NASA bet on the one with more orbital experience.
MMore orbital experience on Falcon, not on Starship. You're mixing rockets.
CSame company, same factory culture. That matters.
MIt doesn't transfer to an unproven orbital refueling chain. But we're both speculating now.
CI'll say this: the Moon base is finally real, and the launch crunch is a serious warning.
MAnd whichever lander flies first will tell us if NASA's two-horse strategy was smart or just expensive.
CThat's a fair test. We'll watch it.