SLS Program working on accelerating EUS development timeline

[meberbs]

So lets get back to something on topic (like the part where you made an assertion directly contradictory to the facts laid out in the article.)

1. An Artemis manifest leaked by my favorite space reporter a while back pointed at this exact possibility, and I have independent confirmation that the leak was legitimate

You have repeatedly misrepresented plainly stated facts in this NSF article, and have continued to do so even after correction. (Such as where you claim that this is NASA's plan despite explicit statements in the article to the contrary.)

Please provide actual links to support your assertion (if I remember right about what you are referring to that was not a NASA official timeline but again essentially a proposal from a contractor)

2. Loverro has made multiple statements (such as the one quoted by ncb1397) that point to a preference for a simpler SLS-launched architecture.

I already replied to that quote above. If you are going to reply to me at least read my posts first.

[butters]

So lets get back to something on topic (like the part where you made an assertion directly contradictory to the facts laid out in the article.)

1. An Artemis manifest leaked by my favorite space reporter a while back pointed at this exact possibility, and I have independent confirmation that the leak was legitimate

2. Loverro has made multiple statements (such as the one quoted by ncb1397) that point to a preference for a simpler SLS-launched architecture.

Why did Jim Bridenstine say it wasn't the plan when Eric Berger tweeted the manifest? I'm confused.

One possible explanation could be that Bridenstine and Loverro are having a bit of a disagreement.

[jadebenn]

So lets get back to something on topic (like the part where you made an assertion directly contradictory to the facts laid out in the article.)

1. An Artemis manifest leaked by my favorite space reporter a while back pointed at this exact possibility, and I have independent confirmation that the leak was legitimate

2. Loverro has made multiple statements (such as the one quoted by ncb1397) that point to a preference for a simpler SLS-launched architecture.

Why did Jim Bridenstine say it wasn't the plan when Eric Berger tweeted the manifest? I'm confused.

It was a plan, not the plan.

[meberbs]

Why did Jim Bridenstine say it wasn't the plan when Eric Berger tweeted the manifest? I'm confused.

It was a plan, not the plan.

And despite multiple claims from you to the contrary, it is still not the plan. It is just a plan, being pushed by contractors with an interest in SLS. The article this thread is about states as much.

[envy887]

There is really no other way to read this other than confirmation of an integrated Lunar lander.

Confirmation that Boeing wants a SLS-launched lander, which is not surprising in the least. And perhaps that it has some support inside NASA, which is also not surprising.

The question is whether it has the right people supporting it inside NASA...

This is an explicit change in plans. NASA would not be doing this if they hadn't already decided EUS would debut on an uncrewed flight. Nor would there be a need to retain Block 1 if not for a dual-stack-and-launch lander architecture (as ML-1 is only compatible with Block 1).

I never understood why debuting EUS with a crew was even an option. Didn't NASA learn anything from STS 1?

Block 1 needs to fly until 1B has a test flight.

[jadebenn]

I never understood why debuting EUS with a crew was even an option. Didn't NASA learn anything from STS 1?

Block 1 needs to fly until 1B has a test flight.

This will give it one.

[envy887]

I never understood why debuting EUS with a crew was even an option. Didn't NASA learn anything from STS 1?

Block 1 needs to fly until 1B has a test flight.

This will give it one.

But it will need one regardless of whether the first launch carries Boeing's lander, so the first 1B being a cargo launch doesn't really imply anything besides NASA management finally facing reality.

[dror]

“Program risk is driven by which things haven’t you done in space before that you would now have to do in this mission,” he said, referring to plans “to launch a lander in three individual pieces that have to meet up at the moon,” the approach NASA has previously discussed. “We’ve never done that before, so we’d like to try to avoid doing things we’ve never done before.”

https://spacenews.com/nasa-takes-gateway-off-the-critical-path-for-2024-lunar-return/

(Bold mine)

To boldly go where men has gone before !

Just wanted to point out how pathetic that sound to me coming from NASA

[Steven Pietrobon]

Boeing's latest plan is with the lander on a Block IB that uses a 90 day low delta-V transfer to NRHO. This means a Transfer Element does not need to be launch on the second SLS. That is a Block I SLS could be used to send Orion to NRHO. Thus, the first use of EUS will be uncrewed. The separate Block I and Block IB LUTs can be used for the separate missions.

[woods170]

There is really no other way to read this other than confirmation of an integrated Lunar lander.

Confirmation that Boeing wants a SLS-launched lander, which is not surprising in the least. And perhaps that it has some support inside NASA, which is also not surprising.

The question is whether it has the right people supporting it inside NASA...

No, it is not about the people supporting it inside NASA. It is all about the "right" people supporting it inside US Congress.

What is happening is a major case of deja-vu.
Let me explain:

You all need to remember that SLS is basically a slightly thinned-down Ares V in disguise. Ares V was integral to the CxP program, but got delayed, and even temporarily defunded, when trouble with the Ares I launcher sucked up all the available funding.
The usual suspects in US Congress were less than pleased when Obama cancelled CxP, including Ares V. US Congress initially had to go along, to give the impression to the public that they respected the outcome of the Augustine investigation (and which led to cancellation of CxP). Boeing wasn't all that pleased either because they lost the contract to build the Ares V core when CxP got canned.

But those usual suspects in US Congress, with heavy support from the Boeing lobby, eventually got their revenge: Ares V was reinstated, this time under the acronym SLS in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. By inserting a clever bit of language US Congress forced NASA to have Ares I contracts repurposed for SLS, thus giving the contract for the SLS core stage to Boeing, based on the fact that Boeing was developing the Ares I upper stage. A big win for the Boeing lobby folks: going from a puny upper stage to a massive core stage in the same contract.

NASA however was not interested in reliving the horror story of Ares V and tried to stall the push for SLS. US Congress didn't like that one d*mn bit and eventually rammed SLS down NASA's throat good and hard by forcing NASA to publically reveal the SLS effort in september 2011. US Congress made certain the announcement was a joint NASA - Congress effort, in US Congress offices. A certain former senator (and one time astronaut) from Florida had a big hand in this. Nelson was his name.

And guess what: that story is now almost exactly repeating itself with EUS.

NASA "invented" the EUS originally as the "Dual Use Upper Stage". But, development of DUUS/EUS was delayed/deferred when the develpment of the SLS cores stage ran into trouble and began sucking up all the available funding. This is analogue to Ares V being delayed because Ares I sucked up all the funding.

Next came the White House which proposed to cancel EUS all together. This is analogue to the White House killing CxP in 2009.
Meanwhile, NASA has understood that the EUS is not needed within the current scope of the Artemis program and puts the program on the back burner.

The usual suspects in US Congress, as well as Boeing, were less than pleased with this. So, US Congress, with the support of Boeing fully restored EUS funding in the current fiscal year. This is analogue to US Congress reinstating Ares V in 2010 via the SLS provision in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010.

The next step, which in my opinion is less than a year away, is that US Congress, again under influence of the Boeing lobby, will force NASA to work EUS into the very center of return-to-the-Moon plans. Either by writing an integrated lander into law or writing the launching of the lander element on SLS into law (like how US Congress did with Europa Clipper).

[MATTBLAK]

I know the original Constellation architecture had the Lander (integrated 'Altair') launched after the Ares 1 with the Orion - a '1.5 launch' method. If SLS gets to the Block II configuration of advanced boosters and the EUS: could this DRM become in-vogue again if Orion could be launched on Vulcan Heavy or Delta IV-Heavy? I only ask because I don't know if the integrated Lander idea massing about 40 tons with a pump-fed hypergolics Descent Stage would have enough delta-v. I'd like to think they will go for a cryogenic LH2 stage or at least a CH4-fueled one, but I think a hypergolic stage will get the nod, for speed and cost if nothing else.

[envy887]

There is really no other way to read this other than confirmation of an integrated Lunar lander.

Confirmation that Boeing wants a SLS-launched lander, which is not surprising in the least. And perhaps that it has some support inside NASA, which is also not surprising.

The question is whether it has the right people supporting it inside NASA...

No, it is not about the people supporting it inside NASA. It is all about the "right" people supporting it inside US Congress.
...
The next step, which in my opinion is less than a year away, is that US Congress, again under influence of the Boeing lobby, will force NASA to work EUS into the very center of return-to-the-Moon plans. Either by writing an integrated lander into law or writing the launching of the lander element on SLS into law (like how US Congress did with Europa Clipper).

Entirely true. The House already tried doing this late last year.

But it's not possible to legislate to success with an underperforming contractor and poor technical solution on a tight timeline.

[GWH]

There is really no other way to read this other than confirmation of an integrated Lunar lander.

Confirmation that Boeing wants a SLS-launched lander, which is not surprising in the least. And perhaps that it has some support inside NASA, which is also not surprising.

The question is whether it has the right people supporting it inside NASA...

No, it is not about the people supporting it inside NASA. It is all about the "right" people supporting it inside US Congress.
...
The next step, which in my opinion is less than a year away, is that US Congress, again under influence of the Boeing lobby, will force NASA to work EUS into the very center of return-to-the-Moon plans. Either by writing an integrated lander into law or writing the launching of the lander element on SLS into law (like how US Congress did with Europa Clipper).

Entirely true. The House already tried doing this late last year.

But it's not possible to legislate to success with an underperforming contractor and poor technical solution on a tight timeline.

The language specifying the "commercial" procurement of SLS for HLS means there should be transparent insight to the taxpayer of clear alternatives and the costs to them. So long as that information is made transparent and not withheld.

Unfortunately it seems transparency is not on the table right now, the evidence being the logistics services and HLS procurement process thus far.

[MATTBLAK]

Wedding the HLS to the SLS is a mistake. Putting it on an expendable,$1.5-to-$2 billion per launch rocket is not sustainable.

[su27k]

The next step, which in my opinion is less than a year away, is that US Congress, again under influence of the Boeing lobby, will force NASA to work EUS into the very center of return-to-the-Moon plans. Either by writing an integrated lander into law or writing the launching of the lander element on SLS into law (like how US Congress did with Europa Clipper).

I'm more optimistic, 2020 is not 2010, commercial space is much more powerful now, they have friends in congress too (see for example the recent senators' letter to JB). Note both the senate authorization bill and the house/senate appropriation bill support public private partnership for HLS, and HR. 5666 got pounced by pretty much everybody as soon as it got out. I think HR. 5666 is a trial balloon, they wouldn't try that again.

[woods170]

Wedding the HLS to the SLS is a mistake. Putting it on an expendable,$1.5-to-$2 billion per launch rocket is not sustainable.

US Congress doesn't care. The word "sustainable" is not in their dictionary.

[DreamyPickle]

I'm extremely confused about how SLS/EUS would work for HLS. As far as I understand SLS and EUS have been developed under a cost-plus format until now but the lander contract is fixed-price. Doesn't this mean that Boeing would have to build and launch the EUS and another SLS by itself based entirely on funds awarded for the lander?

But if NASA employees are working on EUS and pad 39B how can they be part of the lander contract, would Boeing reimburse NASA for their work?

If the launch tower needs upgrades for EUS shouldn't Boeing pay for it?

[ulm_atms]

Wedding the HLS to the SLS is a mistake. Putting it on an expendable,$1.5-to-$2 billion per launch rocket is not sustainable.

But the main point is not to be sustainable, but to put as much money as possible towards the companies/locations Congress wants the money to go to.

The sooner everyone realizes that cost and sustainability is at the absolute end of what SLS is all about...the better...it's about funneling money to the people Congress wants to have it...full stop.  Congress could care less if science or exploration have anything to do with it in my opinion.

Boeing just wants HLS to be married to SLS so they can make more money on the extra overpriced SLSs needed on top of the HLS costs.

TLDR:  Hey...if we put it on our extremely expensive rocket...we can make even more money!

[ncb1397]

I'm extremely confused about how SLS/EUS would work for HLS. As far as I understand SLS and EUS have been developed under a cost-plus format until now but the lander contract is fixed-price. Doesn't this mean that Boeing would have to build and launch the EUS and another SLS by itself based entirely on funds awarded for the lander?

But if NASA employees are working on EUS and pad 39B how can they be part of the lander contract, would Boeing reimburse NASA for their work?

If the launch tower needs upgrades for EUS shouldn't Boeing pay for it?

Private companies get to pay for use of NASA infrastructure. Look at Pad 39A or OmegA. 39B was always planned to be dual use, used by a variety of companies, not closed off like Pad 39A. Furthermore, other agencies like the DoD assist with various commercial operations like commercial crew contracts (specifically crew recovery) and launch operations.

[envy887]

I'm extremely confused about how SLS/EUS would work for HLS. As far as I understand SLS and EUS have been developed under a cost-plus format until now but the lander contract is fixed-price. Doesn't this mean that Boeing would have to build and launch the EUS and another SLS by itself based entirely on funds awarded for the lander?

But if NASA employees are working on EUS and pad 39B how can they be part of the lander contract, would Boeing reimburse NASA for their work?

If the launch tower needs upgrades for EUS shouldn't Boeing pay for it?

Development of the Block 1B design, and its infrastructure, will be entirely paid by NASA.

If Boeing bids a HLS solution launched on Block 1B, they will need to include the costs of the SLS vehicle hardware and operations in their bid, and probably overhead and infrastructure if it's specifically required to support that launch. The line there is probably a bit fuzzy.

In the end, it's all paid by NASA - the only difference is cost-plus items vs fixed-cost items.