OIG report: NASA transitioning SLS to commercial contract

[DanClemmensen]

My assumption is that it can travel in the garage. The garage has a large hatch that can be opened to space. I don't know if the garage is pressurizable or not, but in normal operation on the lunar surface that big hatch is opened to vacuum to move big cargo onto the big elevator.

Yes, the HLS might need some external attachment points to let the canadarm "walk" onto the Gateway. However, the HLS visits Gateway to support crew. The crew can EVA to move the Canadarm.

I understand the concept of the Starship garage, but I imagine it to be too far from the Gateway modules for the robotic arm to be able to move from inside the garage to the closest module. It may not be so. I don't know.

An EVA to help the robot arm seems complex to me and that NASA would try to avoid doing it.

The problem with Starship HLS's external attachment points for the robotic arm is getting them to survive atmospheric friction during launch. It may not be feasible. Not sure about this.

If SpaceX decides to put an IDSS port on the airlock deck, possibly in an airlock outer wall, the big door will be near the Gateway. This placement might require HLS to dock to the Gateway axial port normally used by Orion.

[woods170]

<snip>
And I've heard exactly nothing about the vehicle that is to deliver Canadarm3 (Dragon-XL, HTV-X, mounted on a new module, ??)

Canadarm 3 will be delivered by Dragon XL. It was in the RFP and it's been mentioned a number of times by NASA.

Excellent. Thanks!

[VSECOTSPE]

The Orion LAS is oversized for a pure liquid launch vehicle. Easier to escape a Super Heavy failure than SLS which has motors which cannot turn off.

As Antonio Elias pointed out on Ares I, it’s doubtful any LAS could escape a still-thrusting SRB chasing its capsule.  Rather, the Orion LAS was designed to escape the miles-wide radiant heat cone created by burning pieces of a deflagrated SRB — heat that would melt a capsule’s parachutes — although there was some question about whether the Orion LAS could actually do that a decade or so ago:

https://phys.org/news/2009-07-air-ares-crew-couldnt-survive.html

I dunno to what extent those analyses have been revisited for two, deflagrated, burning SRBs like SLS employs.

My point was that Superheavy/Starship launches with several times the liquid propellant mass of SLS.  I don’t know how LOX/LCH4 compares to LOX/LH2 in terms of detonation, but I doubt the Orion LAS would work with SH/SS given the disparity in propellant mass.

The best scenario to hope for is to have redundancy for SLS and Orion through a commercial option. I don't think that Congress is going to kill SLS and Orion in the short term especially if a commercial replacement isn't yet available.

Not to repeat prior posts, but appropriators will oppose funding for Orion/SLS alternatives/augments, regardless, so it will be up to the executive branch to push for change.  But given the funding constraints imposed by the recent budget agreement and House Republican efforts to further squeeze discretionary accounts, I don’t think the funding is there to pursue alternatives/augments for at least a couple fiscal years.  And even if the fiscal environment relaxes then, it will take at least several years after that to budget, procure, and qualify one or more lunar crew transport capabilities.  Given how Orion/SLS costs are increasing from within, how false and far-out any Orion/SLS savings are, and how topline Artemis budget growth will end or reverse over the next couple years, I’m not sure the program and its schedule survive even in its current, slow, drawn-out, sub-Apollo state.

The way out of this box would be to redirect SLS Block IB budget to lunar crew transport alternatives, additional DCSS upper stages for more Block I launches during the transition, and transport alternatives for the oddball Gateway payloads co-manifested with Orion.  I don’t expect this or any future Administration expend the political capital necessary to effect such a change until they have no choice (flight accident, program schedule totally falls apart, even more crippling budget, etc.).  But in a budget-constrained environment like we have, whether we should keep throwing billions into a system with terrible and worsening cost and schedule impacts to Artemis or whether we should create some less costly and more capable off-ramps for Artemis is a legitimate argument that could be made.

Only if NASA have the SLS Block 1B available. More likely the Falcon Heavy will launch the iHab, Esplit and airlock modules to NRHO due to cost and scheduling. Since the SLS Block 1B be on schedule is extremely unlikely, IMO.

Kinda of silly waiting for a $4.5B+ SLS Block 1B/Orion stack (according to NASA IG) when you can booked several Falcon Heavies for less than $200M each immediately. So @joek is likely correct that the Orion will be the only payload for the SLS. Which NASA is unlikely to get the Block 1B version operational any time soon.

Those Gateway modules would need the transit and “last-mile” capabilities provided by Orion and its SM.  But the fiscal logic is still valid.  NASA thinks it can get an ISS de-orbit tug out of industry for less than $1B:

https://spacenews.com/nasa-planning-to-spend-up-to-1-billion-on-space-station-deorbit-module/

A Gateway transit/rendezvous/dock (or berth) capability would probably be in the same ballpark.  That’s a minor fraction of one $4B-$5B Orion/SLS mission according to IG accounting.  So buy two capabilities.  Seriously.  Or pocket the funding and just have the foreign partners develop their own trans-lunar/Gateway transport capabilities (ESA did ATV and JAXA did HTV) in exchange for giving their astronauts some early rides to the lunar surface.  Seriously.  It makes zero sense to continue blowing $5B a launch for the sake of two or three Gateway modules when domestic capabilities for sending those modules separately could be had for a fraction of one launch or foreign capabilities could be had for seats to the lunar surface.

As an aside, this isn’t big enough and who knows when Blue Origin will start delivering.  But based on last week’s Blue Ring announcement, industry wants to develop these kinds of capabilities, anyway.  Accelerate them.  Enlarge them.  Use them.  For a couple billion.  Stop blowing $5B a year on the world’s most expensive trunk space.

https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-unveils-plans-for-orbital-transfer-vehicle/

[Robotbeat]

The Orion LAS is oversized for a pure liquid launch vehicle. Easier to escape a Super Heavy failure than SLS which has motors which cannot turn off.

As Antonio Elias pointed out on Ares I, it’s doubtful any LAS could escape a still-thrusting SRB chasing its capsule.  Rather, the Orion LAS was designed to escape the miles-wide radiant heat cone created by burning pieces of a deflagrated SRB — heat that would melt a capsule’s parachutes...

No, this is false. And now I can see where exactly the misconception the started your mistaken logic comes from. It is not the radiant heat but the actual chunks of burning solid rocket propellant. This is a particular problem with solid rocket motors, as you can see from one of the Delta II failures. It looks like the incendiary bombs Russia sometimes drops on Ukraine.



It is these incendiary flaming chunks of propellant that are the risk to the parachutes from the solids, not "radiant heat" from the explosion. And that's why Starship does not have the same kind of risk. You get a big deflagration (not detonation, btw) on failure, like we saw with F9Rdev1 or IFT1. That's not as much of a risk to the parachutes as the high ballistic coefficient flaming chunks of propellant from the SRBs (which burn white hot and melt anything close, plus travel farther than lightweight tankage).

[Zed_Noir]

The Orion LAS is oversized for a pure liquid launch vehicle. Easier to escape a Super Heavy failure than SLS which has motors which cannot turn off.

As Antonio Elias pointed out on Ares I, it’s doubtful any LAS could escape a still-thrusting SRB chasing its capsule.  Rather, the Orion LAS was designed to escape the miles-wide radiant heat cone created by burning pieces of a deflagrated SRB — heat that would melt a capsule’s parachutes — although there was some question about whether the Orion LAS could actually do that a decade or so ago:
<snip>

Think it is not that hard to design a LAS to escape the still-thrusting SRBs. Just have to gain enough separation from the oncoming SRBs before executing a boost back burn to travel to a reciprocal direction. Somewhat like the trajectory of the Falcon booster for a return to launch site after staging. Of course there is a very slight chance of colliding with one of the runaway SRBs during the boost back.

However the current Orion LAS uses a brute force approach to attempt out running the SRBs.

 

[VSECOTSPE]

No, this is false. And now I can see where exactly the misconception the started your mistaken logic comes from. It is not the radiant heat but the actual chunks of burning solid rocket propellant.

I wrote “burning pieces [same thing as ‘chunks’] of a deflagrated SRB”.  There’s a cone of debris where either being struck by a piece of burning aluminum or being too close to the radiant heat emitted by burning aluminum will weaken, warp, deform, melt, or put holes in the kevlar and nylon that makes up Orion’s parachutes.

It is these incendiary flaming chunks of propellant that are the risk to the parachutes from the solids, not "radiant heat" from the explosion... flaming chunks of propellant from the SRBs (which burn white hot and melt anything close...

I’m not trying to be pendantic, but you’re speaking out of both sides of your mouth here.  On one side, you wrote that radiant heat poses no risk to the parachutes.  And on the other side, you wrote that chunks of SRB propellant will melt anything close.  Both of those statements can’t be true.

And that’s why Starship does not have the same kind of risk.  You get a big deflagrated (not detonation, btw) on failure, like we saw with F9Rdev1 or IFT1. That's not as much of a risk to the parachutes as the high ballistic coefficient flaming chunks of propellant from the SRBs (which burn white hot and melt anything close, plus travel farther than lightweight tankage).

Escaping debris (including burning debris) and escaping blast waves are two very different things.  Starship probably has less of a debris challenge, but the blast wave challenge is likely considerably larger, and it’s doubtful that the Orion LAS could handle it in terms of timing, thrust, vector, etc.

Also, if the flight termination system is engaged, we’re usually talking detonation, not deflagration.

It’s all angels on a pinhead, anyway.  No one is going to put an Orion on top of a Starship.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Recommendation 5: Include contract flexibility on future SLS acquisitions that will allow NASA to pivot to other commercial alternatives.

Management's Response: NASA concurs. The procurement strategy for EPOC has not been established, pending performance under the pre-EPOC evaluation and readiness effort. However, at that time, NASA will ensure appropriate flexibilities through the use of contract options or other means to explore the use of commercial alternatives, if feasible.

Estimated Completion Date: December 31, 2027.

Two things about this:

1) I've found it quite heartening that NASA's been dragging their feet on EPOC, with nobody complaining too much.  IMO, this is the biggest indicator of broad agreement within the upper echelons of NASA that SLS is ultimately not sustainable, and doing anything that locks them into it is likely to be a career-ending mistake for anybody under the age of 50.

2) That 12/31/2027 date is interesting.  Is that when they intend to execute the EPOC contract?  Is it the point at which they'll have concluded evaluating the possibility for a commercial alternative?  Is it both?

Note that we should know pretty much everything about Starship's success or failure by the end of 2027.

[TheRadicalModerate]

I think many (most) of us hope that the SLS Program never exceeds 10 flight units, so we'll have to keep a watch for any effort by the Artemis contractors to start long term buys for flight units #11 and on...

I think the point of no return is if they finalize EPOC.

[TheRadicalModerate]

The best scenario to hope for is to have redundancy for SLS and Orion through a commercial option. I don't think that Congress is going to kill SLS and Orion in the short term especially if a commercial replacement isn't yet available.

I agree that this is likely the best case, but there's a huge problem:  Both SLS and Orion have been carefully crafted, and their launch cadences set, so that they keep the existing workforces employed just enough that nobody feels any particular pain.  If the cadence increased, the incumbents would have to hire more people and add more manufacturing infrastructure--which could result in a costly loss if NASA then had to reduce the cadence for budgetary reasons.  But if the cadence is reduced, then the staff they currently have is unsustainable.

I'm a big fan of the "second source" strategy, but everybody should understand that the existence of a second source probably causes the entire SLS/Orion supply chain to collapse.  That is, indeed, what should happen.  But if a commercial effort is adopted, claiming that it's a second source is a con job.  It's a con job that might work, because there are only a handful of geeks in a NASA basement somewhere who understand the supply chain.  But the second source framing of the problem is fundamentally dishonest.

That makes it... distasteful.  However, almost everything to do with the US government's budget is distasteful if you look close enough.

[TheRadicalModerate]

These modules are not powered. They cannot get from TLI to NRHO without a tug, and they cannot RPOD to Gateway without a tug. Orion serves as the tug.  To boost a module using FH,You will need to design some sort of OTV that can launch with the module and can perform these functions. Yuck.

SpaceX'd be pretty close if they removed the pressure vessel from the DXL.

FHE, according to the NASA LSP calculator, can take 15.4t to C3=-1.2, which ought to be good enough to get to BLT.  I think all of the co-manifests are maxing out at about 8t, so a 7.4t DXL would work pretty handily.

Not sure about the fairing geometry.  Again, removing the pressure vessel would help a lot.

[TheRadicalModerate]

My assumption is that it can travel in the garage. The garage has a large hatch that can be opened to space. I don't know if the garage is pressurizable or not, but in normal operation on the lunar surface that big hatch is opened to vacuum to move big cargo onto the big elevator.

Yes, the HLS might need some external attachment points to let the canadarm "walk" onto the Gateway. However, the HLS visits Gateway to support crew. The crew can EVA to move the Canadarm.

I understand the concept of the Starship garage, but I imagine it to be too far from the Gateway modules for the robotic arm to be able to move from inside the garage to the closest module. It may not be so. I don't know.

An EVA to help the robot arm seems complex to me and that NASA would try to avoid doing it.

The problem with Starship HLS's external attachment points for the robotic arm is getting them to survive atmospheric friction during launch. It may not be feasible. Not sure about this.

I don't think the garage hatch is big enough to deploy Gateway modules, irrespective of whether there's something to berth them.  To do that, you'd need a cargo Starship with a chomper.

[woods170]

These modules are not powered. They cannot get from TLI to NRHO without a tug, and they cannot RPOD to Gateway without a tug. Orion serves as the tug.  To boost a module using FH,You will need to design some sort of OTV that can launch with the module and can perform these functions. Yuck.

SpaceX'd be pretty close if they removed the pressure vessel from the DXL.

FHE, according to the NASA LSP calculator, can take 15.4t to C3=-1.2, which ought to be good enough to get to BLT.  I think all of the co-manifests are maxing out at about 8t, so a 7.4t DXL would work pretty handily.

Not sure about the fairing geometry.  Again, removing the pressure vessel would help a lot.

Not as simple as you think. Like on Crew Dragon the pressure hull is the mounting point for most "service section" systems. Crew Dragon and Dragon XL are not classic capsules where you have a capsule (= pressure hull) and a service module. The vast majority of classic "service module" systems are attached directly on the pressure hull. SpaceX would have to totally redesign the Dragon XL vehicle to turn it in an OTV or tug.

You want a tug? Start with the service module of the current Cygnus space freighters. That's your starting point.

[DanClemmensen]

My assumption is that it can travel in the garage. The garage has a large hatch that can be opened to space. I don't know if the garage is pressurizable or not, but in normal operation on the lunar surface that big hatch is opened to vacuum to move big cargo onto the big elevator.

Yes, the HLS might need some external attachment points to let the canadarm "walk" onto the Gateway. However, the HLS visits Gateway to support crew. The crew can EVA to move the Canadarm.

I understand the concept of the Starship garage, but I imagine it to be too far from the Gateway modules for the robotic arm to be able to move from inside the garage to the closest module. It may not be so. I don't know.

An EVA to help the robot arm seems complex to me and that NASA would try to avoid doing it.

The problem with Starship HLS's external attachment points for the robotic arm is getting them to survive atmospheric friction during launch. It may not be feasible. Not sure about this.

I don't think the garage hatch is big enough to deploy Gateway modules, irrespective of whether there's something to berth them.  To do that, you'd need a cargo Starship with a chomper.

My post was about delivering the Canadarm on the garage, not about delivering Gateway modules. The idea was that PPE+HALO gets to NHRO on its own, then HLS delivers Canadarm, and then Canadarm is available to berth the other modules when they arrive, boosted by other LVs. The presence of Canadarm might allow for slightly simpler OTVs that can handle most of the RPOD except for the last meter or so. Canadarm needs a crew member in the Gateway, but the existing Artemis architecture requires crew to be present (in Orion) when a new gateway module is being delivered with an SLS 1B, so this is not a new burden.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Not as simple as you think. Like on Crew Dragon the pressure hull is the mounting point for most "service section" systems. Crew Dragon and Dragon XL are not classic capsules where you have a capsule (= pressure hull) and a service module. The vast majority of classic "service module" systems are attached directly on the pressure hull. SpaceX would have to totally redesign the Dragon XL vehicle to turn it in an OTV or tug.

You want a tug? Start with the service module of the current Cygnus space freighters. That's your starting point.

I don't disagree that Cygnus would work fine, although you have to remove its pressure vessel as well.

As for the D2, the service section is basically a torus, with stuff presumably anchored to the interior and the top of the torus, which are indeed parts of the pressure vessel.  The outer part of the torus is fairing.  The doughnut hole in the torus is filled with pressure vessel.  In the crew and cargo versions, it's pressurized storage.  In the DXL, they're planning on putting an IDSS-compliant docking ring at the bottom.

What I'm proposing is simply cutting away everything but the structural portions needed to secure the service section:  the outer fairing, the pressure vessel bottom (i.e., the bottom of the doughnut hole), and all of the pressure vessel above the service section.

There's other work, obviously:  You have to find a new home for the nose Draco thrusters and their plumbing, you need an IDSS/GDSS docking port on the "nose", and you need to have trusswork that can transmit launch and injection loads to the payload.

I'd guess it's roughly the same amount of work they'd put into the DXL itself.

[TheRadicalModerate]

My post was about delivering the Canadarm on the garage, not about delivering Gateway modules. The idea was that PPE+HALO gets to NHRO on its own, then HLS delivers Canadarm, and then Canadarm is available to berth the other modules when they arrive, boosted by other LVs. The presence of Canadarm might allow for slightly simpler OTVs that can handle most of the RPOD except for the last meter or so. Canadarm needs a crew member in the Gateway, but the existing Artemis architecture requires crew to be present (in Orion) when a new gateway module is being delivered with an SLS 1B, so this is not a new burden.

Fair enough.

The problem of thrusters providing attitude control far from the center of mass must be more-or-less solved.  Apollo was nose-heavy after transposition and docking with the LM, and Orion has obviously been engineered with co-manifesting in mind.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that some minimal modification of an off-the-shelf spacecraft will have the necessary thruster arrangements to do precision docking.  But somebody knows how to make the arrangement work.

[Jim]

I don't disagree that Cygnus would work fine, although you have to remove its pressure vessel as well.

No need to remove it.  It isn't mated to the SM until after arrival at the launch site.  The pressure vessel is shipped to the launch site directly from Italy.

[yg1968]

The best scenario to hope for is to have redundancy for SLS and Orion through a commercial option. I don't think that Congress is going to kill SLS and Orion in the short term especially if a commercial replacement isn't yet available.

I agree that this is likely the best case, but there's a huge problem:  Both SLS and Orion have been carefully crafted, and their launch cadences set, so that they keep the existing workforces employed just enough that nobody feels any particular pain.  If the cadence increased, the incumbents would have to hire more people and add more manufacturing infrastructure--which could result in a costly loss if NASA then had to reduce the cadence for budgetary reasons.  But if the cadence is reduced, then the staff they currently have is unsustainable.

I'm a big fan of the "second source" strategy, but everybody should understand that the existence of a second source probably causes the entire SLS/Orion supply chain to collapse.  That is, indeed, what should happen.  But if a commercial effort is adopted, claiming that it's a second source is a con job.  It's a con job that might work, because there are only a handful of geeks in a NASA basement somewhere who understand the supply chain.  But the second source framing of the problem is fundamentally dishonest.

That makes it... distasteful.  However, almost everything to do with the US government's budget is distasteful if you look close enough.

I am not sure that I understand, the cadence of SLS and Orion would be the same: once per year. The commercial option would also be once a year. So you would have two lunar surface missions per year.

[DanClemmensen]

The best scenario to hope for is to have redundancy for SLS and Orion through a commercial option. I don't think that Congress is going to kill SLS and Orion in the short term especially if a commercial replacement isn't yet available.

I agree that this is likely the best case, but there's a huge problem:  Both SLS and Orion have been carefully crafted, and their launch cadences set, so that they keep the existing workforces employed just enough that nobody feels any particular pain.  If the cadence increased, the incumbents would have to hire more people and add more manufacturing infrastructure--which could result in a costly loss if NASA then had to reduce the cadence for budgetary reasons.  But if the cadence is reduced, then the staff they currently have is unsustainable.

I'm a big fan of the "second source" strategy, but everybody should understand that the existence of a second source probably causes the entire SLS/Orion supply chain to collapse.  That is, indeed, what should happen.  But if a commercial effort is adopted, claiming that it's a second source is a con job.  It's a con job that might work, because there are only a handful of geeks in a NASA basement somewhere who understand the supply chain.  But the second source framing of the problem is fundamentally dishonest.

That makes it... distasteful.  However, almost everything to do with the US government's budget is distasteful if you look close enough.

I am not sure that I understand, the cadence of SLS and Orion would be the same: once per year. The commercial option would also be once a year. So you would have two lunar surface missions per year.

OK, either you have been conned or you are colluding in the con. When we have one SLS/Orion mission per yr at $8 Billion and one "alternate" mission per year at $1 billion, and the alternate mission has a bigger crew and a longer stay, what do you think will happen?

[VSECOTSPE]

Orion/SLS direct costs are about $4.5B/yr and the IG puts the cos

[Coastal Ron]

The best scenario to hope for is to have redundancy for SLS and Orion through a commercial option. I don't think that Congress is going to kill SLS and Orion in the short term especially if a commercial replacement isn't yet available.

I agree that this is likely the best case, but there's a huge problem:  Both SLS and Orion have been carefully crafted, and their launch cadences set, so that they keep the existing workforces employed just enough that nobody feels any particular pain.  If the cadence increased, the incumbents would have to hire more people and add more manufacturing infrastructure--which could result in a costly loss if NASA then had to reduce the cadence for budgetary reasons.  But if the cadence is reduced, then the staff they currently have is unsustainable.

I'm a big fan of the "second source" strategy, but everybody should understand that the existence of a second source probably causes the entire SLS/Orion supply chain to collapse.  That is, indeed, what should happen.  But if a commercial effort is adopted, claiming that it's a second source is a con job.  It's a con job that might work, because there are only a handful of geeks in a NASA basement somewhere who understand the supply chain.  But the second source framing of the problem is fundamentally dishonest.

That makes it... distasteful.  However, almost everything to do with the US government's budget is distasteful if you look close enough.

I am not sure that I understand, the cadence of SLS and Orion would be the same: once per year. The commercial option would also be once a year. So you would have two lunar surface missions per year.

That is an assumption that Congress would just add a commercial version onto the existing Program of Record (PoR), but that is just your assumption. We don't know what Congress would actually fund, or de-fund in such a case.