SpaceX Dragon XL

[yg1968]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1884700023063024047

NASA's Mark Wiese says at a SpaceCom panel that there have been significant changes to the SpaceX Dragon XL design for Gateway logistics. Defers to SpaceX to disclose details on those changes as NASA finishes up contract modifications.

Hopefully, Dragon XL now looks a lot like Starship.

That is wishful thinking, is all I can say.

Thanks for the information. You are right that I was hoping that it would be. The RFI from 2022 made it seem like NASA was open to replacing Dragon XL with something like Starship:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48353.msg2357503#msg2357503

[StraumliBlight]

This SpaceX role might indicate that Dragon XL is being replaced with Starship.

MISSION MANAGER, STARSHIP CREW AND CARGO PROGRAMS

SpaceX is looking for exemplary individuals capable of supporting our portfolio of Starship Crew and Cargo commercial and government programs. This includes leading programmatic development and execution of the Human Landing System (HLS) as part of NASA’s Artemis program to return humans and cargo to lunar orbit and the Moon’s surface, as well as multiple commercial and government crew and cargo missions to the Moon and Mars.

[sstli2]

This SpaceX role might indicate that Dragon XL is being replaced with Starship.

MISSION MANAGER, STARSHIP CREW AND CARGO PROGRAMS

SpaceX is looking for exemplary individuals capable of supporting our portfolio of Starship Crew and Cargo commercial and government programs. This includes leading programmatic development and execution of the Human Landing System (HLS) as part of NASA’s Artemis program to return humans and cargo to lunar orbit and the Moon’s surface, as well as multiple commercial and government crew and cargo missions to the Moon and Mars.

Perhaps, but not necessarily, as Starship was already under a contract for delivery of a rover to the surface, irrespective of Dragon XL / Gateway obligations.

[woods170]

This SpaceX role might indicate that Dragon XL is being replaced with Starship.

MISSION MANAGER, STARSHIP CREW AND CARGO PROGRAMS

SpaceX is looking for exemplary individuals capable of supporting our portfolio of Starship Crew and Cargo commercial and government programs. This includes leading programmatic development and execution of the Human Landing System (HLS) as part of NASA’s Artemis program to return humans and cargo to lunar orbit and the Moon’s surface, as well as multiple commercial and government crew and cargo missions to the Moon and Mars.

You're reading too much into this. SpaceX already was under contract to deliver cargo to the lunar surface, for a mission that first goes to the Lunar Gateway to pick up the Orion crew. You can safely bet a crate of beer that NASA would use such an opportunity to stow cargo for Lunar Gateway on the HLS Starship.
But, here's the thing: bringing up additional cargo for Lunar Gateway on HLS Starship, does not remove the requirement to get cargo to Lunar Gateway on "regular" cargo flights. Which is why Dragon XL still exists.

[DanClemmensen]

This SpaceX role might indicate that Dragon XL is being replaced with Starship.

MISSION MANAGER, STARSHIP CREW AND CARGO PROGRAMS

SpaceX is looking for exemplary individuals capable of supporting our portfolio of Starship Crew and Cargo commercial and government programs. This includes leading programmatic development and execution of the Human Landing System (HLS) as part of NASA’s Artemis program to return humans and cargo to lunar orbit and the Moon’s surface, as well as multiple commercial and government crew and cargo missions to the Moon and Mars.

You're reading too much into this. SpaceX already was under contract to deliver cargo to the lunar surface, for a mission that first goes to the Lunar Gateway to pick up the Orion crew. You can safely bet a crate of beer that NASA would use such an opportunity to stow cargo for Lunar Gateway on the HLS Starship.
But, here's the thing: bringing up additional cargo for Lunar Gateway on HLS Starship, does not remove the requirement to get cargo to Lunar Gateway on "regular" cargo flights. Which is why Dragon XL still exists.

Why? Can Dragon XL transfer any cargo autonomously? If not, then you need crew present to transfer the cargo. They can just as easily transfer it from the HLS as from a Dragon XL. The GLS concepts came from a time when an HLS was a tiny and highly mass-constrained system.

What the HLS cannot do is transfer propellants and Xenon. Can Dragon XL do this? I thought that was a different system.

[catdlr]

Cross Post of a short status from Phillip Sloss on Dragon XL

 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58212.msg2661849#msg2661849

Timestamp
16:16 Dragon XL and Starship lunar ascent demo notes

[woods170]

This SpaceX role might indicate that Dragon XL is being replaced with Starship.

MISSION MANAGER, STARSHIP CREW AND CARGO PROGRAMS

SpaceX is looking for exemplary individuals capable of supporting our portfolio of Starship Crew and Cargo commercial and government programs. This includes leading programmatic development and execution of the Human Landing System (HLS) as part of NASA’s Artemis program to return humans and cargo to lunar orbit and the Moon’s surface, as well as multiple commercial and government crew and cargo missions to the Moon and Mars.

You're reading too much into this. SpaceX already was under contract to deliver cargo to the lunar surface, for a mission that first goes to the Lunar Gateway to pick up the Orion crew. You can safely bet a crate of beer that NASA would use such an opportunity to stow cargo for Lunar Gateway on the HLS Starship.
But, here's the thing: bringing up additional cargo for Lunar Gateway on HLS Starship, does not remove the requirement to get cargo to Lunar Gateway on "regular" cargo flights. Which is why Dragon XL still exists.

Why? Can Dragon XL transfer any cargo autonomously? If not, then you need crew present to transfer the cargo. They can just as easily transfer it from the HLS as from a Dragon XL. The GLS concepts came from a time when an HLS was a tiny and highly mass-constrained system.

What the HLS cannot do is transfer propellants and Xenon. Can Dragon XL do this? I thought that was a different system.

You make the mistake of assuming that HLS landers have enough excess cargo capacity, including Gateway-specific cargo facilities, to satisfy Lunar Gateway's entire cargo needs and requirements. Such an assumption is incorrect.

One fine example is this: there is a requirement for Lunar Gateway externally mounted cargo to be delivered to the Lunar Gateway, in such a manner that the Canadarm3 can reach, grab and remove that cargo from the cargo vehicle, while the arm is mounted on the Lunar Gateway structure.
That requirement by definition rules out the Starship HLS vehicle for cargo that is to be externally mounted on Lunar Gateway. The Canadarm3 design is not nearly long enough to reach all the way down the "nose" of the Starship HLS vehicle, to its cargo hold.
This particular problem does not exist for Dragon XL. That vehicle is so much smaller than Starship HLS, that Canadarm3 can easily reach, grab and remove cargo units from Dragon XL, for mounting on the exterior of Lunar Gateway.

[DanClemmensen]

This SpaceX role might indicate that Dragon XL is being replaced with Starship.

MISSION MANAGER, STARSHIP CREW AND CARGO PROGRAMS

SpaceX is looking for exemplary individuals capable of supporting our portfolio of Starship Crew and Cargo commercial and government programs. This includes leading programmatic development and execution of the Human Landing System (HLS) as part of NASA’s Artemis program to return humans and cargo to lunar orbit and the Moon’s surface, as well as multiple commercial and government crew and cargo missions to the Moon and Mars.

You're reading too much into this. SpaceX already was under contract to deliver cargo to the lunar surface, for a mission that first goes to the Lunar Gateway to pick up the Orion crew. You can safely bet a crate of beer that NASA would use such an opportunity to stow cargo for Lunar Gateway on the HLS Starship.
But, here's the thing: bringing up additional cargo for Lunar Gateway on HLS Starship, does not remove the requirement to get cargo to Lunar Gateway on "regular" cargo flights. Which is why Dragon XL still exists.

Why? Can Dragon XL transfer any cargo autonomously? If not, then you need crew present to transfer the cargo. They can just as easily transfer it from the HLS as from a Dragon XL. The GLS concepts came from a time when an HLS was a tiny and highly mass-constrained system.

What the HLS cannot do is transfer propellants and Xenon. Can Dragon XL do this? I thought that was a different system.

You make the mistake of assuming that HLS landers have enough excess cargo capacity, including Gateway-specific cargo facilities, to satisfy Lunar Gateway's entire cargo needs and requirements. Such an assumption is incorrect.

One fine example is this: there is a requirement for Lunar Gateway externally mounted cargo to be delivered to the Lunar Gateway, in such a manner that the Canadarm3 can reach, grab and remove that cargo from the cargo vehicle, while the arm is mounted on the Lunar Gateway structure.
That requirement by definition rules out the Starship HLS vehicle for cargo that is to be externally mounted on Lunar Gateway. The Canadarm3 design is not nearly long enough to reach all the way down the "nose" of the Starship HLS vehicle, to its cargo hold.
This particular problem does not exist for Dragon XL. That vehicle is so much smaller than Starship HLS, that Canadarm3 can easily reach, grab and remove cargo units from Dragon XL, for mounting on the exterior of Lunar Gateway.

This is what you call an overly-specific requirement. To provide large external cargo, carry an additional Canadarm in the HLS cargo bay. Get a contract modification to allow this. If someone insists on a strict interpretation of the existing requirement, the point out that this extra Canadarm is part of the GLS, not part of gateway, so the cargo is in fact easily reachable by the Gateway Canadarm after the GLS prepositions it.

[Tywin]

Now, with the 2,6 billion for the Gateway, is time to develop the DragonXL, not?

[StraumliBlight]

SAM.gov: Deep Space Logistics ENgineering Support Extension [Jul 15]

This justification documents the basis for issuing a modification to an order under the Deep Space Logistics ENgineering Support (LENS) contract  using an exception to the Fair Opportunity process. This modification is to add additional option periods from October 1, 2025 through November 29, 2025 and from November 30, 2025 through May 29, 2026.

[yg1968]

SAM.gov: Deep Space Logistics ENgineering Support Extension [Jul 15]

This justification documents the basis for issuing a modification to an order under the Deep Space Logistics ENgineering Support (LENS) contract  using an exception to the Fair Opportunity process. This modification is to add additional option periods from October 1, 2025 through November 29, 2025 and from November 30, 2025 through May 29, 2026.

This relates to this contract:

https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-awards-deep-space-logistics-engineering-support-contract/

[Tywin]

SAM.gov: Deep Space Logistics ENgineering Support Extension [Jul 15]

This justification documents the basis for issuing a modification to an order under the Deep Space Logistics ENgineering Support (LENS) contract  using an exception to the Fair Opportunity process. This modification is to add additional option periods from October 1, 2025 through November 29, 2025 and from November 30, 2025 through May 29, 2026.

I don't understand, this is for a second provider?

[AndrewM]

SAM.gov: Deep Space Logistics ENgineering Support Extension [Jul 15]

This justification documents the basis for issuing a modification to an order under the Deep Space Logistics ENgineering Support (LENS) contract  using an exception to the Fair Opportunity process. This modification is to add additional option periods from October 1, 2025 through November 29, 2025 and from November 30, 2025 through May 29, 2026.

I don't understand, this is for a second provider?

No, it's for ground side engineering services. It is the contractor supporting the GLS program for technical evaluation and is a contract extension for the company that had already been managing it. The extension was required because the NASA authorization to SpaceX to proceed with the 1st Dragon XL mission (GLS-1/DSL-1) wasn't given until November 2023 which was well after they planned on that authorization. SpaceX is still moving forward with their milestones and so needs NASA support hence this contract extension.

The Fair Opportunity Exception document stated that the pre-SRR (Systems Requirements Review) architecture review was completed in November 2024 and at that time the SRR was planned for July 2025. However, in May they changed it from a SRR to a MCR (Mission Concept Review). That review should be complete now given its late September but with the FY26 PBR proposing cancelling Gateway, the GLS contract would likely be cancelled as well.

[thespacecow]

LOL a 2nd provider, NASA couldn't even afford the first provider, what make you think they want a 2nd provider?

[thespacecow]

An interesting rumor: https://x.com/SpoxSpace/status/1975735857467564152

It appears that plans for DragonXL are scrapped.

This is not a confirmation, but I heard Starship is just more practical, thus development has stopped.

[DanClemmensen]

An interesting rumor: https://x.com/SpoxSpace/status/1975735857467564152

It appears that plans for DragonXL are scrapped.

This is not a confirmation, but I heard Starship is just more practical, thus development has stopped.

This actually makes sense, at least to the extent that Gateway makes sense at all. The overall Artemis PoR requires SpaceX to deliver a fully-provisioned Starship to Gateway and dock  it there. This means that building a GLS version of Starship ought to be relatively simple. For everything except Propellant for the PPE, no modification is needed, and in fact the unmodified HLS will have ample capacity to deliver all needed provisions to Gateway during the same mission as the crewed landing.

I doubt that a crew-rated HLS would be modified to also perform this function, because it needs to be modified to carry Xenon and bi-propellants and transfer them across the docking port. Xenon is probably not a big deal, but the bi-propellants might be. However, modifying the cargo version (Starship HDL) might make sense, allowing deliveries to Gateway and the lunar surface on the same trip.

One benefit to SpaceX is that this is one less commitment for FH and therefore one less obstacle to the early retirement of the Falcon program.

[DanClemmensen]

An interesting rumor: https://x.com/SpoxSpace/status/1975735857467564152

It appears that plans for DragonXL are scrapped.

This is not a confirmation, but I heard Starship is just more practical, thus development has stopped.

I still do not think a Gateway in NRHO is useful, but if there is no way to kill it completely, there are alternatives.

In addition to a Starship GLS, there are at least two other alternatives that use Starship: Just replace the entire Gateway with a Starship CLD, or use a cargo Starship to deliver GLS supply modules.

Starship GLS: a derivative of Starshio HLS or Starship HDL that docks with Gateway

Starship CLD: a Starship that functions as a full-up space station. originally designed as an LEO station, (a Commercial LEO Destination) one of these can be placed in NRHO. Reprovision it using the same provisioning scheme that would be used in LEO, or simply swap in a newly-provisioned one periodically.

Cargo Starship: use a cargo Starship to deliver a GLS module when needed. Cargo Starship can also deliver any of the proposed Gateway modules, since they will no longer be delivered by SLS. Cargo Starship would not dock to Gateway. It would rendevous and then transfer cargo using Canadarms.

[clongton]

I still do not think a Gateway in NRHO is useful, ... <snip>

I couldn't agree more.

[spacenut]

I always though L1 or L2 were better.  Easier for SLS to get to, as well as many existing providers.  Then the lander would have to have enough fuel and sized properly to land on the moon and get back to L1.  L2 being better for outgoing Mars traffic as possibly a fuel topping off point.