Author Topic: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers  (Read 1186916 times)

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12082
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18060
  • Likes Given: 12086
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #4360 on: 02/08/2024 08:25 am »
Astro Raja correctly marked that they are at PDR for Starship HLS. Which is why it keeps amusing me to see people like Jim Free making wild statements about Artemis 3 happening in 2026. Mr. Free is IMO totally detached from reality.

If you listen to the Artemis II update press conference from last month, you will hear Jim Free explain that the updated milestones were renegotiated with the contractors. Free also said that there will be incentives for meeting the schedule. So Jim Free's wild statements are based on what the contractors including SpaceX have been telling him.

There is nothing preventing Jim Free and his NASA colleagues from doing their own assessment of the situation and make their own predictions based on that. Blindly believing what your contractors are telling you is exactly how NASA got into the mess that is SLS (to name just one example).

Same for the financial clusterf*ck that was JWST. Its main contractors painted way too rosey a picture and NASA fell for that BS. We all know how that story played out: what was supposed to be a $5B telescope became a $10B telescope and it launched 7 years late. Funny thing is that three NASA sources of mine made a prediction in 2010 (shortly before the CDR) that JWST would likely launch about five-to-six years late. That prediction played out exactly: at CDR the predicted launch date was 2015. JWST actually launched in 2021.

Something similar happened for CCP. SpaceX and Boeing kept claiming (despite abundant pointers to the opposite) that the first testflights for their respective vehicles would happen in the 2016-2017 timeframe. Actual was 2019.

A lesson NASA should heed is: never trust your contractor's schedule. Because most of the time it's overly optimistic BS.
« Last Edit: 02/08/2024 08:26 am by woods170 »

Online Negan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
  • Southwest
  • Liked: 208
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #4361 on: 02/08/2024 04:06 pm »
Astro Raja correctly marked that they are at PDR for Starship HLS. Which is why it keeps amusing me to see people like Jim Free making wild statements about Artemis 3 happening in 2026. Mr. Free is IMO totally detached from reality.

If you listen to the Artemis II update press conference from last month, you will hear Jim Free explain that the updated milestones were renegotiated with the contractors. Free also said that there will be incentives for meeting the schedule. So Jim Free's wild statements are based on what the contractors including SpaceX have been telling him.

There is nothing preventing Jim Free and his NASA colleagues from doing their own assessment of the situation and make their own predictions based on that. Blindly believing what your contractors are telling you is exactly how NASA got into the mess that is SLS (to name just one example).

Same for the financial clusterf*ck that was JWST. Its main contractors painted way too rosey a picture and NASA fell for that BS. We all know how that story played out: what was supposed to be a $5B telescope became a $10B telescope and it launched 7 years late. Funny thing is that three NASA sources of mine made a prediction in 2010 (shortly before the CDR) that JWST would likely launch about five-to-six years late. That prediction played out exactly: at CDR the predicted launch date was 2015. JWST actually launched in 2021.

Something similar happened for CCP. SpaceX and Boeing kept claiming (despite abundant pointers to the opposite) that the first testflights for their respective vehicles would happen in the 2016-2017 timeframe. Actual was 2019.

A lesson NASA should heed is: never trust your contractor's schedule. Because most of the time it's overly optimistic BS.

I agree. Antagonizing SpaceX (and Musk) might be fruitful. Not for NASA, but for space exploration as a whole.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17209
  • Liked: 7067
  • Likes Given: 3045
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #4362 on: 02/09/2024 02:01 am »
That's not what he meant. Besides, I am guessing that Musk wasn't that involved in the renegotiation of the HLS milestones.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8831
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10171
  • Likes Given: 11899
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #4363 on: 02/09/2024 02:41 am »
If you listen to the Artemis II update press conference from last month, you will hear Jim Free explain that the updated milestones were renegotiated with the contractors.

I need to state something that may not be obvious to those that have never worked for government contractors, but the government can negotiate schedule slippages that THEY have, just as they can negotiate schedule slippages that a contractor has.

So in this case, IIRC at the press conference it was stated that the Orion MPCV was now the pacing item for Artemis III, meaning that all the OTHER contractors would have been notified by NASA that the need date for their hardware and services needed to slip too.

Meaning if there was a negotiation with SpaceX it may have been to DELAY their current Artemis III milestones, not RESCHEDULE them due to SpaceX issues.

Quote
Free also said that there will be incentives for meeting the schedule. So Jim Free's wild statements are based on what the contractors including SpaceX have been telling him.

And it could be just Lockheed Martin that was provided incentives for meeting the Orion MPCV Artemis III schedule, and NO OTHER contractors required them at this point.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17209
  • Liked: 7067
  • Likes Given: 3045
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #4364 on: 02/09/2024 03:00 am »
If you listen to the Artemis II update press conference from last month, you will hear Jim Free explain that the updated milestones were renegotiated with the contractors.

I need to state something that may not be obvious to those that have never worked for government contractors, but the government can negotiate schedule slippages that THEY have, just as they can negotiate schedule slippages that a contractor has.

So in this case, IIRC at the press conference it was stated that the Orion MPCV was now the pacing item for Artemis III, meaning that all the OTHER contractors would have been notified by NASA that the need date for their hardware and services needed to slip too.

Meaning if there was a negotiation with SpaceX it may have been to DELAY their current Artemis III milestones, not RESCHEDULE them due to SpaceX issues.

No it was mentioned during the press conference (in response to a question) that the Artemis III delay would have happened even without the Artemis II Orion issues.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8831
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10171
  • Likes Given: 11899
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #4365 on: 02/09/2024 09:14 pm »
If you listen to the Artemis II update press conference from last month, you will hear Jim Free explain that the updated milestones were renegotiated with the contractors.
I need to state something that may not be obvious to those that have never worked for government contractors, but the government can negotiate schedule slippages that THEY have, just as they can negotiate schedule slippages that a contractor has.

So in this case, IIRC at the press conference it was stated that the Orion MPCV was now the pacing item for Artemis III, meaning that all the OTHER contractors would have been notified by NASA that the need date for their hardware and services needed to slip too.

Meaning if there was a negotiation with SpaceX it may have been to DELAY their current Artemis III milestones, not RESCHEDULE them due to SpaceX issues.
No it was mentioned during the press conference (in response to a question) that the Artemis III delay would have happened even without the Artemis II Orion issues.

That doesn't change what I wrote, because it doesn't matter if more than one contractor triggers the slip, everyone else that had NOT triggered the schedule slip would have had their contracts negotiated to DELAY their contract need dates.

Someone needs to be the long pole in the tent, and right now that is the Orion MPCV. And sure, spacesuits could be the next longest tent pole, or whatever critical system. My point is that the term "renegotiation" could apply to the U.S. Government having to delay contractors, as much as it could be some contractors are delaying the U.S. Government.

Don't assume that, SpaceX for instance, is having its contract renegotiated because they declared they couldn't meet their milestones. It could be that "updated milestones" are the result of the U.S. Government postponing need dates that otherwise might have been met.

This happens quite often in complex programs, where contractors are kind of playing a game of musical chairs, and no one wants to be the one that gets all the attention regarding meeting a challenging schedule. And sure, some of the others may not have been able to make their contractual dates, but no one will officially know that...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17209
  • Liked: 7067
  • Likes Given: 3045
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #4366 on: 02/10/2024 12:35 am »
This happens quite often in complex programs, where contractors are kind of playing a game of musical chairs, and no one wants to be the one that gets all the attention regarding meeting a challenging schedule. And sure, some of the others may not have been able to make their contractual dates, but no one will officially know that...

From what I recall, it was mentioned that both SpaceX and Axiom needed more time for Artemis III.

Furthermore, at a prior press conference, Jim Free had said that just because one contractor is late doesn't mean that other contractors can also be late. He said that they will fly missions with what they have. So if HLS is late for Artemis III, they may fly a Gateway only mission, etc.

Offline Vultur

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Liked: 761
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #4367 on: 02/10/2024 01:27 am »
Didn't they say PPE/HALO launch was also going to be delayed, though?

At this point, not sure it is possible to tell what will be the pacing item. (Even for NASA to tell - if IFT-3 happens soon and is successful, Starship development could progress very fast. Or it could not. Or IFT-3 could blow up on the launchpad...)

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7098
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1950
  • Likes Given: 1914
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #4368 on: 02/10/2024 02:03 am »
Didn't they say PPE/HALO launch was also going to be delayed, though?

Yes.

In the teleconference that was mainly about Artemis crew mission delays, at around 31m 30s, there was a comment that the schedule for PPE+HALO would be updated.

Had previously planned launch for October 2025. Now under review. "We will be updating that schedule here as well." That was January 9. Should we be expecting an update around February 9, or is that unrealistic?

youtube.com/watch?v=ZJVa0z5kZAk

Quote
At this point, not sure it is possible to tell what will be the pacing item.

For Artemis 3, one of either Gateway or Starship need to be in NRHO. Otherwise it's a mission to nowhere. Unless like Gemini 6A they want to conduct rendezvous and proximity operations with CAPSTONE, without actually docking. That seems ... inadequate.

The optimist/realist says HLS Starship will be there as a docking target even if it lacks sufficient propellant to conduct the desired surface mission.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17209
  • Liked: 7067
  • Likes Given: 3045
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #4369 on: 02/10/2024 01:34 pm »
Didn't they say PPE/HALO launch was also going to be delayed, though?

At this point, not sure it is possible to tell what will be the pacing item. (Even for NASA to tell - if IFT-3 happens soon and is successful, Starship development could progress very fast. Or it could not. Or IFT-3 could blow up on the launchpad...)

Yes, it was just an example. I don't think that an Artemis III Gateway only mission is likely.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5354
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4196
  • Likes Given: 1693
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #4370 on: 02/10/2024 04:04 pm »

The optimist/realist says HLS Starship will be there as a docking target even if it lacks sufficient propellant to conduct the desired surface mission.
It would be sad, but it may make schedule sense. It assumes Starship HLS has met some but not all of its requirements. The space suits are not needed.  It also allows an actual in-space test of the Orion docking port hardware and of Orion RPOD. These are not scheduled to be tested on Artemis II.  That Starship HLS might be the uncrewed demo hardware.  It's also a test and first use of the IDSS port on Starship HLS, unless SpaceX chooses to test it using a Crew Dragon rendezvous in LEO at some point.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2632
  • South Africa
  • Liked: 945
  • Likes Given: 2033
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #4371 on: 02/12/2024 08:58 am »

The optimist/realist says HLS Starship will be there as a docking target even if it lacks sufficient propellant to conduct the desired surface mission.
It would be sad, but it may make schedule sense. It assumes Starship HLS has met some but not all of its requirements. The space suits are not needed.  It also allows an actual in-space test of the Orion docking port hardware and of Orion RPOD. These are not scheduled to be tested on Artemis II.  That Starship HLS might be the uncrewed demo hardware.  It's also a test and first use of the IDSS port on Starship HLS, unless SpaceX chooses to test it using a Crew Dragon rendezvous in LEO at some point.

In other words, the unmanned landing version of Apollo 10? They could also test out the habitat in zero g although that would require more development work (is the unmanned flight requirement currently to have the habitat and life support working?) and potentially another spanner in the works.

They could possibly just throw up a Dragon XL to rendezvous with, but that would be even more added development and bringing forward something to become a new long pole.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5354
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4196
  • Likes Given: 1693
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #4372 on: 02/12/2024 04:53 pm »

The optimist/realist says HLS Starship will be there as a docking target even if it lacks sufficient propellant to conduct the desired surface mission.
It would be sad, but it may make schedule sense. It assumes Starship HLS has met some but not all of its requirements. The space suits are not needed.  It also allows an actual in-space test of the Orion docking port hardware and of Orion RPOD. These are not scheduled to be tested on Artemis II.  That Starship HLS might be the uncrewed demo hardware.  It's also a test and first use of the IDSS port on Starship HLS, unless SpaceX chooses to test it using a Crew Dragon rendezvous in LEO at some point.

In other words, the unmanned landing version of Apollo 10? They could also test out the habitat in zero g although that would require more development work (is the unmanned flight requirement currently to have the habitat and life support working?) and potentially another spanner in the works.

They could possibly just throw up a Dragon XL to rendezvous with, but that would be even more added development and bringing forward something to become a new long pole.
The other problem is that a Starship derivative (Starship CLD or a modified HLS) could be a far better Gateway than PPE+HALO. This interim mission would make that fact hard to ignore. Unfortunately, the development would take time and stretch the schedule, which more or less defeats the purpose.

Offline TaurusLittrow

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • Pennsylvania, USA
  • Liked: 93
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: SS HLS configuration
« Reply #4373 on: 02/17/2024 01:37 pm »
What's the current thinking or information on the Starship HLS configuration, specifically the layout of engines/thrusters for landing and launch?

Are mid-body RCS thrusters still an option to minimize plume impingement?

OR will the vac Raptors be utilized?

Tags: OPF SS Starship HLS Raptor 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1