Author Topic: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid  (Read 43152 times)

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
This news was hidden in a tweet posted by Boeing Space:

https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1187115328389746688

I will provide a lightly-edited transcript of the relevant portion of the video.

Quote from: Boeing Space
Tony Castilleja: ...and let's talk about what the Space Launch System will be launching on our journey to the Moon.
Ben Donahue: We're going to be launching an integrated ascent stage and descent stage called The Lander [editor's note: I really hope that's a placeholder name] that will land by the end of 2024 that will take three crew to the South Pole of the Moon. [...] We're actively writing the proposal for NASA as we speak.

This is something I've personally anticipated for quite some time now, especially after the relevant language about utilizing the SLS appeared in the HLS solicitation, but it's nice to have confirmation.
« Last Edit: 10/24/2019 03:28 am by jadebenn »

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1745
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1934
  • Likes Given: 1278
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #1 on: 10/24/2019 02:31 pm »
I wonder how heavily involved Intuitive Machines is with it?

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #2 on: 10/24/2019 02:54 pm »
I don't think you can call it "hidden" when it's something that was said at IAC.

Will be interesting to read Boeing's proposal when they release it.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Online Navier–Stokes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
  • Liked: 723
  • Likes Given: 6836
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #3 on: 10/24/2019 04:57 pm »
https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1187398403694776320
Quote
Our sights are set on the Moon.
We’ve learned a lot from operating @Space_Station and are applying that to our lunar lander concept for the #Artemis mission. #IAC2019

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #4 on: 10/24/2019 05:40 pm »
https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1187398403694776320
Quote
Our sights are set on the Moon.
We’ve learned a lot from operating @Space_Station and are applying that to our lunar lander concept for the #Artemis mission. #IAC2019
Is that really their design? That render's fairly old, and I would've expected something a bit larger with the lander being SLS-launched.

Granted, if they're launching on a Block 1 the Delta IV fairing imposes some pretty strict limits on sized, but still. Seems kinda on the small side.

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2233
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #6 on: 10/24/2019 07:16 pm »
Is that really their design? That render's fairly old, and I would've expected something a bit larger with the lander being SLS-launched.

Granted, if they're launching on a Block 1 the Delta IV fairing imposes some pretty strict limits on sized, but still. Seems kinda on the small side.

Depends on the mission details. If earlier uncrewed supply missions included a habitat module the HLS can be small.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 871
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 2201
  • Likes Given: 1016
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #7 on: 10/24/2019 07:22 pm »
Looks like the lander is methalox.

Intuitive Machines selected to build engines for Boeing’s Human Lander System Technology Development

A 30-second hot fire of the engine is on youtube:

("Hot Fire #13 does not refer to there being 13 HLS engine hot fires, just that this is Intuitive's 13th hot fire campaign)

« Last Edit: 10/24/2019 07:24 pm by theinternetftw »

Offline Gliderflyer

Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #8 on: 10/24/2019 11:03 pm »
Looks like the lander is methalox.

Intuitive Machines selected to build engines for Boeing’s Human Lander System Technology Development

A 30-second hot fire of the engine is on youtube:

("Hot Fire #13 does not refer to there being 13 HLS engine hot fires, just that this is Intuitive's 13th hot fire campaign)


I wonder if it is based off the Morpheus engine, it looks like they are using Armadillo levels of film cooling.
I tried it at home

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 871
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 2201
  • Likes Given: 1016
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #9 on: 10/24/2019 11:14 pm »
I wonder if it is based off the Morpheus engine, it looks like they are using Armadillo levels of film cooling.

It is absolutely based off of the Morpheus engine.  Intuitive Machines was started by former Morpheus engineers.

Offline Gliderflyer

Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #10 on: 10/24/2019 11:32 pm »
I wonder if it is based off the Morpheus engine, it looks like they are using Armadillo levels of film cooling.

It is absolutely based off of the Morpheus engine.  Intuitive Machines was started by former Morpheus engineers.
Interesting choice. If I remember correctly, the Morpheus engine used somewhere around 30% film cooling (although I don't think they had time to optimize it). Probably won't help their performance, but it does make the engine a little simpler to build.
I tried it at home

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #11 on: 10/25/2019 12:58 am »
https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1187398403694776320
Quote
Our sights are set on the Moon.
We’ve learned a lot from operating @Space_Station and are applying that to our lunar lander concept for the #Artemis mission. #IAC2019
That ascent stage looks a bit like some of the Dragon based landers we came up with... ;D
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #12 on: 10/25/2019 05:42 pm »
https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1187398403694776320
Quote
Our sights are set on the Moon.
We’ve learned a lot from operating @Space_Station and are applying that to our lunar lander concept for the #Artemis mission. #IAC2019
That ascent stage looks a bit like some of the Dragon based landers we came up with... ;D
Pressure vessel is likely to be based on Starliner along with life support.


Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #13 on: 10/25/2019 06:23 pm »
https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1187398403694776320
Quote
Our sights are set on the Moon.
We’ve learned a lot from operating @Space_Station and are applying that to our lunar lander concept for the #Artemis mission. #IAC2019
That ascent stage looks a bit like some of the Dragon based landers we came up with... ;D
Pressure vessel is likely to be based on Starliner along with life support.
Makes sense since they have the tooling and use a thinner gauge material...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #14 on: 10/25/2019 06:35 pm »
So, the ascent propellant is inside the hull of the descent stage similar to some of their mars lander concepts?

See 2:33 in this video.


Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5190
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2591
  • Likes Given: 2903
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #15 on: 10/25/2019 06:42 pm »
So if Boeing wins the bid, they will have to launch two SLS's to get astronauts in Orion and the lander to the moon by in space docking.  Wow, a moon landing for about $3 billion or more per landing.  Not counting the LOP-G station.  This is way expensive to use the SLS. 

Can Blue Origin get a lander to the moon with New Glenn.  Reusable and far less expensive.  Even the components to LOP-G or where ever they are going to build a station. 

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #16 on: 10/25/2019 08:23 pm »
So if Boeing wins the bid, they will have to launch two SLS's to get astronauts in Orion and the lander to the moon by in space docking.  Wow, a moon landing for about $3 billion or more per landing.  Not counting the LOP-G station.  This is way expensive to use the SLS.
If you're that confident the bid will be financially uncompetitive, then you should have nothing to worry about.

It's not like there are other costs beside launch costs that factor into bidding a lunar lander. Development of new technology is free as we all know, and there is no possibility that a two-stage SLS-launched design might be easier and cheaper to develop than a three-stage commercially-launched design, or that those cost-savings might be enough to offset the higher launch costs, especially since we're only considering SLS marginal costs. ::)

In all seriousness, do you think Boeing is stupid? If they didn't think an SLS-launched bid was competitive they wouldn't propose it.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5190
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2591
  • Likes Given: 2903
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #17 on: 10/25/2019 08:50 pm »
No, they are looking for cost+ bidding.  I was an engineer for a natural gas company.  We got rid of cost+ bidding because it was far more expensive than per foot installed bidding.  I have seen it first hand. 

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #18 on: 10/25/2019 08:52 pm »
No, they are looking for cost+ bidding.  I was an engineer for a natural gas company.  We got rid of cost+ bidding because it was far more expensive than per foot installed bidding.  I have seen it first hand.
Well then you should be happy because this isn't a cost-plus contract and therefore NASA will not be accepting any cost-plus bids.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9101
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #19 on: 10/26/2019 02:35 am »
So if Boeing wins the bid, they will have to launch two SLS's to get astronauts in Orion and the lander to the moon by in space docking.  Wow, a moon landing for about $3 billion or more per landing.  Not counting the LOP-G station.  This is way expensive to use the SLS. 

It may need more than two SLS, since they'll be using SLS Block 1 Cargo which can only throw 26t to TLI, this is not enough for a full lunar lander, at least not in NASA's estimate. In NASA's IP 03 scenario, a 3rd commercial launch is needed, so using a SLS doesn't buy you much.

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #20 on: 10/26/2019 03:29 am »
It may need more than two SLS, since they'll be using SLS Block 1 Cargo which can only throw 26t to TLI, this is not enough for a full lunar lander, at least not in NASA's estimate. In NASA's IP 03 scenario, a 3rd commercial launch is needed, so using a SLS doesn't buy you much.
For Block 1, maybe. Once Block 1B is operational, they should have no issue shooting the lander up in one go.
« Last Edit: 10/26/2019 03:30 am by jadebenn »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #21 on: 10/26/2019 03:59 am »
How does lander handle boiloff at gateway while waiting months for crew mission

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1745
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1934
  • Likes Given: 1278
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #22 on: 10/26/2019 06:34 am »
A 2nd SLS shouldn't have anywhere near the cost of 2x a single SLS. Plus flight rates of landers are so low development costs of a simpler 2 stage could represent significant savings in comparison to 3 cheaper launches.

 I eagerly await to see how this turns out, competition and multiple solutions are a good thing. In a perfect world we'd see improvements to SLS tied to this proposal (EUS for example).

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #23 on: 10/26/2019 05:14 pm »
If you're that confident the bid will be financially uncompetitive, then you should have nothing to worry about.
I saw a post in another thread indicating that SLS costs wouldn't count against Boeing's bid, which would be horrifically bad contracting practice if true. As long as that is not the case, it is unfortunate to see Boeing price itself out of the competition by insisting on SLS so they can double dip on the profits.

In all seriousness, do you think Boeing is stupid? If they didn't think an SLS-launched bid was competitive they wouldn't propose it.
While off topic for this site, and a different division of Boeing, there is some evidence to support a "yes" answer to that question in recent news.

Completely failing to accurately predict what is competitive is not unusual especially for a big company like Boeing. Go take a look at the CLPS thread where Lockheed overbid by a factor of 2.

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
  • USA
  • Liked: 3273
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #24 on: 10/27/2019 12:49 am »
Pressure vessel is likely to be based on Starliner along with life support.

This figure from a few months ago shows a pressure vessel with no apparent Starliner commonality. Ascent stage design has changed slightly since then (addition of an EVA hatch in the side vs expensable airlock in the descent stage), but probably still the same basic pressure vessel shape

I eagerly await to see how this turns out, competition and multiple solutions are a good thing. In a perfect world we'd see improvements to SLS tied to this proposal (EUS for example).

Thats my hope. NASAs solicitation said basically that any bidder using SLS would have to prove no impact to NASAs other missions, that seems impossible with what we know about SLS production capacity. Also called it "SLS-derived", and Bridenstine made a statement recently about SLSs flightrate being dependent on what Boeings willing to invest. Something radical like engine section reuse would be needed to make this viable, I bet Boeing will bid that as a packaged deal. Would also make SLS a lot more useful in the medium term

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8150
  • Liked: 6816
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #25 on: 10/27/2019 01:08 am »
A 2nd SLS shouldn't have anywhere near the cost of 2x a single SLS. ...

If they can build 2 in the same time as 1, maybe. But Boeing can only make 1 per year, and were already planning to do that. To up the flight rate Boeing needs to invest in SLS production.

Offline TaurusLittrow

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • Pennsylvania, USA
  • Liked: 93
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #26 on: 10/28/2019 06:09 pm »
A 2nd SLS shouldn't have anywhere near the cost of 2x a single SLS. ...

If they can build 2 in the same time as 1, maybe. But Boeing can only make 1 per year, and were already planning to do that. To up the flight rate Boeing needs to invest in SLS production.

Let's see, that makes eight RS-25s per annual lunar sortie. ChaChing.

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #27 on: 10/28/2019 10:55 pm »
So if Boeing wins the bid, they will have to launch two SLS's to get astronauts in Orion and the lander to the moon by in space docking.  Wow, a moon landing for about $3 billion or more per landing.  Not counting the LOP-G station.  This is way expensive to use the SLS. 

It may need more than two SLS, since they'll be using SLS Block 1 Cargo which can only throw 26t to TLI, this is not enough for a full lunar lander, at least not in NASA's estimate. In NASA's IP 03 scenario, a 3rd commercial launch is needed, so using a SLS doesn't buy you much.

Trying to evaluate these claims, I used a model of the Apollo hardware. It seems that the lunar module with an additional transfer stage based off the descent module but scaled 11%(both fuel and mass) with the landing gear removed has a total stack delta v of ~5.3 km/s (with the HLS required 525 kg up and 865 kg down). This seems to be the stack delta v requirements of a NRHO based trajectory to a polar region of the moon as long as you reduce the delta v for the trip to NRHO by a few hundred m/s[1]. Total stack (minus the payload that is offloaded to Orion/gateway logistics services) would be 26.3 t which is within the capability of SLS Block 1 to a NRHO ballistic trajectory that reduces the NRHO transfer to <200 m/s[2].

[1]https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160003079.pdf
[2] https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/advspace.publicshare/Parrish+et+al+-+Survey+of+BLTs+to+NRHO.pdf

Of course, what Boeing described was a two stage lander, but as far as the feasibility of putting an integrated lander on a Block 1 that meets the HLS requirements, I think it definitely can be done. The system that NASA was assuming did have higher masses for a lander, but I'm pretty sure that had to carry more crew and cargo than the requirements for the 2024 landing system. They also had to function independently as they would be shipped up seperately which may increase mass. You would then evolve the lander and use the Block 1B to carry the additional weight of the beefier lander to meet the "sustainable" phase requirements (more crew, global access, etc.).

edit: NASA was estimating the minimum mass for a 3 stage system that met their "desired requirements" was 9 + 12 +12 t or 33 t. Fitting it to 27 t would be a reduction of 20% which sounds achievable given their numbers would have engineering margins built in regardless.
« Last Edit: 10/28/2019 11:25 pm by ncb1397 »

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5190
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2591
  • Likes Given: 2903
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #28 on: 10/29/2019 12:44 am »
It is a shame SLS isn't as good as the old Saturn V in LEO performance.  After 13 billion dollars and it will take two SLS launches to equal one Saturn V.  They should have used either liquid boosters or a single stick two stage rocket. 

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #29 on: 10/29/2019 01:49 am »
It is a shame SLS isn't as good as the old Saturn V in LEO performance.  After 13 billion dollars and it will take two SLS launches to equal one Saturn V.  They should have used either liquid boosters or a single stick two stage rocket.
How relevant is SLS LEO performance as a performance metric when all currently-planned payloads are BEO? If SLS had been designed to maximize payload to LEO and not payload BEO, it would have a very different upper stage.

Speaking of upper stages, your comparison neglects Block 1B. That's the SLS that's in the Saturn V's neck of the woods when it comes to overall performance, not the Block 1 with its "placeholder" upper-stage.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8150
  • Liked: 6816
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #30 on: 10/29/2019 04:49 pm »
It is a shame SLS isn't as good as the old Saturn V in LEO performance.  After 13 billion dollars and it will take two SLS launches to equal one Saturn V.  They should have used either liquid boosters or a single stick two stage rocket.
How relevant is SLS LEO performance as a performance metric when all currently-planned payloads are BEO? If SLS had been designed to maximize payload to LEO and not payload BEO, it would have a very different upper stage.

Speaking of upper stages, your comparison neglects Block 1B. That's the SLS that's in the Saturn V's neck of the woods when it comes to overall performance, not the Block 1 with its "placeholder" upper-stage.

LEO performance doesn't matter much for lunar missions. But Block 1B at ~39 t to TLI is still quite far from Saturn V at 48+ t. This is exacerbated by the fact that Orion+ESM has a much lower available delta-v than Apollo, which means that any mission using Orion+ESM needs more mass to TLI than Apollo did.

A more powerful Orion SM would help a lot, particularly if it were hydrolox (e.g. based on Centaur 5+ Long with MLI and IVF).

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7291
  • Liked: 2788
  • Likes Given: 1463
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #31 on: 10/29/2019 04:54 pm »
It's rather ironic that it's so difficult to piece together a lunar mission using Orion, when Orion was originally designed for a lunar mission.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8150
  • Liked: 6816
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #32 on: 10/29/2019 05:14 pm »
So if Boeing wins the bid, they will have to launch two SLS's to get astronauts in Orion and the lander to the moon by in space docking.  Wow, a moon landing for about $3 billion or more per landing.  Not counting the LOP-G station.  This is way expensive to use the SLS. 

It may need more than two SLS, since they'll be using SLS Block 1 Cargo which can only throw 26t to TLI, this is not enough for a full lunar lander, at least not in NASA's estimate. In NASA's IP 03 scenario, a 3rd commercial launch is needed, so using a SLS doesn't buy you much.

Trying to evaluate these claims, I used a model of the Apollo hardware. It seems that the lunar module with an additional transfer stage based off the descent module but scaled 11%(both fuel and mass) with the landing gear removed has a total stack delta v of ~5.3 km/s (with the HLS required 525 kg up and 865 kg down). This seems to be the stack delta v requirements of a NRHO based trajectory to a polar region of the moon as long as you reduce the delta v for the trip to NRHO by a few hundred m/s[1]. Total stack (minus the payload that is offloaded to Orion/gateway logistics services) would be 26.3 t which is within the capability of SLS Block 1 to a NRHO ballistic trajectory that reduces the NRHO transfer to <200 m/s[2].

[1]https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160003079.pdf
[2] https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/advspace.publicshare/Parrish+et+al+-+Survey+of+BLTs+to+NRHO.pdf

Of course, what Boeing described was a two stage lander, but as far as the feasibility of putting an integrated lander on a Block 1 that meets the HLS requirements, I think it definitely can be done. The system that NASA was assuming did have higher masses for a lander, but I'm pretty sure that had to carry more crew and cargo than the requirements for the 2024 landing system. They also had to function independently as they would be shipped up separately which may increase mass. You would then evolve the lander and use the Block 1B to carry the additional weight of the beefier lander to meet the "sustainable" phase requirements (more crew, global access, etc.).

edit: NASA was estimating the minimum mass for a 3 stage system that met their "desired requirements" was 9 + 12 +12 t or 33 t. Fitting it to 27 t would be a reduction of 20% which sounds achievable given their numbers would have engineering margins built in regardless.

I'm pretty sure that it's more optimal to make the lander bigger, and have it help with TLI. SLS Block 1 with a TLI payload pushes that heavy core stage dry mass to a high energy, and the sooner you get rid of that 100+ t of burnout mass the better. Ideally, it would only go close enough to orbit that the gravity losses during the ICPS burn are minimal.

The extreme case would be a 95,000 kg 3-stage lander that ICPS can just put into 185 km LEO. The transfer stage would be 67 t wet and put 28 t of payload through TLI assuming a 10% dry mass and pressure fed hypergol ISP of 316. This is already ~1500 kg better than using Block 1 for the lunar transfer, despite the much worse ISP of the transfer stage compared to ICPS. With a pump-fed hypergol (5% dry mass, 339 ISP) that goes up to 33 t to NHRO with BLT, about 5500 kg more than a Block 1 with BLT.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5190
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2591
  • Likes Given: 2903
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #33 on: 10/29/2019 08:59 pm »
It is a shame SLS isn't as good as the old Saturn V in LEO performance.  After 13 billion dollars and it will take two SLS launches to equal one Saturn V.  They should have used either liquid boosters or a single stick two stage rocket.
How relevant is SLS LEO performance as a performance metric when all currently-planned payloads are BEO? If SLS had been designed to maximize payload to LEO and not payload BEO, it would have a very different upper stage.

Speaking of upper stages, your comparison neglects Block 1B. That's the SLS that's in the Saturn V's neck of the woods when it comes to overall performance, not the Block 1 with its "placeholder" upper-stage.

Even Saturn V with it's 3rd stage can do more than SLS.  SLS needs and upper stage it can't throw much toward the moon.  SLS needs 5 engines on the bottom and a good well designed upper stage, probably with a J2X or 2-3 BE-3U's to do any good. 

SLS is expendable.  SLS uses expensive engines.  SLS needs and upper stage.  SLS should have liquid boosters since they are more efficient weight wise than heavy solids.  SLS cost's too much for what it does.  SLS was designed by congressional mandate, not rocket scientists.  They may make 10 of them, but it is like the bridge to nowhere.  NASA is going to have to use other rockets to get their Gateway working, not just SLS.  So, why use SLS other than Orion?  Even Orion can be launched cheaper with two existing launchers.  One for Orion, and one for a pusher stage to dock and get it to the moon for far less cost. 

No money has been voted for to build Block 1B.  So, that is 3-5 years away and more money.   
« Last Edit: 10/29/2019 09:00 pm by spacenut »

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #34 on: 10/29/2019 10:28 pm »
No money has been voted for to build Block 1B.  So, that is 3-5 years away and more money.
Huh? EUS has been in all the NASA appropriations since 2016. They even showed-off some of the hardware in a presentation today:
 



Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1811
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #35 on: 11/01/2019 05:54 am »
It's rather ironic that it's so difficult to piece together a lunar mission using Orion, when Orion was originally designed for a lunar mission.

The Constellation Orion have the Altair lander for the TLI burn. The Altair is more or less the current EUS stage equivalent with legs.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12130
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18308
  • Likes Given: 12267
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #36 on: 11/01/2019 08:09 am »
It's rather ironic that it's so difficult to piece together a lunar mission using Orion, when Orion was originally designed for a lunar mission.

The Constellation Orion have the Altair lander for the TLI burn. The Altair is more or less the current EUS stage equivalent with legs.
It's rather ironic that it's so difficult to piece together a lunar mission using Orion, when Orion was originally designed for a lunar mission.

Also being discussed in the Lunar Gateway thread from this point forward: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46024.msg2009658#msg2009658

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2240
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #37 on: 11/01/2019 08:24 am »
It's rather ironic that it's so difficult to piece together a lunar mission using Orion, when Orion was originally designed for a lunar mission.

The Constellation Orion have the Altair lander for the TLI burn. The Altair is more or less the current EUS stage equivalent with legs.
I think you mean L.O.I. - lunar orbit insertion burn.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1811
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #38 on: 11/01/2019 09:00 am »
It's rather ironic that it's so difficult to piece together a lunar mission using Orion, when Orion was originally designed for a lunar mission.

The Constellation Orion have the Altair lander for the TLI burn. The Altair is more or less the current EUS stage equivalent with legs.
I think you mean L.O.I. - lunar orbit insertion burn.
Thanks for correcting my fuzzy recall of the Altair.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2962
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1894
  • Likes Given: 925
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #39 on: 11/01/2019 02:54 pm »
No money has been voted for to build Block 1B.  So, that is 3-5 years away and more money.
Huh? EUS has been in all the NASA appropriations since 2016. They even showed-off some of the hardware in a presentation today:
 


The EUS (Exploration Upper Stage) has been delayed. Spacenut is correct, Block IB is not flying soon. Block I with the ICPS upper stage is on slate, and only 1 per year is to be built. SLS is underpowered for the task at hand due to too few main engines, underpowered solid boosters, and a ridiculously small upper stage. It is also absurdly overpriced.

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #40 on: 11/01/2019 11:53 pm »
The EUS (Exploration Upper Stage) has been delayed. Spacenut is correct, Block IB is not flying soon. Block I with the ICPS upper stage is on slate, and only 1 per year is to be built. SLS is underpowered for the task at hand due to too few main engines, underpowered solid boosters, and a ridiculously small upper stage. It is also absurdly overpriced.
Spacenut was not correct. He said there was no money appropriated for Block 1B (aka EUS). There has been. You're putting words in both his and my mouths.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5190
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2591
  • Likes Given: 2903
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #41 on: 11/02/2019 12:53 am »
Other than NASA is going to use a Delta IV Heavy upper stage, when was money appropriated for the Block 1B upper stage (EUS)?  If it has been recently appropriated, it will be 3-4 years before it is built as slow as NASA and Boeing goes. 

It would be cheaper to ask Blue Origin to build a New Glenn upper stage for the SLS.  It would have two 100,000 lb. thrust BE-3U's for some real kick and a real payload. 

The existing upper stage will only have one RL-10 at what 30,000 lbs thrust.  The EUS will have what 4 RL-10's for 120 ,000 lbs.  Still seems anemic to me.  RL-10's are very expensive compared to newer engines developed by Blue Origin and SpaceX. 

In 3-4 years all of the new rockets will be on the market making SLS the most expensive $/kg launcher available. 

Jadebenn, do you work for Boeing or NASA?  Just wondering why you haven't seen the handwritting on the wall concerning NASA and "New Space".

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #42 on: 11/02/2019 01:43 am »
Other than NASA is going to use a Delta IV Heavy upper stage, when was money appropriated for the Block 1B upper stage (EUS)?  If it has been recently appropriated, it will be 3-4 years before it is built as slow as NASA and Boeing goes. 

2016:
Quote
Provided further, That of the amounts
provided for SLS, not less than $85,000,000 shall be for enhanced upper
stage development
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2029/text

2017:
Quote
Provided further, That of the amounts
provided for SLS, not less than $300,000,000 shall be for Exploration
Upper Stage development
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/244/text

2018:
Quote
Provided further, That of the amounts
provided for SLS, not less than $300,000,000 shall be for Exploration
Upper Stage development
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1625/text

2019:
Quote
Provided further, That of the amounts
provided for SLS, not less than $150,000,000 shall be for Exploration
Upper Stage development
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/31/text

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #43 on: 11/02/2019 02:23 am »
It seems to me like the confusion here is that all of the above say development. There has obviously been design work done, but spacenut is talking about the actual build and procurement of a flight article. I can't say that I have seen evidence of that being done, although it is not impossible that the "development" money has started to be used for it. Flight article procurement contracts or flight hardware is the evidence that would be required to counter spacenut's comments.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8150
  • Liked: 6816
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #44 on: 11/02/2019 02:29 am »
It seems to me like the confusion here is that all of the above say development. There has obviously been design work done, but spacenut is talking about the actual build and procurement of a flight article. I can't say that I have seen evidence of that being done, although it is not impossible that the "development" money has started to be used for it. Flight article procurement contracts or flight hardware is the evidence that would be required to counter spacenut's comments.

EUS has not passed CDR, so I would not expect to see flight hardware. The design is still being finalized. It's definitely funded though.

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #45 on: 11/02/2019 02:31 am »
Other than NASA is going to use a Delta IV Heavy upper stage, when was money appropriated for the Block 1B upper stage (EUS)?  If it has been recently appropriated, it will be 3-4 years before it is built as slow as NASA and Boeing goes. 
EUS funding was first appropriated back in 2016. Forgive me for not having the line-item up right now, but it's in the budget somewhere.
It would be cheaper to ask Blue Origin to build a New Glenn upper stage for the SLS.  It would have two 100,000 lb. thrust BE-3U's for some real kick and a real payload. 

The existing upper stage will only have one RL-10 at what 30,000 lbs thrust.  The EUS will have what 4 RL-10's for 120 ,000 lbs.  Still seems anemic to me.  RL-10's are very expensive compared to newer engines developed by Blue Origin and SpaceX. 
Thrust is pretty much irrelevant for Block 1 and ICPS. By the time it comes into play, the core's already put the rocket on a highly elliptical orbit. A small burn at apoapsis to bring the Orion+ICPS stack's periapsis out of the atmosphere is all that's needed.

Thrust is more relevant for Block 1B and EUS, because the added mass causes the core to stage at a lower velocity, meaning that EUS has to perform the last portion of the orbital burn. However, all that info I've seen suggests that while the gravity losses of EUS hurts the SLS's theoretical payload to LEO capacity, it still beats out higher-thrust lower-Isp alternatives for payload to TLI.
Jadebenn, do you work for Boeing or NASA?  Just wondering why you haven't seen the handwritting on the wall concerning NASA and "New Space".
I do not. In fact, my entry to the space fandom at-large came through the KSP and SpaceX communities a couple of years after the Shuttle stopped flying.

How I went from that to holding the opinions I do now is a long and complicated story that no-one really wants to hear, but suffice to say that I wasn't always so pro-SLS.
It seems to me like the confusion here is that all of the above say development. There has obviously been design work done, but spacenut is talking about the actual build and procurement of a flight article. I can't say that I have seen evidence of that being done, although it is not impossible that the "development" money has started to be used for it. Flight article procurement contracts or flight hardware is the evidence that would be required to counter spacenut's comments.
I have provided a photo of some test articles and tooling for the EUS, so I don't think fabrication is super far off, but I absolutely agree that they're not near the production stage yet. The stage's design hasn't passed CDR yet, after all.
« Last Edit: 11/02/2019 02:32 am by jadebenn »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8150
  • Liked: 6816
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #46 on: 11/02/2019 02:41 am »
It would be cheaper to ask Blue Origin to build a New Glenn upper stage for the SLS.  It would have two 100,000 lb. thrust BE-3U's for some real kick and a real payload. 

The existing upper stage will only have one RL-10 at what 30,000 lbs thrust.  The EUS will have what 4 RL-10's for 120 ,000 lbs.  Still seems anemic to me.  RL-10's are very expensive compared to newer engines developed by Blue Origin and SpaceX. 
Thrust is pretty much irrelevant for Block 1 and ICPS. By the time it comes into play, the core's already put the rocket on a highly elliptical orbit. A small burn at apoapsis to bring the Orion+ICPS stack's periapsis out of the atmosphere is all that's needed.

Thrust is more relevant for Block 1B and EUS, because the added mass causes the core to stage at a lower velocity, meaning that EUS has to perform the last portion of the orbital burn. However, all that info I've seen suggests that while the gravity losses of EUS hurts the SLS's theoretical payload to LEO capacity, it still beats out higher-thrust lower-Isp alternatives for payload to TLI.

More thrust at lower ISP only really helps if what you're pushing with that thrust is heavy. For instance, Block 1 would get the most payload to TLI if it used its full 95 t payload capacity to put a large EDS in LEO, and the EDS did TLI instead of ICPS doing it (and this is true even if the EDS has a much lower ISP than ICPS does). In the case of a heavy payload, the core stage would drop off before reaching orbit, so more thrust on ICPS would help. Centaur 5 might be a better option than DCSS.

New Glenn's upper stage might end up with more thrust, more propellant, and higher ISP than EUS. This would definitely give more payload to LEO, which is useful if you have a large EDS as I described above, but the larger dry mass of the stage might actually hurt it to TLI - it's hard to say for sure without better data on Blue's stage.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9101
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #47 on: 11/02/2019 02:49 am »
It seems to me like the confusion here is that all of the above say development. There has obviously been design work done, but spacenut is talking about the actual build and procurement of a flight article. I can't say that I have seen evidence of that being done, although it is not impossible that the "development" money has started to be used for it. Flight article procurement contracts or flight hardware is the evidence that would be required to counter spacenut's comments.

EUS has not passed CDR, so I would not expect to see flight hardware. The design is still being finalized. It's definitely funded though.

It's more complicated than that, while EUS is funded from Congress point of view, NASA IG has found out that Boeing is using EUS funding to cover the cost overrun for core stage, and because NASA allows Boeing to put core stage funding and EUS funding into one line item, there's no way for NASA to know how much money is spent on EUS in reality.

https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-19-001.pdf

Quote
Between June 2014 and August 2018, Boeing spent over $600 million more than planned on developing the two Core Stages.24 To cover these additional costs, Boeing has been using funds intended for EUS development, while NASA has been relying on SLS Program reserves.

Quote
NASA does not require Boeing to report detailed information on development costs for the two Core Stages and EUS, making it difficult for the Agency to determine if the contractor is meeting cost and schedule commitments for each deliverable. In accordance with current FAR guidance and consistent with leading management practices for a contract of this scope and cost, each contract deliverable should have its own CLIN in order to track costs and evaluate a contractor’s performance. However, when NASA definitized the Boeing Stages contract in 2014, individual CLINs were recommended but not required by the FAR.35 As such, NASA procurement officials combined these activities under a single CLIN to achieve a simplified approach that it hoped would reduce administrative reporting. As a result, under the Boeing Stages contract, all costs related to the two Core Stages and EUS are reported through one funding line—CLIN 9—which makes tracking current expenditures difficult. Moreover, given this cost-reporting structure, the Agency is unable to determine the cost of a single Core Stage.
« Last Edit: 11/02/2019 02:50 am by su27k »

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #48 on: 11/02/2019 03:31 am »
It seems to me like the confusion here is that all of the above say development. There has obviously been design work done, but spacenut is talking about the actual build and procurement of a flight article. I can't say that I have seen evidence of that being done, although it is not impossible that the "development" money has started to be used for it. Flight article procurement contracts or flight hardware is the evidence that would be required to counter spacenut's comments.

EUS has not passed CDR, so I would not expect to see flight hardware. The design is still being finalized. It's definitely funded though.

It's more complicated than that, while EUS is funded from Congress point of view, NASA IG has found out that Boeing is using EUS funding to cover the cost overrun for core stage, and because NASA allows Boeing to put core stage funding and EUS funding into one line item, there's no way for NASA to know how much money is spent on EUS in reality.

Then how does the NASA OIG know that 685 million wasn't spent on EUS in that time period if NASA has no way of tracking it? While they can't track it by CLIN number, they seem to have a way to break it out. Anyways, substantial money was obviously spent on EUS (in the hundreds of millions). From Jadebenn's slide, they have tooling for USA's composite structure, a flight set of engines and a flight spare, payload adapters and have been working on welding the tanks beyond just the design work well past PDR.
« Last Edit: 11/02/2019 03:39 am by ncb1397 »

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #49 on: 11/02/2019 03:47 am »
It's more complicated than that, while EUS is funded from Congress point of view, NASA IG has found out that Boeing is using EUS funding to cover the cost overrun for core stage, and because NASA allows Boeing to put core stage funding and EUS funding into one line item, there's no way for NASA to know how much money is spent on EUS in reality.
Then how does the NASA OIG know that 685 million wasn't spent on EUS in that time period if NASA has no way of tracking it? While they can't track it by CLIN number, they seem to have a way to break it out. Anyways, substantial money was obviously spent on EUS (in the hundreds of millions). From Jadebenn's slide, they have tooling for USA's composite structure, a flight set of engines and a flight spare, payload adapters and have been working on welding the tanks beyond just the design work well past PDR.
Sounds like it's a bit of both. There is obviously significant funding going to EUS, but it also seems some of that funding has been used to cover the core stage difficulties.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9101
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #50 on: 11/02/2019 04:26 am »
Then how does the NASA OIG know that 685 million wasn't spent on EUS in that time period if NASA has no way of tracking it?

I assume Boeing told NASA about it? It's not like they can keep such things as a secret, core stage cost overrun is a fact, the additional money has to come from somewhere. But only Boeing knows the exact amount.

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #51 on: 11/02/2019 04:45 am »
Then how does the NASA OIG know that 685 million wasn't spent on EUS in that time period if NASA has no way of tracking it?

I assume Boeing told NASA about it? It's not like they can keep such things as a secret, core stage cost overrun is a fact, the additional money has to come from somewhere. But only Boeing knows the exact amount.

The OIG report says that tracking expenditures is "difficult", not impossible. But Boeing has to report certified cost data to NASA in order to be reimbursed as part of a cost plus contract. Without the unique CLINs, you would have to do a detailed audit,which apparently OIG did.

But as far as knowing the "exact" amount, not having that is part of the cost savings of only having one CLIN. You can share resources(i.e. people) between both projects without having the overhead of keeping track. So when the core stage needed help from someone, they could be easily provided. So, not even Boeing would know an exact figure.
« Last Edit: 11/02/2019 04:51 am by ncb1397 »

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #52 on: 11/02/2019 05:08 am »
Jadebenn, do you work for Boeing or NASA?  Just wondering why you haven't seen the handwritting on the wall concerning NASA and "New Space".
I do not. In fact, my entry to the space fandom at-large came through the KSP and SpaceX communities a couple of years after the Shuttle stopped flying.

How I went from that to holding the opinions I do now is a long and complicated story that no-one really wants to hear, but suffice to say that I wasn't always so pro-SLS.
I assure you that you are completely wrong. I for one am very interested, no matter how boring you might think it is. For anyone who is still pro-SLS, I am interested in how they formed that opinion and why they still hold it. This is probably not the best thread for you to tell that story, but I would listen with great interest.

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #53 on: 11/02/2019 06:56 am »
I assure you that you are completely wrong. I for one am very interested, no matter how boring you might think it is. For anyone who is still pro-SLS, I am interested in how they formed that opinion and why they still hold it. This is probably not the best thread for you to tell that story, but I would listen with great interest.
I mean, I've basically summarized it in a few other posts. You can look there if you're curious. But I really don't think it'd be on-topic to discuss in this thread.

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #54 on: 11/03/2019 04:36 am »
I assure you that you are completely wrong. I for one am very interested, no matter how boring you might think it is. For anyone who is still pro-SLS, I am interested in how they formed that opinion and why they still hold it. This is probably not the best thread for you to tell that story, but I would listen with great interest.
I mean, I've basically summarized it in a few other posts. You can look there if you're curious. But I really don't think it'd be on-topic to discuss in this thread.
I have read a large number of your posts but never seen such, can you point to where you did so specifically, or pick an appropriate thread and summarize there? I already agreed that this is not the thread for it.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2019 04:37 am by meberbs »

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #55 on: 11/05/2019 08:39 pm »
New press release:

Boeing Proposes ‘Fewest Steps to the Moon’ for NASA’s Human Lander

Also confirms lander will launch on SLS Block 1B.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2240
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #56 on: 11/05/2019 08:50 pm »
IF SLS ever gets a proper upper stage! Little sign of that happening.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #57 on: 11/05/2019 08:55 pm »
« Last Edit: 11/05/2019 09:00 pm by ncb1397 »

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #58 on: 11/05/2019 09:44 pm »
Here's a mystery for y'all:



What engine is that?

Because it's certainly not the four RL-10s EUS is supposed to have.

Offline zack

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 108
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #59 on: 11/05/2019 09:45 pm »
So that EUS in Boeing's rendering has only one engine. Error, or new engine?

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1745
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1934
  • Likes Given: 1278
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #60 on: 11/05/2019 10:03 pm »
Maybe they want to air start an RS25? Wonder if anyone had ever thought of that ;D ;D ;D

Offline John Santos

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 254
  • Liked: 241
  • Likes Given: 143
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #61 on: 11/05/2019 10:29 pm »
Maybe they want to air start an RS25? Wonder if anyone had ever thought of that ;D ;D ;D
J2?

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2240
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #62 on: 11/05/2019 10:32 pm »
Could just be a stretched Delta IV-H stage with a stronger upper engine; like an MB-60. Or maybe the J-2X is coming back from the dead...
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #63 on: 11/05/2019 10:34 pm »
Seriously guys? The nozzles from the other engines are obscured..

« Last Edit: 11/05/2019 10:34 pm by ncb1397 »

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #64 on: 11/05/2019 10:37 pm »
No, different angle. The other engines should be visible.


Offline Captain Crutch

Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #65 on: 11/05/2019 11:49 pm »
No, different angle. The other engines should be visible.


Seems like there’s atleast one more engine to me...

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #66 on: 11/05/2019 11:55 pm »
I think the design of the lander is a bit more interesting. Appears to be 12 main engines on the descent stage and 8 on the ascent stage with a common engine design. It appears to be a split habitat with egress and ingress going through the lower habitable volume (that likely also functions as an air lock). One body mounted fixed solar panel on the ascent stage and 2 deployable solar panels on the descent stage. 4 deployable landing gear.

edit: One other observation is that there appears to be a hinged protective cover on the top mounted docking port.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2019 12:10 am by ncb1397 »

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #67 on: 11/05/2019 11:57 pm »
Seems like there’s atleast one more engine to me...
Ah damn, I think you're right. It looks like they left the "firing" effect off the others, which contributed to it seeming like there was only a single engine in the render.

False alarm!
« Last Edit: 11/05/2019 11:58 pm by jadebenn »

Offline Athelstane

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
  • Washington, D.C.
  • Liked: 330
  • Likes Given: 902
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #68 on: 11/06/2019 03:56 am »
It's impossible to even try to evaluate the technical merits of this architecture, since all we have so far are two renders, and a press release.

The politics of the decision are little more apparent. Basically, they've resurrected Constellation, only with a second Ares V replacing the Stick. And Boeing building almost everything.

In their favor, it's obvious that Boeing has friendly ears on the Hill, as we saw when multiple congressmen were literally reciting Doug Cooke's op-ed in the hearings over the last several weeks, and that doesn't even count one very important friend over in the Senate. If this isn't enough to win Boeing the Option A award, it will make it politically harder to avoid giving them Option B.

Working against them will be the strong desire to spread the funding around. Blue Origin's group bid would certainly meet that desire in spades. Boeing doesn't have the same kind of major partners. Of course that also is probably true of SpaceX's bid (which we know nothing about yet, to be sure). Likewise, ditching Gateway will step on some toes, inside the agency and out, especially given international interest in contributing to it.

Sliding them to Option B would also have the advantage of not requiring EUS to be ready in 2024, something that will require some more serious funding up front for a major stage that hasn't reached CDR yet. Needing to launch two SLS Block 1B's for each mission obviously won't be cheap either, regardless of which set of cost estimates you work from; but perhaps Boeing is arguing that this would be offset by dispensing with Gateway and any commercial launches.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2019 04:18 am by Athelstane »

Offline Athelstane

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
  • Washington, D.C.
  • Liked: 330
  • Likes Given: 902
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #69 on: 11/06/2019 04:08 am »
Other than NASA is going to use a Delta IV Heavy upper stage, when was money appropriated for the Block 1B upper stage (EUS)?  If it has been recently appropriated, it will be 3-4 years before it is built as slow as NASA and Boeing goes. 

2016:
Quote
Provided further, That of the amounts
provided for SLS, not less than $85,000,000 shall be for enhanced upper
stage development
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2029/text

2017:
Quote
Provided further, That of the amounts
provided for SLS, not less than $300,000,000 shall be for Exploration
Upper Stage development
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/244/text

2018:
Quote
Provided further, That of the amounts
provided for SLS, not less than $300,000,000 shall be for Exploration
Upper Stage development
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1625/text

2019:
Quote
Provided further, That of the amounts
provided for SLS, not less than $150,000,000 shall be for Exploration
Upper Stage development
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/31/text

So, basically, $835 million appropriated, to date. Right? Which has got it through PDR, I believe, but not CDR yet. Some of which apparently has been diverted to cover core development cost overruns, though we do not know how much.

Do we have a total cost projection of EUS development and integration from NASA yet? I've not seen any yet, but I could have overlooked it.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2019 04:19 am by Athelstane »

Offline helixdq

  • Member
  • Posts: 9
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #70 on: 11/06/2019 08:28 am »
I am really liking the descent stage design with airlock/inner chamber Boeing is going for.
They would be leaving something useful on the surface, that could potentially function as a mini-outpost/storage space for future missions, also no venting of the entire atmosphere out when you leave is always a plus. And it has a cute, homey feel.

Obviously if they assume they get an SLS 1b flight all to themselves they are working with totally different mass and volume margins compared to the Blue Origin coallition and their submarine/lift thing.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #71 on: 11/06/2019 08:29 am »
Boeing have proven they can't deliver look at how behind SLS is, add EUS plus lander and we are looking at 2034 for lunar landing. Plus a budget blow out that would put JWST program to shame. At least JWST had some serious engineering hurdles to overcome.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7291
  • Liked: 2788
  • Likes Given: 1463
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #72 on: 11/06/2019 11:58 am »
How does lander handle boiloff at gateway while waiting months for crew mission

For hydrogen it would be a big deal, but lox and methane are sometimes referred to as "space-storeable."

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8150
  • Liked: 6816
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #73 on: 11/06/2019 12:42 pm »
How does lander handle boiloff at gateway while waiting months for crew mission

For hydrogen it would be a big deal, but lox and methane are sometimes referred to as "space-storeable."

Boeing is partnering with Intuitive Machines who have been developing methalox engines, so that seems likely.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7291
  • Liked: 2788
  • Likes Given: 1463
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #74 on: 11/06/2019 12:44 pm »
So if Boeing wins the bid, they will have to launch two SLS's to get astronauts in Orion and the lander to the moon by in space docking.  Wow, a moon landing for about $3 billion or more per landing.  Not counting the LOP-G station.  This is way expensive to use the SLS.
If you're that confident the bid will be financially uncompetitive, then you should have nothing to worry about.

It's not like there are other costs beside launch costs that factor into bidding a lunar lander. Development of new technology is free as we all know, and there is no possibility that a two-stage SLS-launched design might be easier and cheaper to develop than a three-stage commercially-launched design, or that those cost-savings might be enough to offset the higher launch costs, especially since we're only considering SLS marginal costs. ::)

The same Congress approved CxP and then refused to fully fund it and that wrote SLS's engineering specs into law with no visible input from engineers is perfectly capable of imposing a financially uncompetitive proposal from a politically connected vendor on NASA.

Quote
In all seriousness, do you think Boeing is stupid? If they didn't think an SLS-launched bid was competitive they wouldn't propose it.

There is nothing stupid about Boeing proposing this.  It stands a good chance of becoming another of the company's cash cows, which is exactly what its shareholders want.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12130
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18308
  • Likes Given: 12267
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #75 on: 11/06/2019 04:37 pm »
There is nothing stupid about Boeing proposing this.  It stands a good chance of becoming another of the company's cash cows, which is exactly what its shareholders Richard Shelby wants.

There. Fixed that for ya.

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #76 on: 11/06/2019 05:02 pm »
There is nothing stupid about Boeing proposing this.  It stands a good chance of becoming another of the company's cash cows, which is exactly what its shareholders Richard Shelby wants.

There. Fixed that for ya.

He is an Alabama partisan, not a Boeing partisan...

Quote
U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, on Thursday ripped top Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, for their handling of the Air Force tanker competition, accusing them of tilting the selection criteria in favor of Boeing Co.

"One would think that our Air Force's top priority would be to ensure that our men and women in uniform have the best, most capable equipment. Clearly that is not the case," Shelby said in a speech on the Senate floor.
https://www.al.com/live/2009/10/us_sen_richard_shelby_accuses.html

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 850
  • Liked: 899
  • Likes Given: 142
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #77 on: 11/06/2019 05:42 pm »
There is nothing stupid about Boeing proposing this.  It stands a good chance of becoming another of the company's cash cows, which is exactly what its shareholders want.

I promise you, nothing coming out of the space exploration domain is a cash cow.

Don't believe me?  Look up the shareholder reports.  Revenue from space exploration is in the noise.

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2346
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1983
  • Likes Given: 1168
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #78 on: 11/06/2019 06:07 pm »
My first thought looking at the descent stage is the the solar panels on it could be designed to be easily removed and used on a surface habitat.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7291
  • Liked: 2788
  • Likes Given: 1463
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #79 on: 11/06/2019 06:27 pm »
I promise you, nothing coming out of the space exploration domain is a cash cow.

Don't believe me?  Look up the shareholder reports.  Revenue from space exploration is in the noise.

It's small as a fraction of Boeing's business, but the resources committed by Boeing are also small.  Why would Boeing shareholders not want more cost-plus contracts?

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5190
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2591
  • Likes Given: 2903
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #80 on: 11/06/2019 06:39 pm »
As for the Air Force tankers.   Boeing's tankers would not be made in Alabama.  Airbus would make the tankers in Mobile.  Same with SLS parts and engines that are made in Alabama.  SpaceX is not made in Alabama other than the stainless steel rolls for Starship. 

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #81 on: 11/06/2019 06:43 pm »
How does lander handle boiloff at gateway while waiting months for crew mission

For hydrogen it would be a big deal, but lox and methane are sometimes referred to as "space-storeable."

The Block 1B and single launch lander deals with that problem. You can stack the Block 1B on ML-2 and then store it in one of the other VAB bays while the Orion carrying Block 1 is stacked on ML-1. You could even launch crew first so the lander departs shortly after arrival in lunar orbit. It probably makes sense to launch the crew first so that the lander has more flexibility in instituting an Orion rescue mission if need be.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7291
  • Liked: 2788
  • Likes Given: 1463
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #82 on: 11/06/2019 08:52 pm »
You can stack the Block 1B on ML-2 and then store it in one of the other VAB bays while the Orion carrying Block 1 is stacked on ML-1. You could even launch crew first so the lander departs shortly after arrival in lunar orbit. It probably makes sense to launch the crew first so that the lander has more flexibility in instituting an Orion rescue mission if need be.

But the minimum interval between SLS launches is 120 days.  Am I missing something?

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #83 on: 11/06/2019 09:33 pm »
You can stack the Block 1B on ML-2 and then store it in one of the other VAB bays while the Orion carrying Block 1 is stacked on ML-1. You could even launch crew first so the lander departs shortly after arrival in lunar orbit. It probably makes sense to launch the crew first so that the lander has more flexibility in instituting an Orion rescue mission if need be.

But the minimum interval between SLS launches is 120 days.  Am I missing something?

Shuttle did turn arounds a lot faster than that (frequently in the ~1 month range) and had the capability to rescue one shuttle with a damaged heat shield with another launched only a few days apart. The key enabler was multiple mobile launchers so multiple vehicles could be stacked at the same time.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2019 09:34 pm by ncb1397 »

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #84 on: 11/06/2019 09:47 pm »
You can stack the Block 1B on ML-2 and then store it in one of the other VAB bays while the Orion carrying Block 1 is stacked on ML-1. You could even launch crew first so the lander departs shortly after arrival in lunar orbit. It probably makes sense to launch the crew first so that the lander has more flexibility in instituting an Orion rescue mission if need be.

But the minimum interval between SLS launches is 120 days.  Am I missing something?

I'm pretty sure the 120 days estimate assumes there's only one ML
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #85 on: 11/08/2019 09:25 pm »
Quote
Check out this new view of our Human Lander System docked with Gateway. The integrated lander’s flexible, reliable design will safely take astronauts down to the Moon’s surface. The Lander and Gateway combination is essential to sustained lunar exploration and to go to Mars.
https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1192908333478502406
« Last Edit: 11/08/2019 09:26 pm by ncb1397 »

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #86 on: 11/15/2019 12:26 am »
I found what appears to be a presentation going over the precursor to the current lander design:

https://imgur.com/a/N6jgfBo

An ECLSS capacity for a two-week surface stay is going to be a big selling point, IMO. Doubt the national team will be able to match that. They'll probably be constrained to a one week surface stay.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2240
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #87 on: 11/15/2019 12:53 am »
I would think that being able to stay for a full Lunar day would be the gold standard for future human Lunar missions. Staying a whole lunar night as well after that would be very interesting. Could the Lander cope with that by being upgraded; or would future expeditions require a separate, 'hardened' surface Habitat? Doing EVA's during Lunar midday would be thermally challenging - but so would lunar midnight! It can get pretty darn cold there. The light levels from even a half-lit Earth should be sufficient to light a Lunar landscape though.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #88 on: 11/15/2019 01:31 am »
I would think that being able to stay for a full Lunar day would be the gold standard for future human Lunar missions. Staying a whole lunar night as well after that would be very interesting. Could the Lander cope with that by being upgraded; or would future expeditions require a separate, 'hardened' surface Habitat? Doing EVA's during Lunar midday would be thermally challenging - but so would lunar midnight! It can get pretty darn cold there. The light levels from even a half-lit Earth should be sufficient to light a Lunar landscape though.
I'd imagine the main constraint would be life support. That's certainly the impression I get from reading the HLS solicitation, at least.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7291
  • Liked: 2788
  • Likes Given: 1463
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #89 on: 11/15/2019 01:20 pm »
Is there any indication that any part of Boeing's lander would be reusable?

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Istanbul Turkey and Santa Fe TEXAS USA
  • Liked: 588
  • Likes Given: 2095
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #90 on: 11/15/2019 01:23 pm »
I found what appears to be a presentation going over the precursor to the current lander design:

https://imgur.com/a/N6jgfBo

An ECLSS capacity for a two-week surface stay is going to be a big selling point, IMO. Doubt the national team will be able to match that. They'll probably be constrained to a one week surface stay.

the lander that Bezos talked about is capable of lunar night operation, it uses fuel cells

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #91 on: 11/15/2019 05:35 pm »
Is there any indication that any part of Boeing's lander would be reusable?

Possibly the ascent module:
Quote
Boeing’s lander would be capable of carrying a two-person crew to the lunar surface in 2024, meeting the requirements set in NASA’s solicitation for a Human Landing System. Future landers could include reusable ascent modules and cryogenic engines, McGrath said.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/11/09/boeing-proposes-sls-launched-lunar-lander/

You would presumably just launch tanks mounted on top of the descent module while some infrastructure like the arm aids the transfer of propellant. The fact that it appears there is a habitat inside the descent module would suggest possible re-use of the descent module for longer term pressurized volume(once you deploy power infrastructure that maintains power during lunar night). Beyond that, if you could refuel the descent module from local resources, it would be able to ferry back up to gateway (or you just use the ascent module both ways once you get to that point).
« Last Edit: 11/15/2019 05:41 pm by ncb1397 »

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Istanbul Turkey and Santa Fe TEXAS USA
  • Liked: 588
  • Likes Given: 2095
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #92 on: 11/15/2019 05:52 pm »
Is there any indication that any part of Boeing's lander would be reusable?

Possibly the ascent module:
Quote
Boeing’s lander would be capable of carrying a two-person crew to the lunar surface in 2024, meeting the requirements set in NASA’s solicitation for a Human Landing System. Future landers could include reusable ascent modules and cryogenic engines, McGrath said.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/11/09/boeing-proposes-sls-launched-lunar-lander/

You would presumably just launch tanks mounted on top of the descent module while some infrastructure like the arm aids the transfer of propellant. The fact that it appears there is a habitat inside the descent module would suggest possible re-use of the descent module for longer term pressurized volume(once you deploy power infrastructure that maintains power during lunar night). Beyond that, if you could refuel the descent module from local resources, it would be able to ferry back up to gateway (or you just use the ascent module both ways once you get to that point).

its a guess and not related to any other information but I suspect little of it is reusable if anything is. 

Boeing is projecting a architecture that requires at least two SLS launches for the program.  Both vehicles can be opreated independent of a gateway station...which if there is a Boeing plan, cannot be built...ie there is no money for it and there would be no SLS's to launch elements of it

another guess is that Boeing does not believe that a reusable vehicle can be built in that short a time...and without a gateway there is no place to park it or reassemble it

It probably would be the cheapest :) of the two options.  it would take two SLS and both Orion and whatever the lander is named...so probably 3 to 4 billion a year.  The gateway would have the lander cost, the SLS cost, the gateway cost and the cost to resupply the gateway.   the gateway will probably cost around 20 billion to design and build and launch.

and there would be 1 a year

I dont support either BTW

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2240
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #93 on: 11/15/2019 09:11 pm »
One of the major reasons for the Gateway's existence will be to make up for the Orion's relatively miserable delta-v and basically, lack of a decent propellant load :(
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2346
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1983
  • Likes Given: 1168
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #94 on: 11/15/2019 09:46 pm »
One of the major reasons for the Gateway's existence will be to make up for the Orion's relatively miserable delta-v and basically, lack of a decent propellant load :(
And nobody is asking what it would take to stretch the service module a meter or so to where it could carry enough propellant.  I understand it would need about a 56% increase in fuel load to handle injection into LLO and return to Earth.  With the EUS, SLS should have no problem launching the heavier load into TLI. 

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8910
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10260
  • Likes Given: 11997
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #95 on: 11/15/2019 10:05 pm »
One of the major reasons for the Gateway's existence will be to make up for the Orion's relatively miserable delta-v and basically, lack of a decent propellant load :(
And nobody is asking what it would take to stretch the service module a meter or so to where it could carry enough propellant.  I understand it would need about a 56% increase in fuel load to handle injection into LLO and return to Earth.  With the EUS, SLS should have no problem launching the heavier load into TLI.

Even though it's been assumed the Orion would be required to reach the Moon, and it had been proposed that the Orion could be used beyond the Moon (i.e. asteroid mission), in reality the Artemis program is the first real program that the Orion is slated to support. And that program has only seriously been talked about for about a year, so there has been no time to make changes to the ALSO behind schedule Orion MPCV.

Plus, the Orion Service Module is a contribution from the European Space Agency (ESA) as part of what it contributes to the ISS program, and if NASA asked for modifications then it's likely that NASA, not ESA, would have to cough up the money for that. And to recap, Congress has not yet funded the Artemis program that must use the Orion, so funding (along with schedule) is not likely to favor such a modification.
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 MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2240
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #96 on: 11/15/2019 11:21 pm »
You're quite right. In principle, 'stretching' the Orion Service Module to increase it's propellant load would be 'simple' to do. Widening would be a lot more complex and would basically be a complete redesign. Stretching the SM by 1 or 1.5 meters (I'm not sure) should give between 3 to 4 metric tons more propellants. A real engineer would have to crunch those numbers. As Eric said; the EUS should be able to handle the weight no problem.

But a stretched SM would mean that the whole Orion spacecraft would have to be rebalanced, tested etc, which would take money and time an already late program can't afford, so...

But could a 'two stage' solution be worked out? By that - I mean what if Orion used 2x 'stacked' Service Modules? The second SM could be simplified with no crew consumables and no solar arrays: it could just have the 9 ton propellant load and batteries to last a few days to get the CM & SM 'Stack' to low lunar orbit where that first SM could be jettisoned after L.O.I?

Actually; it occurs to me that the two Service Modules would not have to be stacked - the second SM could be carried by the EUS as a co-manifested payload. After TLI, the Orion could do a transposition and docking maneuver and dock with a docking system-equipped SM, making it a propulsion Tug. When arriving at the Moon and doing L.O.I, the Orion then jettisons the Tug and goes to meet a waiting Lunar Lander. No Gateway required. Or substitute a propellant depot if we want to have an eventual reusable Crew Lander.
« Last Edit: 11/15/2019 11:22 pm by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2346
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1983
  • Likes Given: 1168
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #97 on: 11/16/2019 01:05 am »
You're quite right. In principle, 'stretching' the Orion Service Module to increase it's propellant load would be 'simple' to do. Widening would be a lot more complex and would basically be a complete redesign. Stretching the SM by 1 or 1.5 meters (I'm not sure) should give between 3 to 4 metric tons more propellants. A real engineer would have to crunch those numbers. As Eric said; the EUS should be able to handle the weight no problem.

But a stretched SM would mean that the whole Orion spacecraft would have to be rebalanced, tested etc, which would take money and time an already late program can't afford, so...

But could a 'two stage' solution be worked out? By that - I mean what if Orion used 2x 'stacked' Service Modules? The second SM could be simplified with no crew consumables and no solar arrays: it could just have the 9 ton propellant load and batteries to last a few days to get the CM & SM 'Stack' to low lunar orbit where that first SM could be jettisoned after L.O.I?

Actually; it occurs to me that the two Service Modules would not have to be stacked - the second SM could be carried by the EUS as a co-manifested payload. After TLI, the Orion could do a transposition and docking maneuver and dock with a docking system-equipped SM, making it a propulsion Tug. When arriving at the Moon and doing L.O.I, the Orion then jettisons the Tug and goes to meet a waiting Lunar Lander. No Gateway required. Or substitute a propellant depot if we want to have an eventual reusable Crew Lander.
How about using the tug in Blue Origin's lunar lander proposal from NGIS?  Would that have enough delta V to do the trick?  Having more missions for the same design should reduce the per mission cost.

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #98 on: 11/16/2019 02:43 am »
Both vehicles can be opreated independent of a gateway station...which if there is a Boeing plan, cannot be built..
Baseless speculation.
« Last Edit: 11/16/2019 02:50 am by jadebenn »

Online TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4531
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3378
  • Likes Given: 649
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #99 on: 11/16/2019 10:14 pm »
Before proceeding to a 2-SLS architecture, let's look at a single Block 1B launch with a co-manifested AE/DE.

The Block 1B co-manifesting... limit? guideline?... is 10 tonnes.  If that's the case, then a 2-stage AE/DE combo that flies from NRHO is almost impossible.  Even with a hydrolox DE and a pumped-methalox AE, I get:

AE (Isp=360, delta-v=2810 m/s):
All inert mass (dry, crew, equipment, consumables): 2.5 t to surface, 2.0 t back to NRHO
Methalox mass (assuming we leave 0.5 t on the surface): 2.4 t

DE (Isp=450, delta-v=2855 m/s with 4.9 t AE):
Dry mass: 0.4 t (SMF=8.0%)
Hydrolox mass: 4.9 t
Total co-manifested mass: 10.2 t (Note:  0.2 t are crew, transferred from Orion in NRHO.)

This is a tiny AE, somewhat smaller than the LM ascent stage.  Hydrolox has to last for at least 5 days, likely 7.  Methalox has to last for 7 days on the lunar surface in daylight.  It's unlikely that it can fulfill the 7-day mission requirement, and it's certainly not a viable basis for a sustainable architecture. 

So now we're down to two SLS launches per mission, no doubt just as Boeing wants.

The moment you launch a separate Block 1B SLS to handle the lander, you limit yourself to storables, because the second SLS will still be under construction when you launch the first one.  Figure 9 months sitting in NRHO.  I doubt you can maintain enough helium that long for pressure-fed engines, so let's look at pumped MMH/NTO for both stages.  I'm assuming a 38 t limit for the stack to get it to fit on the Block 1B cargo with fairings and PAFs and whatnot:

AE (Isp=345, delta-v=2810)
All inert mass: 6.6 t to LS, 6.1 t back to NRHO
MMH/NTO prop: 7.9 t

DE (Isp=345, delta-v=2855 with AE wet mass of 14.5 t)
Inert mass: 1.9 t (SMF=8.0%)
Prop mass: 21.7 t
Total co-manifested mass:38.1 t  (again, crew boards in NRHO)

Finally, if you have one Block 1B, you likely have two, so a last possible configuration (which doesn't appear to be what Boeing is planning) is a storable DAE launched on the cargo flight, and a methalox TE co-manifested with the Orion.  If we discard the TE in LLO (and why wouldn't we?  after all, just the launches for this mission cost at least $5B...) that gives us quite a luxurious DAE:

DAE (Isp=345, delta-v LLO to LS=2110, LS to NRHO=2810)
Inert mass: 7.7 t to LLO-LS, 7.2 t LS-NRHO
MMH/NTO Prop: 30.3 t
DAE launch mass: 38.0 t

TE (Isp=360, delta-v NRHO to LLO=745 with 38 t DAE)
Inert mass: 0.8 t (SMF=8.0%)
Methalox prop: 9.1 t
Total co-manifested mass: 9.9 t

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #100 on: 11/16/2019 11:07 pm »
The moment you launch a separate Block 1B SLS to handle the lander, you limit yourself to storables, because the second SLS will still be under construction when you launch the first one.
This is a bad assumption. There are two mobile launchers. If NASA wants, they are fully capable of outfitting high bay 1 and stacking a second SLS at the same time as the first.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8910
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10260
  • Likes Given: 11997
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #101 on: 11/16/2019 11:22 pm »
The moment you launch a separate Block 1B SLS to handle the lander, you limit yourself to storables, because the second SLS will still be under construction when you launch the first one.
This is a bad assumption. There are two mobile launchers. If NASA wants, they are fully capable of outfitting high bay 1 and stacking a second SLS at the same time as the first.

The current Mobile Launch Platform (MLP) can only handle the Block 1 configuration, and the new MLP is being built to handle Block 1B and Block 2, so if there was a need to launch more than one SLS per year then it's likely they would only use the new MLP (it can handle multiple launches per year). The only opportunity to use both MLP would be at the transition from Block 1 to Block 1B/2, and I think that is too soon to allow a plan to do 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 jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #102 on: 11/17/2019 12:01 am »
The current Mobile Launch Platform (MLP) can only handle the Block 1 configuration, and the new MLP is being built to handle Block 1B and Block 2, so if there was a need to launch more than one SLS per year then it's likely they would only use the new MLP (it can handle multiple launches per year). The only opportunity to use both MLP would be at the transition from Block 1 to Block 1B/2, and I think that is too soon to allow a plan to do that.
Even with the current ML configuration it would be entirely possible to launch a Block 1 crewed SLS in conjunction with a Block 1B cargo SLS with very little turnaround if high bay 1 is set up for it.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2019 12:01 am by jadebenn »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8910
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10260
  • Likes Given: 11997
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #103 on: 11/17/2019 12:24 am »
The current Mobile Launch Platform (MLP) can only handle the Block 1 configuration, and the new MLP is being built to handle Block 1B and Block 2, so if there was a need to launch more than one SLS per year then it's likely they would only use the new MLP (it can handle multiple launches per year). The only opportunity to use both MLP would be at the transition from Block 1 to Block 1B/2, and I think that is too soon to allow a plan to do that.
Even with the current ML configuration it would be entirely possible to launch a Block 1 crewed SLS in conjunction with a Block 1B cargo SLS with very little turnaround if high bay 1 is set up for it.

When I was researching this topic it was implied that only the new MLP could handle the Orion configuration. But it wasn't stated.

However there is only one point in the future where flying a Block 1 and a Block 1B significantly less than 12 months apart can happen, and that is right around 2024. And we know that Boeing doesn't have ability, currently, to build more than one SLS per year - it would take an act of Congress to fund the ability to build more than one per year.

So while theoretically what you propose could happen, it's likely outside the realm of possibility at this late stage of the program.
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 jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #104 on: 11/17/2019 12:45 am »
When I was researching this topic it was implied that only the new MLP could handle the Orion configuration. But it wasn't stated.
Can you clarify what you mean by this?
However there is only one point in the future where flying a Block 1 and a Block 1B significantly less than 12 months apart can happen, and that is right around 2024. And we know that Boeing doesn't have ability, currently, to build more than one SLS per year - it would take an act of Congress to fund the ability to build more than one per year.
I'm quite certain that Boeing's lander proposal isn't going to gimp non-lander SLS production. That would go against the terms laid down for using SLS in the HLS solicitation.

In other words, the only way they can make a proposal that complies with the HLS requirements is to push the production rate above 1 per year.

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #105 on: 11/17/2019 12:47 am »
When I was researching this topic it was implied that only the new MLP could handle the Orion configuration. But it wasn't stated.
Can you clarify what you mean by this?
However there is only one point in the future where flying a Block 1 and a Block 1B significantly less than 12 months apart can happen, and that is right around 2024. And we know that Boeing doesn't have ability, currently, to build more than one SLS per year - it would take an act of Congress to fund the ability to build more than one per year.
I'm quite certain that Boeing's lander proposal isn't going to gimp non-lander SLS production. That would go against the terms laid down for using SLS in the HLS solicitation.

In other words, the only way they can make a proposal that complies with the HLS requirements is to push the production rate above 1 per year.

HLS program will pay for the additional cost of the launch vehicle(s) (whether that is New Glenn/Falcon Heavy/SLS/etc.). There is no requirement for an act of congress.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2019 12:48 am by ncb1397 »

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #106 on: 11/17/2019 12:49 am »
HLS program will pay for the additional cost of the launch vehicle.
That is actually the opposite of what they'll do. They'll pay for it as part of a bid (in the same way they'd pay for a New Glenn launch as part of Blue's bid), but they've explicitly stated they're not giving Boeing's lander a free ride.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2019 12:49 am by jadebenn »

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #107 on: 11/17/2019 03:45 am »
You know, according to this press release from 2014, it only cost about $100M to outfit VAB High Bay 3 for SLS. I see no reason that shouldn't hold with High Bay 1.

So if it only costs ~$100M to enable dual launch of Block 1 and Block 1B, there's really nothing stopping NASA from doing so if such a capability is ever needed.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2019 03:50 am by jadebenn »

Online TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4531
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3378
  • Likes Given: 649
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #108 on: 11/17/2019 03:59 am »
The moment you launch a separate Block 1B SLS to handle the lander, you limit yourself to storables, because the second SLS will still be under construction when you launch the first one.
This is a bad assumption. There are two mobile launchers. If NASA wants, they are fully capable of outfitting high bay 1 and stacking a second SLS at the same time as the first.

Stacking isn't the long pole in the tent.  Based on behavior so far, manufacturing is.  And how much more money would you be planning on throwing at EGS to get two stacks running at the same time, with two sets of SRBs?  Good thing that there won't be any stray LOX domes lounging about.

I guess you could store a core in the VAB, then finish stacking just as the second one came out of Stennis.  But it's still likely to take a month or two to stack the second SLS--especially one with an Orion on it--after the first one has rolled out.  That's still too long for cryogenics without a bunch of low-TRL stuff being required by Artemis.

Online TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4531
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3378
  • Likes Given: 649
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #109 on: 11/17/2019 04:02 am »
You know, according to this press release from 2014, it only cost about $100M to outfit VAB High Bay 3 for SLS. I see no reason that shouldn't hold with High Bay 1.

So if it only costs ~$100M to enable dual launch of Block 1 and Block 1B, there's really nothing stopping NASA from doing so if such a capability is ever needed.

Just to be clear, if you're going to launch two SLSes nearly simultaneously for Artemis 3, you're not talking about some dim, distant eventuality.  You'd pretty much have to have the contracts in place by now.  Oh, yeah:  Don't forget that you won't be doing any High Bay expansion work that'll interfere with Artemis 1.

I think it's much more likely that they simply build an AE/DE that use storables.

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #110 on: 11/17/2019 04:17 am »
Stacking isn't the long pole in the tent.  Based on behavior so far, manufacturing is.
True. But Boeing's going to have to do something about that either way if their proposal gets chosen.
And how much more money would you be planning on throwing at EGS to get two stacks running at the same time, with two sets of SRBs?  Good thing that there won't be any stray LOX domes lounging about.
Would the requirements really be all that much more than for stacking one SLS? I'm certain they'd need to hire some more people, but these things don't scale linearly.
I guess you could store a core in the VAB, then finish stacking just as the second one came out of Stennis.  But it's still likely to take a month or two to stack the second SLS--especially one with an Orion on it--after the first one has rolled out.  That's still too long for cryogenics without a bunch of low-TRL stuff being required by Artemis.
You don't need to ship out the first SLS until the second's ready with the two high bay plan.
Just to be clear, if you're going to launch two SLSes nearly simultaneously for Artemis 3, you're not talking about some dim, distant eventuality.  You'd pretty much have to have the contracts in place by now.  Oh, yeah:  Don't forget that you won't be doing any High Bay expansion work that'll interfere with Artemis 1.
Let's see. Artemis 3 is 2024. HB-3 modifications were contracted in 2014, and finished in 2017. 3 years.

Assuming that there's no speed improvements and that they want to finish VAB modifications before the end of 2023, that gives them until the end of next year to start working on it. So yeah, they'd have to act soon, but it's not yet been ruled out as an option.

Also, I don't see where there'd be much possibility for interference. High Bay 1 and High Bay 3 don't share any equipment insofar as stacking rockets goes. There'd be more possibility of conflicts with High Bay 2 (which will eventually start being equipped for OmegA) than conflicts with High Bay 3.
I think it's much more likely that they simply build an AE/DE that use storables.
Their partnership with Intuitive Machines (which makes methalox engines) wouldn't make much sense if an all-storable lander was their game-plan.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2019 04:33 am by jadebenn »

Online TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4531
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3378
  • Likes Given: 649
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #111 on: 11/17/2019 04:34 am »
Let's see. Artemis 3 is 2024. HB-3 modifications were contracted in 2014, and finished in 2017. 3 years.

Assuming that there's no speed improvements and that they want to finish VAB modifications before the end of 2023, that gives them until the end of next year to start working on it. So yeah, they'd have to act soon, but it's not yet been ruled out as an option.

Also, I don't see where there'd be much possibility for interference. High Bay 1 and High Bay 3 don't share any equipment insofar as stacking rockets goes. There'd be more possibility of conflicts with High Bay 2 (which will eventually start being equipped for OmegA) than conflicts with High Bay 3.

They're not going to let somebody even breathe on the VAB configuration with an SLS in there.  And you've got Artemis 2 in there somewhere.  How long does stacking take?  Four months?  So you're going to do all the work between (optimistically) mid 2021 and mid-2022? Or (more realistically) late 2023?

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #112 on: 11/17/2019 04:47 am »
They're not going to let somebody even breathe on the VAB configuration with an SLS in there.  And you've got Artemis 2 in there somewhere.  How long does stacking take?  Four months?  So you're going to do all the work between (optimistically) mid 2021 and mid-2022? Or (more realistically) late 2023?
I think you're overstating their caution. As far as I'm aware, NGIS has not conducted any modifications to High Bay 2 for OmegA yet. They'll need to eventually. If NASA was going to be as strict as you claim about work going on in other High Bays while SLS is being stacked, you'd think that NGIS would be hustling to get that done right about now.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2019 04:49 am by jadebenn »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8910
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10260
  • Likes Given: 11997
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #113 on: 11/17/2019 06:05 am »
When I was researching this topic it was implied that only the new MLP could handle the Orion configuration. But it wasn't stated.
Can you clarify what you mean by this?

From what I read it seemed that the Orion would only be able to launch from either a modified version of the current MLP, or the new MLP that will be needed for the Block 1B and Block 2. That needs to be verified though.

Quote
However there is only one point in the future where flying a Block 1 and a Block 1B significantly less than 12 months apart can happen, and that is right around 2024. And we know that Boeing doesn't have ability, currently, to build more than one SLS per year - it would take an act of Congress to fund the ability to build more than one per year.
I'm quite certain that Boeing's lander proposal isn't going to gimp non-lander SLS production. That would go against the terms laid down for using SLS in the HLS solicitation.

Just because Boeing bid it doesn't mean they are likely to do it. I think they would need quite a bit of money to do a non-NASA launch of the SLS.

Quote
In other words, the only way they can make a proposal that complies with the HLS requirements is to push the production rate above 1 per year.

That seems to be the case. Which is possible, but only if NASA pours more money and personnel into the SLS facility.
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 jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #114 on: 11/17/2019 06:17 am »
From what I read it seemed that the Orion would only be able to launch from either a modified version of the current MLP, or the new MLP that will be needed for the Block 1B and Block 2. That needs to be verified though.
That can't be right. The current plan has Artemis 2 on Block 1, which means they're using the existing ML to launch crew.
Just because Boeing bid it doesn't mean they are likely to do it. I think they would need quite a bit of money to do a non-NASA launch of the SLS.
I mean, it would be a NASA launch in all-but contracting relationship. Customer is NASA, launch is in service of NASA's goals and programs, etc. Basically like CCrew or COTS.
Quote
In other words, the only way they can make a proposal that complies with the HLS requirements is to push the production rate above 1 per year.
That seems to be the case. Which is possible, but only if NASA pours more money and personnel into the SLS facility.
I just posted this on a comment of yours in another thread, but I think it's relevant here too. Bridenstine's previous comments suggest the impetus to invest is on Boeing.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1184473771798880257

This was actually one of the remarks that convinced me Boeing was going for an SLS-launched lander before that was officially confirmed.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2019 06:21 am by jadebenn »

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #115 on: 11/17/2019 12:01 pm »
Their partnership with Intuitive Machines (which makes methalox engines) wouldn't make much sense if an all-storable lander was their game-plan.

That is what their game plan is. They are exploring other technology though.

Quote
“Our typical propulsion partner tends to be Aerojet Rocketdyne,” he said. “We are looking at alternate sources, too, depending on their maturity, but there are some off-the shelf engines that we’re looking at from Aerojet Rocketdyne, that are flying on commercial crew, so existing engines.”

Boeing is looking at storable hypergolic propellant systems for the engines on the 2024 lunar landing mission, McGrath said.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/11/09/boeing-proposes-sls-launched-lunar-lander/
« Last Edit: 11/17/2019 12:02 pm by ncb1397 »

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Istanbul Turkey and Santa Fe TEXAS USA
  • Liked: 588
  • Likes Given: 2095
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #116 on: 11/17/2019 12:21 pm »
Both vehicles can be opreated independent of a gateway station...which if there is a Boeing plan, cannot be built..
Baseless speculation.

not if production flight rate stays at 1 per year.  if it moves up to two per year that would be the two Boeing would need for their program

the sticking point is the 24 deadline.  they will be lucky very lucky to have SLS and the Capsule flying by 22.  it is unlikely that by 23 which is when it would have to test they will have another upper stage for SLS...and it is even more unlikely they will have a lander...

its not only a money limitation but its just a simple build fly test cycle. 

all this seems to be an argument around a circle anyway as support for the 24 deadline is evaporating

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12130
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18308
  • Likes Given: 12267
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #117 on: 11/17/2019 12:35 pm »
The moment you launch a separate Block 1B SLS to handle the lander, you limit yourself to storables, because the second SLS will still be under construction when you launch the first one.
This is a bad assumption. There are two mobile launchers. If NASA wants, they are fully capable of outfitting high bay 1 and stacking a second SLS at the same time as the first.

Minor nit: that second ML will not be ready to allow stacking of a second SLS for many years to come.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9101
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #118 on: 02/11/2020 03:47 am »
So the 2021 NASA budget request throws some wrenches into Boeing's plan:
1. It defers SLS Block 1B indefinitely
2. It assigns Europa Clipper to commercial LV because otherwise it would reduce the SLS assigned to Artemis, which basically says NASA doesn't expect more than 3 SLS by 2024

Congress may restore SLS Block 1B, but NASA will be the one who pick the winner of HLS, it's pretty clear NASA has no confidence that Boeing can work on Block 1B in parallel or increase the production rate of SLS cores, it would be interesting to see how this non-confidence translates into their evaluation of Boeing's HLS proposal.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #119 on: 02/11/2020 04:02 am »
So the 2021 NASA budget request throws some wrenches into Boeing's plan:
1. It defers SLS Block 1B indefinitely
2. It assigns Europa Clipper to commercial LV because otherwise it would reduce the SLS assigned to Artemis, which basically says NASA doesn't expect more than 3 SLS by 2024

Congress may restore SLS Block 1B, but NASA will be the one who pick the winner of HLS, it's pretty clear NASA has no confidence that Boeing can work on Block 1B in parallel or increase the production rate of SLS cores, it would be interesting to see how this non-confidence translates into their evaluation of Boeing's HLS proposal.
Especially as Boeing bid relies solely on SLS 1B for lander. Most of competitors' offers can use commercial LVs for lander with crew on SLS/Orion which can be block 1A.

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1220
  • Likes Given: 3539
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #120 on: 02/11/2020 05:28 am »
A friend of mine was speculating that defunding EUS (and WFIRST and STEM outreach) was merely a feint to reduce the "quotable" budget increase needed for Artemis in 2021, while "cutting" programs Congress was sure to retain. I don't know if I entirely buy that, but there is some convincing evidence for it.

Consider that if EUS was to be deferred, NASA would need to be entering talks with ULA about provision of future ICPSes. The fact that no moves to that end have occurred (not even preliminary talks as a contingency measure), and that procurement of multiple EUSes has been repeatedly emphasized in the upcoming SLS block buy do suggest this may be little more than a political ploy.

However, NASA's concern over Boeing's ability to deliver on-time and on a regular schedule is very much real, so that might not be the full picture. Still a possibility worth considering, nonetheless.
« Last Edit: 02/11/2020 05:37 am by jadebenn »

Offline HeartofGold2030

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • England
  • Liked: 243
  • Likes Given: 2

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #122 on: 03/18/2020 08:56 am »
I'd be surprised if Boeing could afford to build their lander. They were bleeding money before coronavirus killed airline industry. Airlines will now be cancelling orders for new aircraft, going be years before they recover enough to start buying new planes.

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
  • USA
  • Liked: 3273
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #123 on: 03/18/2020 05:49 pm »
Boeing probably expected NASA to pay for the lander. But NASAs since said they expect a lot more commercial investment (and that an SLS-launched lander would require additional investment from Boeing to get that high production capability, so double hit). The other bidders seem to already be spending their own money and/or have a lot more heritage in their designs than the Boeing option, so this expectation probably won't go well.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9101
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #124 on: 03/19/2020 01:05 pm »
Boeing probably expected NASA to pay for the lander. But NASAs since said they expect a lot more commercial investment (and that an SLS-launched lander would require additional investment from Boeing to get that high production capability, so double hit). The other bidders seem to already be spending their own money and/or have a lot more heritage in their designs than the Boeing option, so this expectation probably won't go well.

In a rational world without political interference, this is true, but we all know politics plays a big part in this and NASA hasn't always been rational in its choices.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #125 on: 03/19/2020 04:47 pm »
How does NASA stop money going to general running of Boeing given they are bleeding cash. SLS and Starliner will be in same boat.

Unfortunately can't ring fence project team as lots of other Boeing resources are used on part time basis to support these projects.

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Home
  • Liked: 921
  • Likes Given: 205
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #126 on: 04/10/2020 03:40 am »
Getting Boeing to build an SLS for themselves is a very interesting way to adjust the incentives for that program. As far as I understand HLS is a fixed-price contract so Boeing will be encouraged to reduce the marginal cost of building another SLS as much as possible. This might help bring the SLS program on a saner footing.

I hope they get a award and we get to watch this unfold.

It would be great if NASA could find a way to effectively "privatize" SLS and Orion: just grant Boeing/LM all the IP rights and let them compete against commercial vehicles.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8910
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10260
  • Likes Given: 11997
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #127 on: 04/10/2020 03:57 am »
How does NASA stop money going to general running of Boeing given they are bleeding cash.

That is NOT the job of NASA. Political decisions like that are made by the politicians (i.e. President & Congress), not the departments and agencies.

Quote
SLS and Starliner will be in same boat.

The SLS program is pure profit for Boeing, since they are building it under a Cost Plus contract. The Starliner, while a financially questionable program, is a drop in the bucket compared to what the Boeing Commercial division is going through.

Quote
Unfortunately can't ring fence project team as lots of other Boeing resources are used on part time basis to support these projects.

The SLS and Starliner programs are in the Boeing Space division, and unlikely to share anything with any other divisions like Defense and Commercial.
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 ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid
« Reply #128 on: 04/10/2020 04:00 am »
How does NASA stop money going to general running of Boeing given they are bleeding cash.

That is NOT the job of NASA. Political decisions like that are made by the politicians (i.e. President & Congress), not the departments and agencies.

Quote
SLS and Starliner will be in same boat.

The SLS program is pure profit for Boeing, since they are building it under a Cost Plus contract. The Starliner, while a financially questionable program, is a drop in the bucket compared to what the Boeing Commercial division is going through.

Quote
Unfortunately can't ring fence project team as lots of other Boeing resources are used on part time basis to support these projects.

The SLS and Starliner programs are in the Boeing Space division, and unlikely to share anything with any other divisions like Defense and Commercial.

Technically, defense and space are one division: BDS. Boeing Commerial Airplanes and Boeing Global Services are the others.

Tags: Boeing NASA SLS HLS lander 
 

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