Author Topic: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers  (Read 1441541 times)

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12365
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 8125
  • Likes Given: 4056
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #4580 on: 01/10/2025 10:03 pm »
My preference would be to procure lunar crew transport capabilities to the HLS landers in lunar orbit and/or Gateway; transition off Orion/SLS ASAP even if that means missing 2030 by a bit; focus the rest of Artemis efforts on the handful a priorities that we need to do or can only be done at the Moon; and procure human-scale Mars landers and uncrewed pathfinding landings at Mars.

Music to my ears.
My preference would be to redefine Artemis as a mission(s) specific effort, without SLS/Orion/Gateway, or any other government-owned hardware, and have industry design, build and operate a turn-key, completely reusable human and cargo transportation system from the surface of the earth, to the surface of the moon and back again, on a FFP basis, with reasonable accommodations for mission price differences based on mission requirements. NASA gets to define what it wants to do on the moon, what initial hardware and infrastructure it needs there to accomplish its missions, and realistic timelines to bring that turnkey system operationally online. NASA gets to define milestones and payments for completing those milestones. NASA oversight would be limited to certifying compliance with NASA standards and providing any and all technical expertise it possesses that would enable the successful bidders to accomplish the milestones. There would also be built in on ramps to do exactly the same thing for Mars, to be further defined at a date TBD. NASA promises a minimum number of paid missions to the lunar surface and back. Industry gets to design how to do that. The successful bidders (yes, plural bidders, at least 2) get to retain ownership of everything they develop to implement the contracts and are free to use their own systems themselves for their own purposes in any way they see fit within the law. Forget about beating the Chinese to a lunar landing. That’s a no-brainer. Artificial and foolhardy deadlines only serve to cheapen the effort and result in a less sustainable design path forward that will ultimately need fixing later at a higher cost. If it’s worth doing, then it’s worth doing right - from the very beginning.
« Last Edit: 01/10/2025 10:11 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18263
  • Liked: 7873
  • Likes Given: 3301
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #4581 on: 01/11/2025 12:03 am »
And a competition allows a reset to Other Transaction Authority (Space Act Agreements), which are much more tailorable than the onerous FAR, which Congress has imposed on these programs ever since commercial crew.  An out-of-scope modification means the program is still stuck with the FAR.

NASA and Congress take the position that SAAs can be used for development but not for acquisition of services. Because of this, NASA has been using for HLS and other public-private partnerships, Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs) which are more flexible than a regular FAR procurement.

Quote from: IG Report
Although the Space Act does not explicitly prohibit NASA from using its “other transactions” authority to acquire goods or services, the Agency has taken the position that the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977 and other Federal laws and regulations require the use of contracts when the purpose of an agreement is to purchase goods or services intended for the direct benefit of NASA.[22]

[22] 22 The Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, 31 U.S. Code § 6303 (1977) states “An executive agency shall use a procurement contract as the legal instrument reflecting a relationship between the United States Government and a State, a local government, or other recipient when – (1) the principal purpose of the instrument is to acquire (by purchase, lease, or barter) property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government; or (2) the agency decides in a specific instance that the use of a procurement contract is appropriate.”

https://oig.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/IG-14-020.pdf
« Last Edit: 01/11/2025 03:12 pm by yg1968 »

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1855
  • Liked: 5677
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #4582 on: 01/11/2025 01:19 am »
NASA and Congress take the position that SAAs can be used for development but not for acquisition of services...

Quote from: IG Report
Although the Space Act does not explicitly prohibit NASA from using its “other transactions” authority to acquire goods or services, the Agency has taken the position that the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977 and other Federal laws and regulations require the use of contracts when the purpose of an agreement is to purchase goods or services intended for the direct benefit of NASA.[22]

On COTS, we successfully argued that the program was not about (or not solely about) the direct benefit of NASA, i.e., that we were trying to develop a space transportation ecosystem that could be used by customers and payloads other than NASA.  Turned out to be very true in the case of F9/Dragon, less so Cygnus/Antares.

Congress forced CCDev to go the FAR route (BAAs are under the FAR and are best used for research) to slow down/stop commercial crew.  It was about killing off competition for Orion/SLS, not whether the correct legal instrument was being used for the right purpose.  It turned out not to be true — crewed Dragon has obviously launched astronaut crews other than NASA’s.  Worse, it’s part of why commercial crew took so long and has been only a partial success.  Boeing aircraft managers obviously know how to work commercially, but CCDev is neither fish nor fowl — neither commercial like COTS nor government procurement like a defense contract.  Commercial stations and HLS have had to suffer the same weird hybridization that has no proven model and that no one really understands because we’re making it up as we go along and they’ll probably pay for it, too.

If we’re serious about NASA being one of many customers, sustainability, opening up economic frontiers, beating China in terms of schedule and/or scale at the Moon, etc., then this argument with Congress needs to be rejoined.  We’re legally misapplying the FAR, working stupid instead of smart, and screwing up programs and the competitiveness of our aerospace sector.  This is where Musk/DOGE could have a big impact with little effort — let NASA use OTA/SAA on its major human space programs again.  They’re about opening up frontiers for multiple players now.  They’re no longer about flying a couple handfuls of military test pilots with the same haircut in an unsustainable Cold War contest.

OTA is an incredibly powerful tool.  Look up “Operation Warp Speed” to develop Covid vaccines.  That was also OTA.  Literally saved millions of lives because we didn’t follow the stupid, effing FAR.  When something is critical, we don’t use the FAR.  If Artemis is important, then we shouldn’t use the FAR.  If Artemis is still stuck with the FAR, then you know it’s not a priority for the Administration.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18263
  • Liked: 7873
  • Likes Given: 3301


Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7391
  • Liked: 2902
  • Likes Given: 1505
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #4585 on: 01/30/2025 11:35 am »
Sensible though Chojnaki's statement seems, I don't understand the "have to" in it: has it not been widely reported and discussed that the contract requires SpaceX only to demonstrate landing?
« Last Edit: 01/30/2025 11:36 am by Proponent »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18263
  • Liked: 7873
  • Likes Given: 3301
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #4586 on: 01/30/2025 02:37 pm »
Sensible though Chojnaki's statement seems, I don't understand the "have to" in it: has it not been widely reported and discussed that the contract requires SpaceX only to demonstrate landing?

The contract was modified when HLS was delayed by a year in January 2024. The uncrewed demo now includes ascent as a contractual requirement but it doesn't have to ascend very far from what we know. 
« Last Edit: 02/01/2025 01:37 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18263
  • Liked: 7873
  • Likes Given: 3301
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #4587 on: 02/01/2025 01:37 am »

Offline StraumliBlight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1682
  • UK
  • Liked: 2792
  • Likes Given: 385
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #4588 on: 02/01/2025 09:54 pm »
NASA will be conducting moon landing tests at LaRC.

Quote
NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) is currently conducting a Moon Landing Test (MLT) Project. As part of the project, the Human Landing Systems (HLS) Program is preparing to conduct a series of impact dynamics tests utilizing a Boilerplate Lunar Lander (BLL). Testing will be conducted at LaRC’s Landing and Impact Research (LandIR) Facility. The purpose of this effort is to procure a mobile shelter structure (MSS) capable of moving over the BLL while the BLL is stationed at one of three locations on the LandIR Concrete Pad.

The enclosure for the lander is ~19m tall and ~7m wide, so possibly Blue Moon related?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18263
  • Liked: 7873
  • Likes Given: 3301
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #4589 on: 02/02/2025 03:34 am »
This is from November 19, 2024 but hasn't been posted in this thread yet.

Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC) for Human-class Delivery Lander (HDL):
https://govtribe.com/file/government-file/25105-20241118-jofoc-hdl-cargo-demonstration-final-signed-dot-pdf

This relates to the announcements of the HLS-cargo missions (HDL) on November 19, 2024:
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-plans-to-assign-missions-for-two-future-artemis-cargo-landers/
« Last Edit: 02/03/2025 03:13 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18263
  • Liked: 7873
  • Likes Given: 3301
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #4590 on: 02/03/2025 02:35 am »
It was easy to guess but SpaceX would deliver the JAXA pressurized rover (PR) and Blue Origin, the lunar surface habitat.

Interestingly, it says that NASA anticipates making two awards for the upcoming HLS Services phase which is the right approach in my opinion.

It also confirms that the lunar surface habitat would be provided by an international partner (most likely Italy from prior statements by Free).

Here are the highlights from the justification for sole-sourcing:

Quote from: page 2
Delivery of the PR [Pressurized Rover] to the lunar surface will expand lunar exploration, science capabilities, and utilization activities within the Artemis architecture. The PR is planned to have a pressurized cabin, allowing astronauts to live and work inside the vehicle to conduct exploration and science activities as they transit longer distances across the lunar terrain. The PR planned mission life is 10 years on the lunar surface, and it is capable of operating both crewed and uncrewed. The PR concept include the ability to-house and transport two crew members during the crewed portions of its mission and the ability to be operated remotely. The PR is being designed and built by the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), with NASA providing delivery of the PR from Earth to the lunar surface. This mission is planned for award to SpaceX because their initial HLS mission award and associated lander development began earlier, and their schedule includes earlier Artemis crewed flight demonstrations, which enables them to meet the PR programmatic schedule with their HDL design.

Quote from: pages 2-3
The delivery of a lunar surface habitat will expand exploration capabilities within the Artemis architecture by enabling increased crew size, range, and duration of exploration missions while also establishing opportunities for Mars-forward precursor missions. As envisioned, a lunar surface habitat will house two crew members for a minimum of 7 days while they live and work on the lunar surface and will enable lunar exploration and science during crewed and uncrewed periods. This mission is planned for award to Blue Origin because their schedule is for a later Artemis crewed flight demonstration which enables them to meet programmatic schedule with their current design configuration of the HDL.

Quote from: page 3
To support NASA's Artemis campaign, as well as future requirements related to human activities on the lunar surface, deep space exploration, and crewed missions to Mars, NASA anticipates the need for future service acquisitions for both crewed and cargo missions to the lunar surface. These future service acquisitions are anticipated to employ services-based pricing, and NASA anticipates awarding at least two service contracts to ensure continuing competition.

Quote from: pages 3 and 4
The current period of performance for the Appendix H contract is from July 30, 2021 – June 30, 2027, with a firm-fixed price of $4.3B; including base and all options. The current period of performance for Appendix P is from May 18, 2023, to May 17, 2028, with a firm-fixed price of $3.4B; including base and all options. This modification would extend the period of performance for both awardees by no less than 48 months. The exact period of performance is contingent on acceptance of each contractor’s ability to meet the schedule.

Quote from: page 4
The Government currently estimates the duplicated cost of awarding a demonstration mission to a contractor not currently on contract for HDL development to be greater than $2.5B, if the use of firm-fixed price milestone-based contracts are used, with potential for far more cost otherwise. Therefore, contracting with the existing Appendix H and Appendix P contractors avoids duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition.

Quote from: page 5
The PR and lunar surface habitat are novel, first-of-their-kind lunar surface systems with highly complex designs that must consider the capabilities of their respective landers. NASA has entered into an implementing arrangement with the Government of Japan for Japan to develop the PR and is working to complete a separate implementing arrangement for development of the lunar surface habitat. The providers of both the PR and the lunar surface habitat have imminent design milestones that require input from, and engagement with, their respective lander providers. Because of the extensive lander development progress made under current HLS contracts, SpaceX and Blue Origin are uniquely able to provide the requisite inputs with sufficient design maturity to the PR and lunar surface habitat providers as required their respective development schedules. Accordingly, this approach satisfies specific objectives of the Artemis program as well as international policy objectives of the United States.

https://govtribe.com/file/government-file/25105-20241118-jofoc-hdl-cargo-demonstration-final-signed-dot-pdf
« Last Edit: 02/03/2025 04:02 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18263
  • Liked: 7873
  • Likes Given: 3301
Re: NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers
« Reply #4591 on: 02/03/2025 03:07 am »
I am guessing that the contracts with SpaceX and Blue for these cargo missions haven't been signed yet because the contract amounts on the USA Spending website haven't increased. They are still at a maximum of $4.4B for SpaceX and $3.4B for Blue. The dates are also suppose to change by adding 48 months to the contracts but they are currently still at December 6, 2027 for SpaceX and May 17, 2028 for Blue.

NASA Spending on Options A & B: https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_80MSFC20C0034_8000_-NONE-_-NONE-

NASA Spending on Appendix P: https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_80MSFC23CA014_8000_-NONE-_-NONE-
« Last Edit: 02/03/2025 04:01 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18263
  • Liked: 7873
  • Likes Given: 3301

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18263
  • Liked: 7873
  • Likes Given: 3301

Tags: OPF SS Starship HLS Raptor 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0