SLS Program working on accelerating EUS development timeline

[Chris Bergin]

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/04/sls-accelerating-eus-development-timeline/

- By Philip Sloss.

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1253318964865720322

[eric z]

 I don't quite get it - They are working on something, which should never have been stopped in the first place, but it doesn't have top-level approval? Could someone explain please? Great article though!

[AS-503]

The article states: "Congress included $300 billion for EUS in the FY 2020 budget, but the White House continues to advocate canceling the effort altogether."

Pretty sure that should be $300 million, right?

[Rocket Science]

I don't quite get it - They are working on something, which should never have been stopped in the first place, but it doesn't have top-level approval? Could someone explain please? Great article though!

Don't you get it? They are  accelerating the redesigned-redesign, dependent on funding...

[GWH]

Not crew rating EUS at this time makes sense from a schedule point of view - and also a limited safety point of view. Sticking with a known crew configuration makes far more sense than trying to place crew on a brand new upper stage for its first flight. In my opinion that is worth a more valuable than comanifested cargo. With comanifested cargo like a gateway module there is always the chance that it is not ready in time, resulting in having to choose whether expanding Gateway or a crewed landing is more mission critical.

The continuous on again-off again possibilities of EUS and comanifested cargo must certainly be creating massive headaches for those who are trying to plan out the design and logistics of Gateway.

Of course the big question remains as to what exactly this cargo only version of SLS will be used for? The most likely candidate being an integrated lunar lander - one that hasn't been announced yet as a winning bid.

[jadebenn]

There is really no other way to read this other than confirmation of an integrated Lunar lander.

[meberbs]

There is really no other way to read this other than confirmation of an integrated Lunar lander.

Unless you actually read it and see that the article says almost the exact opposite of that:

Even with recent hints of changes, given the strong opposition from the White House, any involvement of EUS and Block 1B in NASA’s Artemis architecture would be a significant departure from the agency’s plans.

As noted by OMB, with the initial configuration behind schedule, still in development, and yet to fly for the first time, the only role SLS currently has in Artemis is as a crew launch vehicle. All the enabling infrastructure in the Artemis reference architecture from Gateway modules to lunar lander stages to surface logistics will be launched on commercial rockets such as the SpaceX Falcon Heavy that is flying today and others in private development that NASA does not have to directly fund.

The Block 1B Cargo variant is only being advocated outside the space agency in alternate lunar architectures.

The article is quite clear that this push is purely being advocated outside of NASA and also indicates scepticism within NASA about the claims (such as timelines).

[Markstark]

There is really no other way to read this other than confirmation of an integrated Lunar lander.

Unless you actually read it and see that the article says almost the exact opposite of that:

Even with recent hints of changes, given the strong opposition from the White House, any involvement of EUS and Block 1B in NASA’s Artemis architecture would be a significant departure from the agency’s plans.

As noted by OMB, with the initial configuration behind schedule, still in development, and yet to fly for the first time, the only role SLS currently has in Artemis is as a crew launch vehicle. All the enabling infrastructure in the Artemis reference architecture from Gateway modules to lunar lander stages to surface logistics will be launched on commercial rockets such as the SpaceX Falcon Heavy that is flying today and others in private development that NASA does not have to directly fund.

The Block 1B Cargo variant is only being advocated outside the space agency in alternate lunar architectures.

The article is quite clear that this push is purely being advocated outside of NASA and also indicates scepticism within NASA about the claims (such as timelines).

You think OMB (no EUS, no ML2, distributed launched HLS) is going to win that fight with Congress (EUS, ML2, HB-1, Integrated HLS on Block 1B)?

[MoaMem]

So Boeing is lobbing hard to be able to suck even more money from NASA by taking the costliest, riskiest, least sustainable approach to solve a problem?
In other news water is wet.

[ncb1397]

The article is quite clear that this push is purely being advocated outside of NASA and also indicates scepticism within NASA about the claims (such as timelines).

It isn't purely being advocated outside of NASA.

“Program risk is driven by which things haven’t you done in space before that you would now have to do in this mission,” he said, referring to plans “to launch a lander in three individual pieces that have to meet up at the moon,” the approach NASA has previously discussed. “We’ve never done that before, so we’d like to try to avoid doing things we’ve never done before.”

https://spacenews.com/nasa-takes-gateway-off-the-critical-path-for-2024-lunar-return/

Anyways, the long pole appears to be the lander. If making the lander easier to deliver shortens that pole, that seems to improve timeliness, not degrade it. But we should build the best lander possible as it has applications far beyond the earth's moon and far into the future. If it takes a Block 1B or Starship class vehicle to deliver that to a usable trajectory, so be it. And so the question is what is the best lander - 2 stages or 3. If it is 2, then the existing launchers don't work for that.

[meberbs]

You think OMB (no EUS, no ML2, distributed launched HLS) is going to win that fight with Congress (EUS, ML2, HB-1, Integrated HLS on Block 1B)?

What in the world are you talking about? Those simply aren't the relevant players involved. There are multiple sources of information, in general: OMB (should be impartial), NASA (responsible for contract decisions), external contractors ( obviously biased), and laws as passed by Congress.

The HLS contract is a competed contract with rules, while technically possible, Congress would have problems retroactively changing the rules. The article has indications from both NASA and OMB that changing the plan as being pushed by certain contractors is viewed as high risk or unfeasible. Right now it is down to NASA's decision, there is no fight between the OMB and Congress.

[jadebenn]

There is really no other way to read this other than confirmation of an integrated Lunar lander.

Unless you actually read it and see that the article says almost the exact opposite of that:

Please explain what other payload besides HLS would cause NASA to accelerate the EUS timeline and defer human-rating requirements.

There's only one candidate for a near-term cargo payload that could be going up on EUS, and that's HLS.

[meberbs]

The article is quite clear that this push is purely being advocated outside of NASA and also indicates scepticism within NASA about the claims (such as timelines).

It isn't purely being advocated outside of NASA.

The article says that it is, or are you calling Philip Sloss a liar?

The Block 1B Cargo variant is only being advocated outside the space agency in alternate lunar architectures.

“Program risk is driven by which things haven’t you done in space before that you would now have to do in this mission,” he said, referring to plans “to launch a lander in three individual pieces that have to meet up at the moon,” the approach NASA has previously discussed. “We’ve never done that before, so we’d like to try to avoid doing things we’ve never done before.”

https://spacenews.com/nasa-takes-gateway-off-the-critical-path-for-2024-lunar-return/

This literally says something different (as in orthogonal, not as in opposite) than what was said in my post. When you look at that article as a whole, you see that it talks about de-risking the 2024 date. The article this thread is discussing indicates risks associated with using SLS Block 1B. I don't think we know the full details of most of the HLS proposals (I haven't followed closely) but I don't know if any of them actually are consistent with what was described in your quote.

Anyways, the long pole appears to be the lander. If making the lander easier to deliver shortens that pole, that seems to improve timeliness, not degrade it.

Requiring using a next gen version of a launcher that has been plagued by delays, and has yet to fly even in its initial form is not making it "easier to deliver."

But we should build the best lander possible as it has applications far beyond the earth's moon and far into the future. If it takes a Block 1B or Starship class vehicle to deliver that to a usable trajectory, so be it. And so the question is what is the best lander - 2 stages or 3. If it is 2, then the existing launchers don't work for that.

I have explained this in other threads and you still seem to not get it, there simply are other architectures, where the initial delivery does not have to be the final TLI.

Also, other than Starship, other lander options for this would be optimized for the moon and not have direct applicability to anything beyond.

[meberbs]

There is really no other way to read this other than confirmation of an integrated Lunar lander.

Unless you actually read it and see that the article says almost the exact opposite of that:

Please explain what other payload besides HLS would cause NASA to accelerate the EUS timeline and defer human-rating requirements.

There's only one candidate for a near-term cargo payload that could be going up on EUS, and that's HLS.

Read the article, or at least the excerpt I provided. NASA is not doing what your question implies. It is quite obvious what the contractors pushing for this are interested in and why but that is simply not new information.

P.S. If you haven't seen it I have an offer for you in the SpaceX Beer Bets thread.

[envy887]

There is really no other way to read this other than confirmation of an integrated Lunar lander.

Confirmation that Boeing wants a SLS-launched lander, which is not surprising in the least. And perhaps that it has some support inside NASA, which is also not surprising.

The question is whether it has the right people supporting it inside NASA...

[ncb1397]

Also, other than Starship, other lander options for this would be optimized for the moon and not have direct applicability to anything beyond.

Sure it would, almost every surface in the solar system is lunar size or smaller. Anything optimized for lunar missions is directly applicable to transportation between points in free space (just don't install the landing gear).

[jadebenn]

There is really no other way to read this other than confirmation of an integrated Lunar lander.

Confirmation that Boeing wants a SLS-launched lander, which is not surprising in the least. And perhaps that it has some support inside NASA, which is also not surprising.

The question is whether it has the right people supporting it inside NASA...

This is an explicit change in plans. NASA would not be doing this if they hadn't already decided EUS would debut on an uncrewed flight. Nor would there be a need to retain Block 1 if not for a dual-stack-and-launch lander architecture (as ML-1 is only compatible with Block 1).

[meberbs]

Also, other than Starship, other lander options for this would be optimized for the moon and not have direct applicability to anything beyond.

Sure it would, almost every surface in the solar system is lunar size or smaller. Anything optimized for lunar missions is directly applicable to transportation between points in free space (just don't install the landing gear).

Going on a 3 month journey and a 3 day journey are nowhere near equivalent. (Using rough one way times as a baseline) however this isn't the thread for that, I only mentioned it as a sidenote for completeness.

So lets get back to something on topic (like the part where you made an assertion directly contradictory to the facts laid out in the article.)

[jadebenn]

So lets get back to something on topic (like the part where you made an assertion directly contradictory to the facts laid out in the article.)

1. An Artemis manifest leaked by my favorite space reporter a while back pointed at this exact possibility, and I have independent confirmation that the leak was legitimate

2. Loverro has made multiple statements (such as the one quoted by ncb1397) that point to a preference for a simpler SLS-launched architecture.

[D.L Parker]

So lets get back to something on topic (like the part where you made an assertion directly contradictory to the facts laid out in the article.)

1. An Artemis manifest leaked by my favorite space reporter a while back pointed at this exact possibility, and I have independent confirmation that the leak was legitimate

2. Loverro has made multiple statements (such as the one quoted by ncb1397) that point to a preference for a simpler SLS-launched architecture.

Why did Jim Bridenstine say it wasn't the plan when Eric Berger tweeted the manifest? I'm confused.