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.

[meberbs]

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

You have repeatedly misrepresented plainly stated facts in this NSF article, and have continued to do so even after correction. (Such as where you claim that this is NASA's plan despite explicit statements in the article to the contrary.)

Please provide actual links to support your assertion (if I remember right about what you are referring to that was not a NASA official timeline but again essentially a proposal from a contractor)

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

I already replied to that quote above. If you are going to reply to me at least read my posts first.

[butters]

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.

One possible explanation could be that Bridenstine and Loverro are having a bit of a disagreement.

[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.

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

It was a plan, not the plan.

[meberbs]

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

It was a plan, not the plan.

And despite multiple claims from you to the contrary, it is still not the plan. It is just a plan, being pushed by contractors with an interest in SLS. The article this thread is about states as much.

[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...

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).

I never understood why debuting EUS with a crew was even an option. Didn't NASA learn anything from STS 1?

Block 1 needs to fly until 1B has a test flight.

[jadebenn]

I never understood why debuting EUS with a crew was even an option. Didn't NASA learn anything from STS 1?

Block 1 needs to fly until 1B has a test flight.

This will give it one.

[envy887]

I never understood why debuting EUS with a crew was even an option. Didn't NASA learn anything from STS 1?

Block 1 needs to fly until 1B has a test flight.

This will give it one.

But it will need one regardless of whether the first launch carries Boeing's lander, so the first 1B being a cargo launch doesn't really imply anything besides NASA management finally facing reality.

[dror]

“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/

(Bold mine)

To boldly go where men has gone before !

Just wanted to point out how pathetic that sound to me coming from NASA

[Steven Pietrobon]

Boeing's latest plan is with the lander on a Block IB that uses a 90 day low delta-V transfer to NRHO. This means a Transfer Element does not need to be launch on the second SLS. That is a Block I SLS could be used to send Orion to NRHO. Thus, the first use of EUS will be uncrewed. The separate Block I and Block IB LUTs can be used for the separate missions.

[woods170]

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...

No, it is not about the people supporting it inside NASA. It is all about the "right" people supporting it inside US Congress.

What is happening is a major case of deja-vu.
Let me explain:

You all need to remember that SLS is basically a slightly thinned-down Ares V in disguise. Ares V was integral to the CxP program, but got delayed, and even temporarily defunded, when trouble with the Ares I launcher sucked up all the available funding.
The usual suspects in US Congress were less than pleased when Obama cancelled CxP, including Ares V. US Congress initially had to go along, to give the impression to the public that they respected the outcome of the Augustine investigation (and which led to cancellation of CxP). Boeing wasn't all that pleased either because they lost the contract to build the Ares V core when CxP got canned.

But those usual suspects in US Congress, with heavy support from the Boeing lobby, eventually got their revenge: Ares V was reinstated, this time under the acronym SLS in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. By inserting a clever bit of language US Congress forced NASA to have Ares I contracts repurposed for SLS, thus giving the contract for the SLS core stage to Boeing, based on the fact that Boeing was developing the Ares I upper stage. A big win for the Boeing lobby folks: going from a puny upper stage to a massive core stage in the same contract.

NASA however was not interested in reliving the horror story of Ares V and tried to stall the push for SLS. US Congress didn't like that one d*mn bit and eventually rammed SLS down NASA's throat good and hard by forcing NASA to publically reveal the SLS effort in september 2011. US Congress made certain the announcement was a joint NASA - Congress effort, in US Congress offices. A certain former senator (and one time astronaut) from Florida had a big hand in this. Nelson was his name.

And guess what: that story is now almost exactly repeating itself with EUS.

NASA "invented" the EUS originally as the "Dual Use Upper Stage". But, development of DUUS/EUS was delayed/deferred when the develpment of the SLS cores stage ran into trouble and began sucking up all the available funding. This is analogue to Ares V being delayed because Ares I sucked up all the funding.

Next came the White House which proposed to cancel EUS all together. This is analogue to the White House killing CxP in 2009.
Meanwhile, NASA has understood that the EUS is not needed within the current scope of the Artemis program and puts the program on the back burner.

The usual suspects in US Congress, as well as Boeing, were less than pleased with this. So, US Congress, with the support of Boeing fully restored EUS funding in the current fiscal year. This is analogue to US Congress reinstating Ares V in 2010 via the SLS provision in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010.

The next step, which in my opinion is less than a year away, is that US Congress, again under influence of the Boeing lobby, will force NASA to work EUS into the very center of return-to-the-Moon plans. Either by writing an integrated lander into law or writing the launching of the lander element on SLS into law (like how US Congress did with Europa Clipper).

[MATTBLAK]

I know the original Constellation architecture had the Lander (integrated 'Altair') launched after the Ares 1 with the Orion - a '1.5 launch' method. If SLS gets to the Block II configuration of advanced boosters and the EUS: could this DRM become in-vogue again if Orion could be launched on Vulcan Heavy or Delta IV-Heavy? I only ask because I don't know if the integrated Lander idea massing about 40 tons with a pump-fed hypergolics Descent Stage would have enough delta-v. I'd like to think they will go for a cryogenic LH2 stage or at least a CH4-fueled one, but I think a hypergolic stage will get the nod, for speed and cost if nothing else.

[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...

No, it is not about the people supporting it inside NASA. It is all about the "right" people supporting it inside US Congress.
...
The next step, which in my opinion is less than a year away, is that US Congress, again under influence of the Boeing lobby, will force NASA to work EUS into the very center of return-to-the-Moon plans. Either by writing an integrated lander into law or writing the launching of the lander element on SLS into law (like how US Congress did with Europa Clipper).

Entirely true. The House already tried doing this late last year.

But it's not possible to legislate to success with an underperforming contractor and poor technical solution on a tight timeline.

[GWH]

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...

No, it is not about the people supporting it inside NASA. It is all about the "right" people supporting it inside US Congress.
...
The next step, which in my opinion is less than a year away, is that US Congress, again under influence of the Boeing lobby, will force NASA to work EUS into the very center of return-to-the-Moon plans. Either by writing an integrated lander into law or writing the launching of the lander element on SLS into law (like how US Congress did with Europa Clipper).

Entirely true. The House already tried doing this late last year.

But it's not possible to legislate to success with an underperforming contractor and poor technical solution on a tight timeline.

The language specifying the "commercial" procurement of SLS for HLS means there should be transparent insight to the taxpayer of clear alternatives and the costs to them. So long as that information is made transparent and not withheld.

Unfortunately it seems transparency is not on the table right now, the evidence being the logistics services and HLS procurement process thus far.

[MATTBLAK]

Wedding the HLS to the SLS is a mistake. Putting it on an expendable,$1.5-to-$2 billion per launch rocket is not sustainable.

[su27k]

The next step, which in my opinion is less than a year away, is that US Congress, again under influence of the Boeing lobby, will force NASA to work EUS into the very center of return-to-the-Moon plans. Either by writing an integrated lander into law or writing the launching of the lander element on SLS into law (like how US Congress did with Europa Clipper).

I'm more optimistic, 2020 is not 2010, commercial space is much more powerful now, they have friends in congress too (see for example the recent senators' letter to JB). Note both the senate authorization bill and the house/senate appropriation bill support public private partnership for HLS, and HR. 5666 got pounced by pretty much everybody as soon as it got out. I think HR. 5666 is a trial balloon, they wouldn't try that again.

[woods170]

Wedding the HLS to the SLS is a mistake. Putting it on an expendable,$1.5-to-$2 billion per launch rocket is not sustainable.

US Congress doesn't care. The word "sustainable" is not in their dictionary.

[DreamyPickle]

I'm extremely confused about how SLS/EUS would work for HLS. As far as I understand SLS and EUS have been developed under a cost-plus format until now but the lander contract is fixed-price. Doesn't this mean that Boeing would have to build and launch the EUS and another SLS by itself based entirely on funds awarded for the lander?

But if NASA employees are working on EUS and pad 39B how can they be part of the lander contract, would Boeing reimburse NASA for their work?

If the launch tower needs upgrades for EUS shouldn't Boeing pay for it?

[ulm_atms]

Wedding the HLS to the SLS is a mistake. Putting it on an expendable,$1.5-to-$2 billion per launch rocket is not sustainable.

But the main point is not to be sustainable, but to put as much money as possible towards the companies/locations Congress wants the money to go to.

The sooner everyone realizes that cost and sustainability is at the absolute end of what SLS is all about...the better...it's about funneling money to the people Congress wants to have it...full stop.  Congress could care less if science or exploration have anything to do with it in my opinion.

Boeing just wants HLS to be married to SLS so they can make more money on the extra overpriced SLSs needed on top of the HLS costs.

TLDR:  Hey...if we put it on our extremely expensive rocket...we can make even more money!

[ncb1397]

I'm extremely confused about how SLS/EUS would work for HLS. As far as I understand SLS and EUS have been developed under a cost-plus format until now but the lander contract is fixed-price. Doesn't this mean that Boeing would have to build and launch the EUS and another SLS by itself based entirely on funds awarded for the lander?

But if NASA employees are working on EUS and pad 39B how can they be part of the lander contract, would Boeing reimburse NASA for their work?

If the launch tower needs upgrades for EUS shouldn't Boeing pay for it?

Private companies get to pay for use of NASA infrastructure. Look at Pad 39A or OmegA. 39B was always planned to be dual use, used by a variety of companies, not closed off like Pad 39A. Furthermore, other agencies like the DoD assist with various commercial operations like commercial crew contracts (specifically crew recovery) and launch operations.

[envy887]

I'm extremely confused about how SLS/EUS would work for HLS. As far as I understand SLS and EUS have been developed under a cost-plus format until now but the lander contract is fixed-price. Doesn't this mean that Boeing would have to build and launch the EUS and another SLS by itself based entirely on funds awarded for the lander?

But if NASA employees are working on EUS and pad 39B how can they be part of the lander contract, would Boeing reimburse NASA for their work?

If the launch tower needs upgrades for EUS shouldn't Boeing pay for it?

Development of the Block 1B design, and its infrastructure, will be entirely paid by NASA.

If Boeing bids a HLS solution launched on Block 1B, they will need to include the costs of the SLS vehicle hardware and operations in their bid, and probably overhead and infrastructure if it's specifically required to support that launch. The line there is probably a bit fuzzy.

In the end, it's all paid by NASA - the only difference is cost-plus items vs fixed-cost items.

[TheRadicalModerate]

The next step, which in my opinion is less than a year away, is that US Congress, again under influence of the Boeing lobby, will force NASA to work EUS into the very center of return-to-the-Moon plans. Either by writing an integrated lander into law or writing the launching of the lander element on SLS into law (like how US Congress did with Europa Clipper).

All that has to happen for the implementation of that next step is for NASA to select the Boeing HLS proposal, and Artemis is stuck with Block 1B until the whole program collapses under its own weight.

But I suspect that there will be some serious congressional pushback on an architecture that requires launching two SLSes in rapid succession forever--even with the chairman of the Senate appropriations committee putting his thumb on the scales.  It's insanely expensive and requires introducing almost as much risk into EGS and other launch processing infrastructure as it takes out of HLS itself.

And Boeing isn't the only game in town any more.  SpaceX and Blue Origin both have some lobbying heft to them, and generate a lot of business for gulf coast states.  (Even Shelby can't ignore architectures that would expand the Huntsville BE-4 plant severalfold.)  Add to that NGIS, which I'm sure is counting on eventually getting some commercial resupply work to NRHO, and the old lobbying paradigm could break down.

Ultimately, I think Loverro is going to be faced with a choice between an insanely expensive double SLS launch, which carries a lot of political risk as Congress becomes bored with Artemis, and a more developmentally risky architecture that's much cheaper to launch on commercial components but a lot more complex to put together and service in NRHO.

It's never a good idea to bet against Boeing not getting its way in Congress, but the situation's a lot more complicated for them now than it has been in even the recent past.

[MATTBLAK]

Boeing has the SLS and they will get the EUS contract if and when it happens. If the HLS is fielded as a 3-stage design (my preference) launched on Vulcan etc, Boeing can still be a part of it all.

1: Boeing makes SLS & EUS. 2: Boeing has a stake in Vulcan. 3: Boeing can bid on at least one element of the 3-stage Lander.

If they want ALL the HLS as well, launched on another, entire SLS... One could be forgiven for thinking that Boeing doesn't just want a slice of the pie - they want the whole pie... It seems to me that wedding a single, one-week long human landing mission to an approximately $4 billion of launch costs, plus another $2 billion (at least) in spacecraft hardware, plus hundreds of millions in mission infrastructure... See where I'm going with this? When people find out that each mission to the Moon costs about $7 billion U.S. dollars - not to mention the big costs of developing Gateway - then someone in Congress and/or Senate is going to rebel. The human exploration of space should not be about spreading the pork and/or wasting money, when there would be a better, less costly way to do things. I know some will think I'm naive or missing the point - I'm not. I know how some of these politics work. But human lunar landing missions should not cost more than an Apollo J-Series landing mission, adjusted for inflation.

But removing the $2 billion dollar cost of an additional SLS launch from a $7 billion dollar mission would help a lot, but it would still hurt. The three launches of the separate Lander pieces would still cost in the neighborhood of a half-billion dollars or more. However, with the EUS in service and hopefully, better boosters for SLS later, the Orion launched part of the mission could bring a co-manifested payload of either a fresh Descent Stage or a refueling Tanker for the Ascent or Transfer stage. With a two-thirds reusable Lander system in operation, based at Gateway, long-term cost savings would eventually creep into the mission budgets. So we have to ask ourselves: which is better - removing the costs of an additional SLS launch per Lunar mission, or simplifying the architecture by reducing the number of launches per mission to 2x SLS?

[TheRadicalModerate]

Boeing has the SLS and they will get the EUS contract if and when it happens. If the HLS is fielded as a 3-stage design (my preference) launched on Vulcan etc, Boeing can still be a part of it all.

1: Boeing makes SLS & EUS. 2: Boeing has a stake in Vulcan. 3: Boeing can bid on at least one element of the 3-stage Lander.

If they want ALL the HLS as well, launched on another, entire SLS... One could be forgiven for thinking that Boeing doesn't just want a slice of the pie - they want the whole pie... It seems to me that wedding a single, one-week long human landing mission to an approximately $4 billion of launch costs, plus another $2 billion (at least) in spacecraft hardware, plus hundreds of millions in mission infrastructure... See where I'm going with this? When people find out that each mission to the Moon costs about $7 billion U.S. dollars - not to mention the big costs of developing Gateway - then some Congress and/or Senate is going to rebel. The human exploration of space should not be about spreading the pork and/or wasting money, when there would be a better, less costly way to do things. I know some will think I'm naive or missing the point - I'm not. I know how some of these politics work. But human lunar landing missions should not cost more than an Apollo J-Series landing mission, adjusted for inflation.

But removing the $2 billion dollar cost of an additional SLS launch from a $7 billion dollar mission would help a lot, but it would still hurt. The three launches of the separate Lander pieces would still cost in the neighborhood of a billion dollars. However, with the EUS in service and hopefully, better boosters for SLS later, the Orion launched part of the mission could bring a co-manifested payload of either a fresh Descent Stage or a refueling Tanker for the Ascent or Transfer stage. With a two-thirds reusable Lander system in operation, based at Gateway, long-term cost savings would eventually creep into the mission budgets. So we have to ask ourselves: which is better - removing the costs of an additional SLS launch per Lunar mission, or simplifying the architecture by reducing the number of launches per mission to 2x SLS?

That's a fair summary.

I'd only add that I don't think Boeing cares for a moment about landing the HLS contract--it's chump change to them.  What they do care about is locking in Block 1B and double the SLS cores that they would have otherwise.  Since they're the only company insane enough to bid that kind of system, that's what their bid is really about.

It's hard to imagine Starship imploding so badly that it's not good for at least hauling massive amounts of cargo from LEO to NRHO.  If that's the case, then you can take all of the HLS components you could ever dream of, toss 'em into the payload bay, and get everything for a mission to NRHO except the crew, for something around $200M (assuming $50M/launch and three tankers).

Maybe that's a good reason to use the Boeing architecture, because an AE/DE that doesn't have to rely on co-manifesting is huge, and can likely be put to a fair number of uses.  Then hosting it on Starship chops out the Block 1B flights, but leaves Boeing still with a Block 1 and an HLS stack per mission.  From there, a crewed Starship (even if you have to bring the crew up/down to/from LEO on an F9/D2), takes out the Block 1, and finally the full Starship flight profile finally gets rid of the HLS.

I doubt that's what Boeing would wish for in its wildest dreams, but it's probably on balance a lot more money than they'd make if they just waited for Congress to kill the whole program.

[MATTBLAK]

Part of me wants SLS killed stone dead, now. But the far more pragmatic me wants it to stick around until Starship/SpaceX does or does not succeed in its aims. If the Starship program tanks (I wanna be very wrong about that) the SLS Block 1B or 2 will be the class leader among the Super Heavy Lift programs. Other than political and financial obstacles; I don't see any technical hurdles for SLS's survival. It should be good at what it does. But if they are going to throw away a sh1t ton of beautiful hardware every time they launch; they should give it the best upper stage and solid boosters they can, to maximize that payload and at least partly justify that vast expenditure. A launch rate better than 2x per annum would help it's cause as well. 2x SLS launches per year, coupled with 2 or 3 commercial heavy lifters could build a Lunar Outpost in relatively short order.

And if both Starship and SLS went away - the Commercial Heavy lift launch fleet of (Roll Call) Falcon Heavy, Vulcan Heavy, New Glenn, Ariane 6 and H-3 (heavy-ish) could get a lot of mass into orbit fairly smartly, if need be. In fact, if you executed twinned launches of all these guys and asked China and Russia to chip in with 2x LM-5 and Angara 5 each; that would be enough for fair-sized Manned Mars Mission. And we really need Propellant Depot technology, Stat!!

And wake me when New Glenn begins testing. When's that supposed to be again?!

[jadebenn]

Boeing has the SLS and they will get the EUS contract if and when it happens.

They've had the EUS contract for quite some time now, though they'll only have flight hardware on order once the SLS block buy contract gets finalized.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

At the moment both Boeing and NASA engineers who would otherwise be busy with SLS green runs need something to do.

[JohnF]

Lots of debate on this one huh ?, ..just fly SLS Block 1 until EUS has tested enough for crew, then throw a lander built by whoever into Block 1B, fly it all together to the moon ala Apollo, simple....cont. with debate, lol.

[MATTBLAK]

Block 1B isn't powerful enough to send both Orion and a fully-fueled Lander to the Moon; by that I mean low lunar orbit. Block 1B might be able to send an Orion and a completely unfuelled, lightweight Lunar Lander roughly Apollo LM-sized as a co-manifested payload to the Gateway at NRHO. So would a Tanker Module be there, waiting to fill up the Lander? Or would the Gateway be a Propellant Depot? See - this is why I prefer any Lunar Lander design as a three-stage version; so the Orion could bring along a fresh Descent Stage with it each time. Vulcan or Falcon Heavy could have sent a Transfer Stage and Ascent Stage out to the Gateway first. The new Descent Stage could then be integrated with the Transfer and Ascent Stage for a fresh mission. Later flights before humans return could be Commercial launches that bring propellant shipments to refill the Ascent and Transfer Stages.

This frees the Lunar architecture from the tyranny of having to pay for and wait for another $2 billion dollar SLS to be built. Save the SLS for only launching crewed Orions or very occasionally large cargo. One version of 'large cargo' could be a fully fueled and integrated 3x stage Lunar Lander to replace one that had finally worn out!

[dglow]

So in the dual-launch, Orion-on-ICPS + HLS-on-EUS, the two will meet up in NRHO, even sans Gateway. Whereas if both launches were on Block 1B they could/would meet in LLO.
Is that correct?

[TrevorMonty]

So in the dual-launch, Orion-on-ICPS + HLS-on-EUS, the two will meet up in NRHO, even sans Gateway. Whereas if both launches were on Block 1B they could/would meet in LLO.
Is that correct?

EUS isn't designed to survive 3-4 day trip from TLI to LLO. Has DV but not life. It may e possible upgrade.

[TheRadicalModerate]

So in the dual-launch, Orion-on-ICPS + HLS-on-EUS, the two will meet up in NRHO, even sans Gateway. Whereas if both launches were on Block 1B they could/would meet in LLO.
Is that correct?

EUS isn't designed to survive 3-4 day trip from TLI to LLO. Has DV but not life. It may e possible upgrade.

Even if you could extend the stage life of the EUS, it and Orion together still can get less than 3t of co-manifested payload to LLO and leave enough prop for Orion to get back to TEI.

The Universal Stage Adapter is heavy.  Assuming a 400 kg PAF, it lops off almost 4.8t from what you can co-manifest.  If you could find a way to get rid of it before TLI, things would be better, but then you'd be flying Orion eyeballs-out and relying on the PAF, the co-manifest, and the NDS to keep the Orion stable during the burn.  Not gonna happen.

[dglow]

So in the dual-launch, Orion-on-ICPS + HLS-on-EUS, the two will meet up in NRHO, even sans Gateway. Whereas if both launches were on Block 1B they could/would meet in LLO.
Is that correct?

EUS isn't designed to survive 3-4 day trip from TLI to LLO. Has DV but not life. It may e possible upgrade.

Even if you could extend the stage life of the EUS, it and Orion together still can get less than 3t of co-manifested payload to LLO and leave enough prop for Orion to get back to TEI.

The Universal Stage Adapter is heavy.  Assuming a 400 kg PAF, it lops off almost 4.8t from what you can co-manifest.  If you could find a way to get rid of it before TLI, things would be better, but then you'd be flying Orion eyeballs-out and relying on the PAF, the co-manifest, and the NDS to keep the Orion stable during the burn.  Not gonna happen.

Interesting, and thank you both. So EUS only solves Orion's 'LLO problem' by enabling it to be paired with a beefier ESM. Where the current ESM's size/capability has been driven as a function of Orion's mass and ICPS's limitations. Yes?

[TheRadicalModerate]

See - this is why I prefer any Lunar Lander design as a three-stage version; so the Orion could bring along a fresh Descent Stage with it each time. Vulcan or Falcon Heavy could have sent a Transfer Stage and Ascent Stage out to the Gateway first. The new Descent Stage could then be integrated with the Transfer and Ascent Stage for a fresh mission. Later flights before humans return could be Commercial launches that bring propellant shipments to refill the Ascent and Transfer Stages.

This is a bit O/T, but I do think it's important to note that a big chunk of the EUS's appeal is its ability to co-manifest, and therefore figuring out what it should co-manifest for HLS is pretty key to whether it's truly essential to Artemis or not.

I don't think you want to co-manifest the DE in a 3-stage architecture.  There are three main reasons:

1) I don't think the Gateway has a prayer of occurring before the first versions of HLS have to fly.  So we're talking about free-flying assembly of components, with no Gateway assistance.

2) Think about the sequence for attaching a DE to the HLS stack.  You have two constraints here.  First, the AE has to be the top of the stack, because you have to board the crew, and you don't want to do that until the entire stack is assembled.  Second, the DE has to be directly below the AE.  That pretty much fixes the order of elements as, from top to bottom, AE-DE-TE.  If you co-manifest the DE, you have to leave the AE and TE separately free-flying, then assemble all three while the crew sits there in the Orion, wondering if it's all gonna assemble properly.  So, unless you want to incur that kind of mission risk, that restricts you to co-manifesting either the AE or the TE.

3) You really want to get as much impulse out of the co-manifested element as possible.  I'm assuming that the free-flyers need to use storable prop, because they're likely going to be in place weeks or months before the Orion/co-manifest shows up.  envy will no doubt disagree with me on this, but I don't think that the low-boiloff cryogenic technologies we're working on are sufficiently mature to use in HLS, at least for the kind of mission lives we're talking about.

But the co-manifested piece probably can be cryogenic, because it's in a fast transfer and because it can be encapsulated by the Orion, USA, and EUS, which can act as a sunshade for a decent part of the trans-lunar coast.

I know that there's been talk about a reusable TE, but it's nonsense.  The TE is the least expensive component, and the only way to refuel it is with something that looks an awful lot like another (expendable) TE.  You should assume that TE's are expendable, and therefore are good candidates for co-manifesting.

Finally, TE's will have the lowest structural mass fraction (SMF).  They don't need landing legs.  They don't need gimbals for TVC.  They don't need fancy radars, or landing-shock-resistant components.  They don't have weird restrictions on their center of mass.  And most importantly, they don't have to be crew-rated for a landing, only for providing a certain amount of dumb delta-v.  Low SMF means more impulse, which is what you want.

That said, there's also a case to be made for co-manifesting the AE.  It's the simplest docking configuration: once you've got it extracted from the USA and docked to the Orion's nose, Orion just docks it with the DE/TE stack (docked/mated before you ever launch your $4B+ of SLS, Orion, and co-manifest) and you're good to go.  It's also arguably the component that you'd least like to have sitting in space for long periods, simply because it's the piece where you really, really don't want anything to fail.

But that makes it small.  If you assume that EUS can take 41t to TLI (which is frankly pushing it), you've got a 26.7t Orion (with crew), a 4.4t Universal Stage Adapter, and a PAF that's likely 0.4t, which means that your max co-manifested payload will be something like 9.5t.  If you assume a pressure-fed storable engine (which you should, because it's reliable, does landing aborts quickly, and has no boil-off risk on the very hot daytime lunar surface), the lower Isp limits your burnout mass + up mass + crew to 3820 kg, which is... more than an Apollo ascent stage, but not by very much.

And it's obviously not the element with the smallest SMF.

With a co-manifested pumped methalox TE (Isp=360) and an SMF of 10% and a second "crasher" TE with pressure-fed storables (same SMF), I can get a DAE from NRHO and back with 4.9t of burnout mass, 0.5t of surface payload, with 0.3t of crew added in NRHO.  Bear in mind, though, that this is also the lander, so you're adding landing gear and gimbals and whatnot.  It's still likely a bit more luxurious than the co-manifested AE, but it's close enough that the reduced complexity in docking might make the CMAE a better choice.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Interesting, and thank you both. So EUS only solves Orion's 'LLO problem' by enabling it to be paired with a beefier ESM. Where the current ESM's size/capability has been driven as a function of Orion's mass and ICPS's limitations. Yes?

The bottom line is that even SLS Block 1B can't put as much stuff into TLI as a Saturn V could.  A Block 2 will, but that's further out.

[ZChris13]

Interesting, and thank you both. So EUS only solves Orion's 'LLO problem' by enabling it to be paired with a beefier ESM. Where the current ESM's size/capability has been driven as a function of Orion's mass and ICPS's limitations. Yes?

The bottom line is that even SLS Block 1B can't put as much stuff into TLI as a Saturn V could.  A Block 2 will, but that's further out.

Are those TLI numbers for Block 2 coming from Congress or from the options being considered (the advanced boosters) (also, which advanced boosters)

[TheRadicalModerate]

Are those TLI numbers for Block 2 coming from Congress or from the options being considered (the advanced boosters) (also, which advanced boosters)

I just grabbed Ed Kyle's numbers, which seem to be from the 2014-vintage SRBs.

I'm viewing Block 2 as science fiction, pretty much.  I'll be very interested to see what tweaks they make to EUS, though.  Fairly minor increases in co-manifesting capability make big differences to potential HLS architectures.

[jadebenn]

I think you'll find this useful.

I'm making the (fairly safe) assumption the jaw-dropping 43t TLI (not counting reserves) is Block 1B with all the upgraded components and bells-and-whistles, so not the one available for initial HLS. Still, corroborates what you're saying about the impact of the stage adapter on payload.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Do you have the source for that diagram?

I would assume that you'd get all the bells and whistles possible in the reworking of the EUS that's currently ongoing, and they'd show up in the first Block 1B.  If you can really do a 13t co-manifest, that changes a lot of things.

[Coastal Ron]

In mid-2018 NASA was showing:

Payload to TLI/Moon for Block 1B Cargo - 37-40 t (74k-81k lbs)

Has the EUS really changed that much in just a year and a half?

[MATTBLAK]

A 13 metric ton co-manifest would allow the Orion to bring with it a new Transfer stage each time, or a Tanker module to top up either a Transfer stage or Ascent stage. A separate Commercial launch would have to bring a propellant load for an Ascent or Transfer stage, or a fresh descent stage if the Lander design is three-segment. Which I think would be wise; to avoid another $2 billion dollar, schedule-pushing SLS launch of an integrated 2 stage, 40+plus ton Monster LM.

Is the Orion adapter for SLS going to be a lightest possible composite structure? I admit to not knowing much about it. The Apollo LM adapter weighed more than 4,000 pounds - 1,840 kgs and was made of aluminum.

[MoaMem]

Do you have the source for that diagram?

I would assume that you'd get all the bells and whistles possible in the reworking of the EUS that's currently ongoing, and they'd show up in the first Block 1B.  If you can really do a 13t co-manifest, that changes a lot of things.

A "study" made by some Boeing dudes to prompt SLS, it gives never seen before high figures about SLS, paint other launchers under the worst possible light and totally ignores Starship, see for yourself :
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335212999_The_Space_Launch_System's_Enablement_of_Crewed_Lunar_Missions_and_Architectures

In mid-2018 NASA was showing:

Payload to TLI/Moon for Block 1B Cargo - "37-40 t (74k-81k lbs)

Has the EUS really changed that much in just a year and a half?

It hasn't, SLS proponents have been flooding the spaceflight internet with this "study" (Reddit has a thread dedicated to every single diagram in this study) because it's so biased toward SLS even for Boeing standards.

[dglow]

A 13 metric ton co-manifest would allow the Orion to bring with it a new Transfer stage each time, or a Tanker module to top up either a Transfer stage or Ascent stage. A separate Commercial launch would have to bring a propellant load for an Ascent or Transfer stage, or a fresh descent stage if the Lander design is three-segment. Which I think would be wise; to avoid another $2 billion dollar, schedule-pushing SLS launch of an integrated 2 stage, 40+plus ton Monster LM.

Prediction: if HLS flies on SLS first then it will never fly on another LV.

[MATTBLAK]

Yes, probably

[hektor]

So in the dual-launch, Orion-on-ICPS + HLS-on-EUS, the two will meet up in NRHO, even sans Gateway. Whereas if both launches were on Block 1B they could/would meet in LLO.
Is that correct?

EUS isn't designed to survive 3-4 day trip from TLI to LLO. Has DV but not life. It may e possible upgrade.

Even if you could extend the stage life of the EUS, it and Orion together still can get less than 3t of co-manifested payload to LLO and leave enough prop for Orion to get back to TEI.

The Universal Stage Adapter is heavy.  Assuming a 400 kg PAF, it lops off almost 4.8t from what you can co-manifest.  If you could find a way to get rid of it before TLI, things would be better, but then you'd be flying Orion eyeballs-out and relying on the PAF, the co-manifest, and the NDS to keep the Orion stable during the burn.  Not gonna happen.

Interesting, and thank you both. So EUS only solves Orion's 'LLO problem' by enabling it to be paired with a beefier ESM. Where the current ESM's size/capability has been driven as a function of Orion's mass and ICPS's limitations. Yes?

So we can expect an ESM XL at some point ?

[MATTBLAK]

One hopes so. Orion needs at least 60% more propellant to get itself both into and out of low lunar orbit; unlike the Apollo CSM. The Orion's low delta-v is a hangover from the Ares 1 and Constellation. But redesigning or 'stetching' the Service Module is not likely in the plan or the budget.

[hektor]

One hopes so. Orion needs at least 60% more propellant to get itself both into and out of low lunar orbit; unlike the Apollo CSM. The Orion's low delta-v is a hangover from the Ares 1 and Constellation. But redesigning or 'stetching' the Service Module is not likely in the plan or the budget.

I can see happening two ways :

1) NASA rapatriates the SM to the US

2) NASA offers ESA an attractive package, i.e. European astronauts on the Lunar surface

[jadebenn]

Do you have the source for that diagram?

I would assume that you'd get all the bells and whistles possible in the reworking of the EUS that's currently ongoing, and they'd show up in the first Block 1B.  If you can really do a 13t co-manifest, that changes a lot of things.

MoaMem posted the source upthread (love you too), but I'll provide another link.

To clarify, I mean that I'm assuming those numbers are with the RS-25Es and/or BOLE SRBs.

While I'm not going to go full tinfoil hat and act like the numbers are a fabrication, they are a ton or two over what I'd been hearing prior to this graphic, so I think it's a safe assumption that it's at least assuming RS-25E (which should just barely be available in 2024). Not 100% sure about BOLE considering the context of the paper. Point is, they are juicing it a ton or two higher than before somehow.

Another theory might be that there's some mass reductions for the core in the pipeline and/or this is accounting for updated figures. I remember reading that CS-1 came in underweight - maybe that explains it?

Is the Orion adapter for SLS going to be a lightest possible composite structure? I admit to not knowing much about it. The Apollo LM adapter weighed more than 4,000 pounds - 1,840 kgs and was made of aluminum.

It's composite.

[TheRadicalModerate]

A "study" made by some Boeing dudes to prompt SLS, it gives never seen before high figures about SLS, paint other launchers under the worst possible light and totally ignores Starship, see for yourself :
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335212999_The_Space_Launch_System's_Enablement_of_Crewed_Lunar_Missions_and_Architectures

In mid-2018 NASA was showing:

Payload to TLI/Moon for Block 1B Cargo - "37-40 t (74k-81k lbs)

Has the EUS really changed that much in just a year and a half?

It hasn't, SLS proponents have been flooding the spaceflight internet with this "study" (Reddit has a thread dedicated to every single diagram in this study) because it's so biased toward SLS even for Boeing standards.

Thanks for the link.

The top-level thing to note is that, while the diagram jadebenn referenced (fig. 9 in the doc) shows the EUS getting 44.8t to TLI, fig. 1 shows it putting between 39t and 43t to TLI.  Note that the Block 1 numbers are also different.  So at least one of these is wrong.  Given that none of the reviewers had fallen asleep by the first paragraph, I'd put my money on fig. 1 being correct.

The next question:  Why the range?  The most obvious answer is that different missions will require different flight performance reserves.  The 43t number is likely at 0% FPR.  39t would therefore represent 2.6% FPR. This is probably the most conservative number for a crewed flight, but it yields a really low co-manifest value.  TLI under-peformance isn't an LOC event, or usually even a LOM event, given that Orion has a fair amount of extra delta-v.  (Update:  2.6% is probably pretty close for a science mission with little delta-v in the payload itself.)

Let's say that the Brown Trouser Brigade will let them get away with 0.5% FPR.  That's a payload to EUS of 42.2t.

What to use for Orion's mass in the parking orbit?  My old numbers implied that a crewed Orion would be about 26.2t without the OSA (which I accidentally included in the previous post).  Fig. 1 and paragraph 1 say 27.5t.  Fig. 9 implies just a tad under 25t.  I say we average them!  26.2t it is.  So:

Total to EUS: 42.2t
Orion: -26.2t
USA: -4.4t
PAF: -0.4t
-------------------------
Co-manifested payload: 11.2t

That's definitely better than my first stab at this.

It's composite.

Here's the Dynetics fact sheet.

[jadebenn]

The 43t is the usable payload. You'll note that's actually common between both figures if you ignore the payload reserve.

[MATTBLAK]

When NASA moved to the 'J-Series' more advanced Apollo missions, the initial parking orbit used on the earlier missions went from about 118 nautical miles down to about 93 for missions 15 to 17. This was to help slightly increase the Saturn V's payload into LEO. And since the parking orbit was temporary before TLI; the increase in atmospheric drag was deemed negligible. Can we assume that the Lunar-bound Artemis missions will also adopt a similarly low parking orbit?

[TheRadicalModerate]

When NASA moved to the 'J-Series' more advanced Apollo missions, the initial parking orbit used on the earlier missions went from about 118 nautical miles down to about 93 for missions 15 to 17. This was to help slightly increase the Saturn V's payload into LEO. And since the parking orbit was temporary before TLI; the increase in atmospheric drag was deemed negligible. Can we assume that the Lunar-bound Artemis missions will also adopt a similarly low parking orbit?

That's certainly not what they're planning for the Block 1 missions.  Unless something changed dramatically, for Artemis I, the core inserts into 1806x41 km, and the ICPS is only used to raise the perigee up to 1806x185 km.  I'd expect an EUS profile to be substantially different, but I'm not sure what that means.

[jadebenn]

The ICPS doesn't just raise the perigee; It performs the TLI burn as well. That's why the SLS core throws it into such a lopsided orbit. Needs the extra delta-V.

[TheRadicalModerate]

The ICPS doesn't just raise the perigee; It performs the TLI burn as well. That's why the SLS core throws it into such a lopsided orbit. Needs the extra delta-V.

Yes.  I was only addressing mattblak's question about the parking orbit.

Have you seen anything on what the Block 1B ascent trajectory would look like?  I'd assume that the 4 RL10's would significantly reduce the second stage gravity drag, but the larger EUS and payloads will increase it for the core.

[jadebenn]

I don't have any unique insights there, just the obvious, "It'll stage lower in the atmosphere and at a lower speed."

[yg1968]

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.

One possible explanation could be that Bridenstine and Loverro are having a bit of a disagreement.

Knowing what we know now, this seems very likely. That was a good (educated) guess!

[Aeneas]

Why don't they just scale ACES up a bit?

[Khadgars]

Are those TLI numbers for Block 2 coming from Congress or from the options being considered (the advanced boosters) (also, which advanced boosters)

I just grabbed Ed Kyle's numbers, which seem to be from the 2014-vintage SRBs.

I'm viewing Block 2 as science fiction, pretty much.  I'll be very interested to see what tweaks they make to EUS, though.  Fairly minor increases in co-manifesting capability make big differences to potential HLS architectures.

Block II is pretty much guaranteed, since the casings for the 5 seg SRB's will eventually run out.  I believe there are enough for 10 flights

[meberbs]

Block II is pretty much guaranteed,

Not even close, even Block 1B isn't. The only real reason for SLS to get greater than 0 flights is political inertia, and that isn't guaranteed to see the first flight through.

The obselesence of SLS was demonstrable a while back and is only becoming more blatant with time.

[Coastal Ron]

Are those TLI numbers for Block 2 coming from Congress or from the options being considered (the advanced boosters) (also, which advanced boosters)

I just grabbed Ed Kyle's numbers, which seem to be from the 2014-vintage SRBs.

I'm viewing Block 2 as science fiction, pretty much.  I'll be very interested to see what tweaks they make to EUS, though.  Fairly minor increases in co-manifesting capability make big differences to potential HLS architectures.

Block II is pretty much guaranteed, since the casings for the 5 seg SRB's will eventually run out. I believe there are enough for 10 flights

Enough for eight flights, according to a story here on NSF just last year.

Throw that in with all the other considerations for what it would take to keep flying the SLS...

[envy887]

Why don't they just scale ACES up a bit?

EUS is more or less just a DCSS/iCPS scaled up a bit. Starting with ACES or Centaur 5 might result in a higher performance stage, but probably would not be significantly faster or cheaper.

[Khadgars]

Of course SLS could be canceled, but if its not Block II is required eventually that was my point.

[Coastal Ron]

Of course SLS could be canceled, but if its not Block II is required eventually that was my point.

Not sure why building new versions of the same parts is not one of your options. Costs far less, especially if you really don't require the additional capabilities of Block 2.

[RonM]

Of course SLS could be canceled, but if its not Block II is required eventually that was my point.

Not sure why building new versions of the same parts is not one of your options. Costs far less, especially if you really don't require the additional capabilities of Block 2.

The new casing design is for SLS Block II and OmegA. Restarting the old production line, assuming it still exists, would be more expensive.

[Steven Pietrobon]

The new casing design is for SLS Block II and OmegA. Restarting the old production line, assuming it still exists, would be more expensive.

How do you know? Steel is a lot cheaper than carbon fibre.

[russianhalo117]

The new casing design is for SLS Block II and OmegA. Restarting the old production line, assuming it still exists, would be more expensive.

How do you know? Steel is a lot cheaper than carbon fibre.

Not when you already have the retooled the production line with common multiple product tooling and nearly every motor product NG currently produces uses CF casings and all existing steel casing products/product version(s) are deprecated and marked technologically obsolete.

[Hog]

Of course SLS could be canceled, but if its not Block II is required eventually that was my point.

Not sure why building new versions of the same parts is not one of your options. Costs far less, especially if you really don't require the additional capabilities of Block 2.

The new casing design is for SLS Block II and OmegA. Restarting the old production line, assuming it still exists, would be more expensive.

The new cases made of wound filaments(BOLE') are for whatever version is beyond SLS-8, be it Block II(130 tonnes) or Block 1B+(114 tonnes according to Dr Steven P) to LEO.

The actual D6AC super high strength steel segments can no longer be made as they were for Shuttle.  I'm wondering if a cheaper alloy could be used as reusability is no longer a requirement?

Let's not forget that this technology for these carbon fibre SRMs is FAR from new.  4 segment Filament Wound Case(FWC) SRBs were stacked and ready for flight on the West Coast at SLC-6 awaiting the first southerly STS Polar orbit launch back in 1986.
IIRC the FWC were designed for 4 flights of reuse. They used the improved double tang joint though with only 2 O-rings.  SLS doesnt have to deal with any twang movements..

pics
1)Filament Wound Case prior to firing test in Utah.
2) closer view

[DreamyPickle]

Why don't they just scale ACES up a bit?

EUS is more or less just a DCSS/iCPS scaled up a bit. Starting with ACES or Centaur 5 might result in a higher performance stage, but probably would not be significantly faster or cheaper.

Except Centaur V is very likely to fly ahead of the EUS and ULA has already proposed versions with a stretched lengths. Cost would likely be similar to what is required to adapt the ICPS.

ACES also brings additional capabilities such as performing lunar orbit insertion.

Has anyone done the math on SLS+Centaur V performance?

[envy887]

Why don't they just scale ACES up a bit?

EUS is more or less just a DCSS/iCPS scaled up a bit. Starting with ACES or Centaur 5 might result in a higher performance stage, but probably would not be significantly faster or cheaper.

Except Centaur V is very likely to fly ahead of the EUS and ULA has already proposed versions with a stretched lengths. Cost would likely be similar to what is required to adapt the ICPS.

ACES also brings additional capabilities such as performing lunar orbit insertion.

Has anyone done the math on SLS+Centaur V performance?

And DCSS has been flying for almost 20 years.

Maybe I should have been more clear: the delay would be due to adapting the stage to SLS, not any inherent delays with Centaur V. It doesn't really matter what stage you start with, by the time you go through all the hoops required for it to work with SLS, it's going to be similar in cost and timing to the baseline EUS design. The baseline EUS design could also be upgraded to perform LOI like ACES.

Also (IMO) Boeing is highly unlikely to develop ACES for either ULA or SLS, because it would allow Vulcan to match or even  outperform Block 1B and that's a threat to a much more lucrative revenue stream.

[zubenelgenubi]

https://twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF/status/1362064658639826946

As preps continue for #Artemis1, Philip Sloss deep dives with NASA SLSofficials on completion of the all-important Critical Design Review for the Exploration Upper Stage, or EUS, for the Block 1B variant of SLS, set to debut on Artemis 4 in 2026.

NASA completes Exploration Upper Stage CDR, focuses new office on SLS Block 1B development, February 17

[Ronsmytheiii]

Aderholt, late in the two-hour hearing, probed Nelson for details about proposed funding for the upgraded SLS Block 1B vehicle, which uses the Exploration Upper Stage under development. “I don’t have the budget request because the president hasn’t put it out,” Nelson responded. “But, a little birdie told me that he thinks you’ll be happy with the budget request.”

https://spacenews.com/nasa-seeking-more-than-10-billion-in-infrastructure-bill/

[VSECOTSPE]

Aderholt, late in the two-hour hearing, probed Nelson for details about proposed funding for the upgraded SLS Block 1B vehicle, which uses the Exploration Upper Stage under development. “I don’t have the budget request because the president hasn’t put it out,” Nelson responded. “But, a little birdie told me that he thinks you’ll be happy with the budget request.”

https://spacenews.com/nasa-seeking-more-than-10-billion-in-infrastructure-bill/

But still no cost baseline for EUS/Block 1B:

NASA has not established preliminary cost and schedule estimates or a baseline for the SLS Block 1B project.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-306.pdf

[Proponent]

But still no cost baseline for EUS/Block 1B:

NASA has not established preliminary cost and schedule estimates or a baseline for the SLS Block 1B project.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-306.pdf

Cool!   Another gift that will keep on giving.  It looks to me like Rep. Aderholt is earning his pay.  He might even be the new Shelby, despite Mo Brooks' likely elevation to the Senate.

[JHošek]

NASA has not established preliminary cost and schedule estimates or a baseline for the SLS Block 1B project.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-306.pdf

"SLS Block 1B project officials said that despite dynamic requirements, mission objectives and dates, the SLS program is on target to submit a SLS Block 1B agency baseline commitment as planned by September 2021. Officials stated that the baseline will be informed by the planning, programming, budget, and execution process for fiscal year 2023, internal Center reviews, and the initial SLS Block 1B Joint Confidence Level assessment. They also provided technical comments, which were incorporated as appropriate."
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-306.pdf

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/nasa_marshall/status/1607405881259352066

Teams at @NASAStennis are preparing for a Green Run test of the new Exploration Upper Stage (EUS), which will fly on future @NASA_SLS missions. 🚀

EUS is being built at #NASAMichoud in as a more powerful second stage for future #Artemis missions.

More>>

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/stennis/news/image-feature/2022/Stennis-Continues-Preparation-for-Exploration-Upper-Stage-Testing

Dec 21, 2022
Stennis Continues Preparation for Exploration Upper Stage Testing

Crews at NASA’s Stennis Space Center, near Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, lift the 75-ton interstage simulator test component into place at the B-2 Test Stand on Dec. 15. The test component, 31 feet in diameter and 33 feet tall, will be used during Green Run testing of the new Exploration Upper Stage (EUS), which will fly on future Space Launch System missions as NASA continues its mission to explore the universe for the benefit of all. The lift exercise served multiple purposes for the NASA Stennis test complex personnel. Overall, crews used the component as a “pathfinder” for the EUS unit, which helped train lift crews on best practices for moving and handling the actual flight hardware when it arrives. Although the simulator is not exactly the size of the EUS unit, lifting the component into place on the B-2 Test Stand allowed crews to simulate procedures and techniques for handling the flight hardware. The lift also allowed crews to check the test stand clearances to ensure all is configured as needed for the EUS unit. Several key test stand elements must be nearly perfectly aligned for EUS. The simulator lift and install helped crews take precise measurements to ensure those elements are properly placed. Finally, the lift allowed operators to return the simulator to proper placement on the B-2 tarmac following its removal from the test stand on Dec. 16. The simulator had been resting on temporary supports since its arrival in September. With the simulator now placed and leveled on proper tarmac pedestals, the NASA Stennis team will perform finishing work in the coming months to prepare the simulator for full installation onto the test stand. This will include finishing access platforms and precision interfaces prior to sandblasting and painting the test component. The final step prior to installation will be installing various piping and tubing, as well as wiring connections needed for Green Run testing. By the time the simulator is re-installed on the stand, its weight will have increased to 80 tons. EUS is being built at NASA’s Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans as a more powerful second stage to send the Orion spacecraft to deep space. EUS is expected to fly on the Artemis IV mission. Before that, it will be installed on the B-2 Test Stand at NASA Stennis to undergo a series of Green Run tests of its integrated systems to demonstrate it is ready to fly.

Photo Credit: NASA/Danny Nowlin

Last Updated: Dec 21, 2022
Editor: LaToya Dean

[edkyle99]

Interesting top attachment rig, with four support beams sticking out.  I suppose the real stage will also be supported from the top that way.

 - Ed Kyle

[russianhalo117]

Interesting top attachment rig, with four support beams sticking out.  I suppose the real stage will also be supported from the top that way.

 - Ed Kyle

Interesting top attachment rig, with four support beams sticking out.  I suppose the real stage will also be supported from the top that way.

 - Ed Kyle

It is just the EUS green run test interstage adapter designed to convert the stand from the CS attachment system to the EUS attachment system for stability and thrust take-out. It will house the interstage umbilicals to the lower part of EUS and direct the exhaust of the four RL10C-3SL engines through the four exhaust holes (not outfitted in the photos) in the bottom of the adapter down to the flame bucket. It will also provide flight like interstage purge Green run thermal conditioning and fire suppression inside. The bottom is also capable of supporting an addon diffuser for high altitude to near vacuum but is not currently planned to be used in that configuration.

The four bolt on beams are the lifting structure.

[eeergo]

The EUS production area at MAF has been inaugurated after a ribbon-cutting ceremony on Monday:
https://spacenews.com/boeing-opens-sls-eus-production-facility/
Interestingly it sprawls in the area formerly dedicated to building... LNG storage tanks 

STA still predicted to be complete within 1H2024, so in about a year's time. The subsequent static firings at Stennis, currently penciled in at at least two, should also commence this year then. Certification complete in early 2025?

[VSECOTSPE]

There’s a clever observation in the comments section of that article regarding the accompanying picture and how many people it takes to cut a ribbon.  Made me laugh.

[Hog]

The EUS production area at MAF has been inaugurated after a ribbon-cutting ceremony on Monday:
https://spacenews.com/boeing-opens-sls-eus-production-facility/
Interestingly it sprawls in the area formerly dedicated to building... LNG storage tanks 

STA still predicted to be complete within 1H2023, so in a few months' time. The subsequent static firings at Stennis, currently penciled in at at least two, should also commence this year then. Certification complete in early 2024?

emphasis mine

That seems to be at odds with the article.

From the article:
"After completing welding tests, Boeing will produce an EUS structural test article that will then be tested at the Marshall Space Flight Center. Steve Snell, Boeing EUS program manager, said that structural test article should be done in the first half of 2024."

xxxxxxxxxxx

I'm surprised that 2 Core Stages and 2 EUS is a goal.  I think they'd be doing well if they reached 1 of each per year.

[woods170]

The EUS production area at MAF has been inaugurated after a ribbon-cutting ceremony on Monday:
https://spacenews.com/boeing-opens-sls-eus-production-facility/
Interestingly it sprawls in the area formerly dedicated to building... LNG storage tanks 

STA still predicted to be complete within 1H2023, so in a few months' time. The subsequent static firings at Stennis, currently penciled in at at least two, should also commence this year then. Certification complete in early 2024?

emphasis mine

That seems to be at odds with the article.

From the article:
"After completing welding tests, Boeing will produce an EUS structural test article that will then be tested at the Marshall Space Flight Center. Steve Snell, Boeing EUS program manager, said that structural test article should be done in the first half of 2024."

xxxxxxxxxxx

I'm surprised that 2 Core Stages and 2 EUS is a goal.  I think they'd be doing well if they reached 1 of each per year.

Yes, it is at odds with what is written in the article. NO WAY that Boeing can build the STA (they have yet to start construction) in just a few months time. The article clearly suggests that the STA will finish construction, ready for testing at Marshall, in the first half of 2024.

[woods170]

There’s a clever observation in the comments section of that article regarding the accompanying picture and how many people it takes to cut a ribbon.  Made me laugh.

You mean the one below?

[VSECOTSPE]

You mean the one below?

Yeah.  Juvenile and not technically accurate since not all those folks are from Boeing.  But still got my funny bone.

[eeergo]

The EUS production area at MAF has been inaugurated after a ribbon-cutting ceremony on Monday:
https://spacenews.com/boeing-opens-sls-eus-production-facility/
Interestingly it sprawls in the area formerly dedicated to building... LNG storage tanks 

STA still predicted to be complete within 1H2023, so in a few months' time. The subsequent static firings at Stennis, currently penciled in at at least two, should also commence this year then. Certification complete in early 2024?

emphasis mine

That seems to be at odds with the article.

From the article:
"After completing welding tests, Boeing will produce an EUS structural test article that will then be tested at the Marshall Space Flight Center. Steve Snell, Boeing EUS program manager, said that structural test article should be done in the first half of 2024."

xxxxxxxxxxx

I'm surprised that 2 Core Stages and 2 EUS is a goal.  I think they'd be doing well if they reached 1 of each per year.

Yes, it is at odds with what is written in the article. NO WAY that Boeing can build the STA (they have yet to start construction) in just a few months time. The article clearly suggests that the STA will finish construction, ready for testing at Marshall, in the first half of 2024.

Yep, I clearly misread, apologies for the confusion. Makes more sense now, I corrected my statement adding a year to the dates mentioned.

[woods170]

The EUS production area at MAF has been inaugurated after a ribbon-cutting ceremony on Monday:
https://spacenews.com/boeing-opens-sls-eus-production-facility/
Interestingly it sprawls in the area formerly dedicated to building... LNG storage tanks 

STA still predicted to be complete within 1H2023, so in a few months' time. The subsequent static firings at Stennis, currently penciled in at at least two, should also commence this year then. Certification complete in early 2024?

emphasis mine

That seems to be at odds with the article.

From the article:
"After completing welding tests, Boeing will produce an EUS structural test article that will then be tested at the Marshall Space Flight Center. Steve Snell, Boeing EUS program manager, said that structural test article should be done in the first half of 2024."

xxxxxxxxxxx

I'm surprised that 2 Core Stages and 2 EUS is a goal.  I think they'd be doing well if they reached 1 of each per year.

Yes, it is at odds with what is written in the article. NO WAY that Boeing can build the STA (they have yet to start construction) in just a few months time. The article clearly suggests that the STA will finish construction, ready for testing at Marshall, in the first half of 2024.

Yep, I clearly misread, apologies for the confusion. Makes more sense now, I corrected my statement adding a year to the dates mentioned.

Based on the information in the article it is clear that completion of the first EUS flight article will be at least one year behind completion of the EUS STA. So, sometime around mid-2025. The EUS Green Run will be sometime after that. Late 2025 or early 2026 IMO.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The EUS production area at MAF has been inaugurated after a ribbon-cutting ceremony on Monday:
https://spacenews.com/boeing-opens-sls-eus-production-facility/
Interestingly it sprawls in the area formerly dedicated to building... LNG storage tanks 

STA still predicted to be complete within 1H2023, so in a few months' time. The subsequent static firings at Stennis, currently penciled in at at least two, should also commence this year then. Certification complete in early 2024?

emphasis mine

That seems to be at odds with the article.

From the article:
"After completing welding tests, Boeing will produce an EUS structural test article that will then be tested at the Marshall Space Flight Center. Steve Snell, Boeing EUS program manager, said that structural test article should be done in the first half of 2024."

xxxxxxxxxxx

I'm surprised that 2 Core Stages and 2 EUS is a goal.  I think they'd be doing well if they reached 1 of each per year.

Yes, it is at odds with what is written in the article. NO WAY that Boeing can build the STA (they have yet to start construction) in just a few months time. The article clearly suggests that the STA will finish construction, ready for testing at Marshall, in the first half of 2024.

Yep, I clearly misread, apologies for the confusion. Makes more sense now, I corrected my statement adding a year to the dates mentioned.

Based on the information in the article it is clear that completion of the first EUS flight article will be at least one year behind completion of the EUS STA. So, sometime around mid-2025. The EUS Green Run will be sometime after that. Late 2025 or early 2026 IMO.

Just to add the difference between a STA and a flight article. A flight article has engines, piping, electrical harnesses, avionics boxes, batteries, RCS and RCS propellant tanks, and then also the hardware to do the stage separations. To allocate only 6 months for the highest workload tasks than that of 12 months for structural build is ...

Will be lucky to get green run by end of year 2026.

[woods170]

Based on the information in the article it is clear that completion of the first EUS flight article will be at least one year behind completion of the EUS STA. So, sometime around mid-2025. The EUS Green Run will be sometime after that. Late 2025 or early 2026 IMO.

Just to add the difference between a STA and a flight article. A flight article has engines, piping, electrical harnesses, avionics boxes, batteries, RCS and RCS propellant tanks, and then also the hardware to do the stage separations. To allocate only 6 months for the highest workload tasks than that of 12 months for structural build is ...

Will be lucky to get green run by end of year 2026.

Hey, I was being optimistic! 
But I agree with you.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1651645056011345933

Nelson avoids an international incident by correcting an earlier comment: the delay in the Exploration Upper Stage is due to Boeing, not the European Space Agency.

[XRZ.YZ]

Weld Confidence Articles (WCAs) for EUS have started, with one completed in April 2023. Five WCAs remain

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nac_may_2023_moon_to_mars_final_5-12-23.pdf
page 18

[ulm_atms]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1651645056011345933

Nelson avoids an international incident by correcting an earlier comment: the delay in the Exploration Upper Stage is due to Boeing, not the European Space Agency.

Well there is a shocker....

Is it my imagination or is Boeing pretty much the reason for most of the HSF delays lately, or at least everything they have to do with HSF?

[Vahe231991]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1651645056011345933

Nelson avoids an international incident by correcting an earlier comment: the delay in the Exploration Upper Stage is due to Boeing, not the European Space Agency.

Well there is a shocker....

Is it my imagination or is Boeing pretty much the reason for most of the HSF delays lately, or at least everything they have to do with HSF?

Boeing recently opened a factory for producing the EUS, but I'm not sure what delay in the EUS by Boing is being alluded to in the tweet.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://flic.kr/p/2pmA42Q

NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center
NASA Stennis Continues Preparations for Future Artemis Testing

Crews at NASA’s Stennis Space Center cleared a milestone Dec. 11, installing a key component in preparation for future Green Run testing of NASA’s new Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) vehicle for use on the SLS (Space Launch System) rocket.
 
Four large diffusers, each weighing 14 tons, were lifted by crane for installation on the Thad Cochran Test Stand (B-2). The diffusers are a critical component designed to help direct engine exhaust away from the EUS during hot fire testing to minimize heat exposure to sensitive vehicle systems.
 
Image credit: NASA/Danny Nowlin

[yg1968]

https://twitter.com/boeingspace/status/1759986341348049045