HLS Landing in 2023 - What would it take?

[Valerij]

Their realistic assessment is a first uncrewed lunar landing attempt in 2026, with the crewed landing NET late 2027/early 2028.

And yes, I'm willing to eat crow if my sources are wrong and the first uncrewed lunar landing attempt is earlier than 2026. Same for the first crewed landing it that happens before 2027.

Where does that put Dear Moon?

2025 At the very earliest. But 2026/2027 is more realistic, according to my sources at SpaceX.

The problem consists mainly of 2 things:
1. getting Starship flying operationally.
2. getting lots and lots and lots of flights to build confidence and reliability.

Both things combined will take several years. So much in fact that one of the SpaceX sources suggested that DearMoon might actually fly only AFTER the Artemis III crewed landing. But we'll see what happens. One thing is for sure: if DearMoon flies successfully BEFORE Artemis III, then a lot of people will start questioning the use of the government owned systems for bringing people to the Moon.

It would be the other way around. If Dear Moon flies before HLS, a lot of people will be questioning SpaceX's commitment to HLS. Their contract says that HLS should be ready in 2025. That should be their priority, not Dear Moon.

In any event, this seems to contradict what Nick Cunnings is saying publicly, he is essentially saying that Starlink and Artemis are the first Starship missions:

On panel abt Moon, Mars and Beyond, SpaceX’s Nick Cummings says first Starship launches will be for Starlink but can think of them as Artemis flights bc they’ll build reliability and reusability needed for HLS and more broadly sustainable exploration.

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1623737494054309888

     
First there will be a test unmanned flight of Starship HLS, then "Dear Moon" and/or "Polaris-3", and only then "Artemis-3". Thus, no one can blame SpaceX for giving the Dear Moon project a higher priority than the Artemis program. And this is a completely logical sequence of missions, given that the Starship HLS needs to demonstrate the reliability of the LEO fueling process.
   

[woods170]

Where does that put Dear Moon?

2025 At the very earliest. But 2026/2027 is more realistic, according to my sources at SpaceX.

The problem consists mainly of 2 things:
1. getting Starship flying operationally.
2. getting lots and lots and lots of flights to build confidence and reliability.

Both things combined will take several years. So much in fact that one of the SpaceX sources suggested that DearMoon might actually fly only AFTER the Artemis III crewed landing. But we'll see what happens. One thing is for sure: if DearMoon flies successfully BEFORE Artemis III, then a lot of people will start questioning the use of the government owned systems for bringing people to the Moon.

It would be the other way around. If Dear Moon flies before HLS, a lot of people will be questioning SpaceX's commitment to HLS. Their contract says that HLS should be ready in 2025. That should be their priority, not Dear Moon.

Emphasis mine.

No, that is NOT what their contract says. The HLS contract does NOT contain HARD deadlines, only aspirational target dates. You see, the original Phase A contract held a target date of 2024. But less than a year after contract award, NASA officially delayed Artemis III to 2025. But the target date of 2024 is still in the contract, despite having been officially invalidated.

Target dates given in contracts such as for HLS are NEVER hard deadlines, but always aspirational target dates. And target dates shift a lot in complex development.

In a way this is similar to the target date of 2017 that was in the Core Stage 1 contract for Boeing. It was NOT a hard deadline, but a target date. And that was a good thing too. Because in late 2017 Boeing had only barely begun building the first Core Stage, instead of it being ready for launch.

[steveleach]

Do we know that DearMoon and Polaris 3 aren't milestones on the plan that SpaceX and NASA are tracking for Artemis?

The fact that someone else is paying for them shouldn't make any difference with a contract like this should it?

But either way, this is in no way relevant to the question of whether an HLS landing this year is feasible.

[Robotbeat]

Risk reduction exercises & incorporating lessons learned from non-HLS Starship flights are doubtless part of the overall plan for qualifying HLS.

But I don’t think that Dear Moon and Polaris in particular are intentionally before Artemis III.

[lykos]

DearMoon-Starship and Polaris-Starship are very different to the HSL-Starship.
They will be used as "test articles" for HSL or not.
For sure SX will try all to have HSL ready when the NASA will need it.
DearMoon and Polaris III(?), will have to start and land crewed on earth, more difficult than HSL?

[yg1968]

First there will be a test unmanned flight of Starship HLS, then "Dear Moon" and/or "Polaris-3", and only then "Artemis-3". Thus, no one can blame SpaceX for giving the Dear Moon project a higher priority than the Artemis program. And this is a completely logical sequence of missions, given that the Starship HLS needs to demonstrate the reliability of the LEO fueling process.

There is no reason to believe that Polaris and Dear Moon will fly before the first HLS-Starship.

[yg1968]

Emphasis mine.

No, that is NOT what their contract says. The HLS contract does NOT contain HARD deadlines, only aspirational target dates. You see, the original Phase A contract held a target date of 2024. But less than a year after contract award, NASA officially delayed Artemis III to 2025. But the target date of 2024 is still in the contract, despite having been officially invalidated.

Target dates given in contracts such as for HLS are NEVER hard deadlines, but always aspirational target dates. And target dates shift a lot in complex development.

In a way this is similar to the target date of 2017 that was in the Core Stage 1 contract for Boeing. It was NOT a hard deadline, but a target date. And that was a good thing too. Because in late 2017 Boeing had only barely begun building the first Core Stage, instead of it being ready for launch.

The protest by Blue Origin pushed the date on the Option A contract from 2024 to 2025. This was indicated in the ending date of the contract on USAspending.gov website before Option B was awarded (see the link below). SpaceX can't be held responsible for the delay from the protest. I don't believe that the dates are aspirational but there is not huge consequences for missing the dates. For commercial cargo, NASA obtained free coolers on Dragon in exchange for the delays.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56067.msg2430571#msg2430571

[DanClemmensen]

First there will be a test unmanned flight of Starship HLS, then "Dear Moon" and/or "Polaris-3", and only then "Artemis-3". Thus, no one can blame SpaceX for giving the Dear Moon project a higher priority than the Artemis program. And this is a completely logical sequence of missions, given that the Starship HLS needs to demonstrate the reliability of the LEO fueling process.

There is no reason to believe that Polaris and Dear Moon will fly before the first HLS-Starship.

There are compelling reasons to believe that SpaceX will not launch and land a crewed Starship on Earth for a long time. Gwynne Shotwell and Elon Musk have both stated that SpaceX will complete a large number ("hundreds") of Earth launches and EDLs before trying it with crew, and There is no way to achieve the needed flight rate quickly, and those two mission have civilian passengers. By contrast, Starship HLS will have a crew of two NASA test pilot astronauts and will not launch from Earth with crew or do an Earth EDL. SpaceX and NASA have contractually committed to the crewed HLS flight being the second HLS flight after one uncrewed lunar landing.

[oiorionsbelt]

Gwynne Shotwell and Elon Musk have both stated that SpaceX will complete a large number ("hundreds") of Earth launches and EDLs before trying it with crew, and There is no way to achieve the needed flight rate quickly,

You keep repeating this but offer no proof. In contrast Qwynne Shotwell says

“If we can do 100 flights of Falcon this year, I’d love to be able to do 100 flights of Starship next year. I don’t think we will do 100 flights of Starship next year, but maybe 2025 we will do 100 flights.”

Edit: But to the title of this thread, no chance of an HLS landing this year.

[DanClemmensen]

Gwynne Shotwell and Elon Musk have both stated that SpaceX will complete a large number ("hundreds") of Earth launches and EDLs before trying it with crew, and There is no way to achieve the needed flight rate quickly,

You keep repeating this but offer no proof. In contrast Qwynne Shot well says

“If we can do 100 flights of Falcon this year, I’d love to be able to do 100 flights of Starship next year. I don’t think we will do 100 flights of Starship next year, but maybe 2025 we will do 100 flights.”

I have no proof that 100 flights/yr in 2025 is impossible, and we will not know until the end of 2025. However, I am reasoning from the following:
 *No modern orbital LV has launched more than a total of 10 times in its first four years.
 *The Eastern range that controls flights from KSC+CCSFS is highly unlikely to be able to support more than about 90 flights total in 2025.
 *The FAA announced yesterday that they want to limit the number of launches in the Eastern range because of the disruption they cause to air travel.
 *Artemis 3 is supposed to fly before the end of 2025.

FWIW, I personally want to see SpaceX hit that 2 launches/wk rate by mid-2024, but I just don't see it happening.

[Valerij]

First there will be a test unmanned flight of Starship HLS, then "Dear Moon" and/or "Polaris-3", and only then "Artemis-3". Thus, no one can blame SpaceX for giving the Dear Moon project a higher priority than the Artemis program. And this is a completely logical sequence of missions, given that the Starship HLS needs to demonstrate the reliability of the LEO fueling process.

There is no reason to believe that Polaris and Dear Moon will fly before the first HLS-Starship.

     
But there is an absolute need to refuel Starship HLS to LEO, even for a test unmanned flight to the Moon. And this means that Starship reusable flights must be mastered before the first flight of Starship HLS. And there is good reason to believe that between the first unmanned flight of Starship HLS and the Artemis-3, there will be many Starship flights, which will allow the system to be worked out and manned spacecraft to be launched.
   

[Valerij]

First there will be a test unmanned flight of Starship HLS, then "Dear Moon" and/or "Polaris-3", and only then "Artemis-3". Thus, no one can blame SpaceX for giving the Dear Moon project a higher priority than the Artemis program. And this is a completely logical sequence of missions, given that the Starship HLS needs to demonstrate the reliability of the LEO fueling process.

There is no reason to believe that Polaris and Dear Moon will fly before the first HLS-Starship.

There are compelling reasons to believe that SpaceX will not launch and land a crewed Starship on Earth for a long time.

     
Excuse me, where does it say that?
     

Gwynne Shotwell and Elon Musk have both stated that SpaceX will complete a large number ("hundreds") of Earth launches and EDLs before trying it with crew, and There is no way to achieve the needed flight rate quickly, and those two mission have civilian passengers.

   
This is true. But before the first unmanned test flight of the Starship HLS, there will be many re-flights of different versions of the Starship. After the first test flight, NASA will study its results for at least a year and require changes to the design of the Starship HLS based on its results. All this time, SpaceX will be launching the reusable Starship at a high pace, so it is highly likely that Polaris-3 and Dear Moon will be launched earlier than Artemis-3.
   
There is one subtlety in the requirements for Starship HLS, which, it seems to me, many underestimate. The thing is,
that when landing on the surface of the moon illuminated by the sun, the Starship HLS must retain the amount of cryogenic fuel necessary for takeoff for a long time. This is a serious problem on the surface of the Moon heated up to 150C, and it may well slow down development.
   

       
 *Artemis 3 is supposed to fly before the end of 2025.
     

     
Are you sure about this time frame?
   

[Robotbeat]

Valerij, I completely agree that thermal management of Starship on the surface of the Moon is a *significant* challenge. Not only do you have boiloff to manage (the biggest challenge), but the crew needs to not freeze and the engines might not want to soak at liquid oxygen temperatures, so you have this built-in thermal gradient on both the top and the bottom (so shielding the entire vehicle is not sufficient to stop heat leakage).

[DanClemmensen]

There are compelling reasons to believe that SpaceX will not launch and land a crewed Starship on Earth for a long time.

Excuse me, where does it say that?

"It" did not say that. I said that. Those reasons are compelling to me, and I believe that. I provided my reasoning in an earlier post.

     

Gwynne Shotwell and Elon Musk have both stated that SpaceX will complete a large number ("hundreds") of Earth launches and EDLs before trying it with crew, and There is no way to achieve the needed flight rate quickly, and those two mission have civilian passengers.

   
This is true. But before the first unmanned test flight of the Starship HLS, there will be many re-flights of different versions of the Starship. After the first test flight, NASA will study its results for at least a year and require changes to the design of the Starship HLS based on its results. All this time, SpaceX will be launching the reusable Starship at a high pace, so it is highly likely that Polaris-3 and Dear Moon will be launched earlier than Artemis-3.
   
There is one subtlety in the requirements for Starship HLS, which, it seems to me, many underestimate. The thing is,
that when landing on the surface of the moon illuminated by the sun, the Starship HLS must retain the amount of cryogenic fuel necessary for takeoff for a long time. This is a serious problem on the surface of the Moon heated up to 150C, and it may well slow down development.

I was providing my reasons that commercial passenger Earth EDL flights will take a long time. I was not discussing the HLS schedule at all, except to reiterate that there is no NASA or SpaceX requirement that passenger Earth EDL flights must precede HLS. I agree that HLS must handle the conditions you mention, but I think that all of them taken together are less challenging than reducing the risk for commercial passenger Earth EDL flights to an acceptable level.

*Artemis 3 is supposed to fly before the end of 2025.

Are you sure about this time frame?

Yes, I am sure that "Artemis 3 is supposed to fly before the end of 2025". No, I am not confident that this will actually happen. In fact, I am fairly sure that it will not happen, because Artemis 2 is projected by NASA OIG to be NET February 2025, and I don't think NASA can evaluate Artemis 2 quickly or that they can refurbish the ML-1 and stack and launch Artemis 3 in ten months.

[Valerij]

In fact, I am fairly sure that it will not happen, because Artemis 2 is projected by NASA OIG to be NET February 2025, and I don't think NASA can evaluate Artemis 2 quickly or that they can refurbish the ML-1 and stack and launch Artemis 3 in ten months.

   
Then why are you arguing, referring to the planned deadline for the Artemis-3 mission, if you yourself do not believe that this deadline will be met?
     
I understand that the "return to the moon" will take place after 2025, and I am sure that Elon Musk will not waste time and will try to achieve the necessary reliability and safety of Starship flights, which will allow passengers to fly on it.
   

   

[DanClemmensen]

In fact, I am fairly sure that it will not happen, because Artemis 2 is projected by NASA OIG to be NET February 2025, and I don't think NASA can evaluate Artemis 2 quickly or that they can refurbish the ML-1 and stack and launch Artemis 3 in ten months.

Then why are you arguing, referring to the planned deadline for the Artemis-3 mission, if you yourself do not believe that this deadline will be met?
     
I understand that the "return to the moon" will take place after 2025, and I am sure that Elon Musk will not waste time and will try to achieve the necessary reliability and safety of Starship flights, which will allow passengers to fly on it.

I'm not arguing at all.
   *I think SLS/Orion for Artemis 3 will slip past 2025.
   *I think SpaceX will not achieve their goal of 100 successful EDL (which they insist is needed for crewed EDL Starship) before 2027.
   *I think SpaceX will prioritize HLS (Depot, tanker, lander) over crewed EDL Starship.

[woods170]

Emphasis mine.

No, that is NOT what their contract says. The HLS contract does NOT contain HARD deadlines, only aspirational target dates. You see, the original Phase A contract held a target date of 2024. But less than a year after contract award, NASA officially delayed Artemis III to 2025. But the target date of 2024 is still in the contract, despite having been officially invalidated.

Target dates given in contracts such as for HLS are NEVER hard deadlines, but always aspirational target dates. And target dates shift a lot in complex development.

In a way this is similar to the target date of 2017 that was in the Core Stage 1 contract for Boeing. It was NOT a hard deadline, but a target date. And that was a good thing too. Because in late 2017 Boeing had only barely begun building the first Core Stage, instead of it being ready for launch.

The protest by Blue Origin pushed the date on the Option A contract from 2024 to 2025. This was indicated in the ending date of the contract on USAspending.gov website before Option B was awarded (see the link below). SpaceX can't be held responsible for the delay from the protest. I don't believe that the dates are aspirational but there is not huge consequences for missing the dates. For commercial cargo, NASA obtained free coolers on Dragon in exchange for the delays.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56067.msg2430571#msg2430571

First off: the phrase "potential end date" in the awards should tell you enough about how "hard" those "deadlines" are. IOW: soft dates and no deadlines, aka target dates only.

Second:
Both SpaceX and Boeing have not compensated NASA in any way for missing the CCP "deadlines". That is the beauty of Milestones Based Firm Fixed Price contracts: the contractors only get paid for a milestone upon completion of that milestone. If the milestone is met a year late, then extra cost (to the contractors) associated with that delay is eaten by the contractor, instead of NASA.

So, it is the contractors that will want to stick to the schedule as much as possible, because any delay eats into their profits.

But despite this fact, SpaceX, Boeing and Northrop-Grumman ate years of delays during COTS and CCP. It won't be any different for HLS. And that is simply because a customer can't force a contractor to fly something at a given date, when that something is not ready to fly. And both the use of Cost-Plus contracts and throwing extra money at Firm Fixed Price contracts don't alter that fact. Just look at SLS and Starliner, where NASA tried both methods to get things moving faster. Both times it failed miserably.

[woods170]

Gwynne Shotwell and Elon Musk have both stated that SpaceX will complete a large number ("hundreds") of Earth launches and EDLs before trying it with crew, and There is no way to achieve the needed flight rate quickly,

You keep repeating this but offer no proof. In contrast Qwynne Shotwell says

“If we can do 100 flights of Falcon this year, I’d love to be able to do 100 flights of Starship next year. I don’t think we will do 100 flights of Starship next year, but maybe 2025 we will do 100 flights.”

Emphasis mine.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/01/elon-musk-spacex-starship-to-fly-hundreds-of-missions-before-people.html

[steveleach]

Gwynne Shotwell and Elon Musk have both stated that SpaceX will complete a large number ("hundreds") of Earth launches and EDLs before trying it with crew, and There is no way to achieve the needed flight rate quickly,

You keep repeating this but offer no proof. In contrast Qwynne Shotwell says

“If we can do 100 flights of Falcon this year, I’d love to be able to do 100 flights of Starship next year. I don’t think we will do 100 flights of Starship next year, but maybe 2025 we will do 100 flights.”

Emphasis mine.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/01/elon-musk-spacex-starship-to-fly-hundreds-of-missions-before-people.html

Not arguing one way or the other in the wider debate, but was that particular statement made before the HLS decision?

I can imagine Musk assuming a large number of flights before having people for the full round trip (with its booster and Earth EDL), but not considering a different scenario with people on board just for a moon landing.

[DanClemmensen]

Gwynne Shotwell and Elon Musk have both stated that SpaceX will complete a large number ("hundreds") of Earth launches and EDLs before trying it with crew, and There is no way to achieve the needed flight rate quickly,

You keep repeating this but offer no proof. In contrast Qwynne Shotwell says

“If we can do 100 flights of Falcon this year, I’d love to be able to do 100 flights of Starship next year. I don’t think we will do 100 flights of Starship next year, but maybe 2025 we will do 100 flights.”

Emphasis mine.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/01/elon-musk-spacex-starship-to-fly-hundreds-of-missions-before-people.html

Not arguing one way or the other in the wider debate, but was that particular statement made before the HLS decision?

I can imagine Musk assuming a large number of flights before having people for the full round trip (with its booster and Earth EDL), but not considering a different scenario with people on board just for a moon landing.

That's the whole point. The statement is about crewed Earth-EDL Sharship. It has nothing to do with HLS. HLS is governed by the HLS contract with NASA.