Poll

So, anyone want to guess if Blue Origin will be ready for Artemis V?

Yeah, they'll build a robust lander with time to spare.
6 (20%)
They will need many waivers for non-conforming hardware, but they'll make it.
3 (10%)
They will delay Artemis V by some noticeable time span, but eventually they will make it.
13 (43.3%)
SpaceX will have to provide hardware for Artemis V.
8 (26.7%)
Other (please specify)
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 30

Voting closed: 06/01/2023 07:41 pm


Author Topic: Starship Artemis Contract & Lunar Starship  (Read 1270841 times)

Offline zack

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2100 on: 03/12/2022 03:31 pm »
Speaking of refilling, is it required for Starship missions other than the ones going to the Moon, Mars or other deep space missions?
Maybe for a really heavy/big satellite going to GEO? Launch to a LEO orbit, refuel at depot and then up to GEO.

Offline niwax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1433
  • Germany
    • SpaceX Booster List
  • Liked: 2053
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2101 on: 03/12/2022 04:08 pm »
Speaking of refilling, is it required for Starship missions other than the ones going to the Moon, Mars or other deep space missions?
Maybe for a really heavy/big satellite going to GEO? Launch to a LEO orbit, refuel at depot and then up to GEO.

I guess they could also do an Ariane-style mega-rideshare and deliver multiple satellites to near-GEO in one go with about four refillings. Due to the heavy upper stage, it actually makes very little difference whether they take one satellite or three or four at once.
Which booster has the most soot? SpaceX booster launch history! (discussion)

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2233
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2102 on: 03/12/2022 04:09 pm »
Speaking of refilling, is it required for Starship missions other than the ones going to the Moon, Mars or other deep space missions?

The Starship Users Guide lists 100+ tonnes to LEO and 21 tonnes to GTO with a single launch.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7496
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6093
  • Likes Given: 2551
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2103 on: 03/12/2022 04:12 pm »
Speaking of refilling, is it required for Starship missions other than the ones going to the Moon, Mars or other deep space missions?
Maybe for a really heavy/big satellite going to GEO? Launch to a LEO orbit, refuel at depot and then up to GEO.

I guess they could also do an Ariane-style mega-rideshare and deliver multiple satellites to near-GEO in one go with about four refillings. Due to the heavy upper stage, it actually makes very little difference whether they take one satellite or three or four at once.
When you include tanker launches, does this require fewer launches than just splitting up the payload into handy single-launch chunks?

Offline billh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 827
  • Houston
  • Liked: 1214
  • Likes Given: 889
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2104 on: 03/12/2022 04:56 pm »
SpaceX should have some designation for their future ships. I propose "SXS" for SpaceX Ship, analogous to HMS or USS. Then the first depot ship could be named the SXS Shelby.

Offline Ben Baley

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 284
  • Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 305
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2105 on: 03/12/2022 05:01 pm »
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220003725/downloads/22%203%207%20Kent%20IEEE%20paper.pdf

HLS Starship concept of operations slide.


They got the scale of Orion wrong in this slide, but I guess showing the actual size relationship of HLS and Orion might make for some uncomfortable questions.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7496
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6093
  • Likes Given: 2551
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2106 on: 03/12/2022 05:15 pm »
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220003725/downloads/22%203%207%20Kent%20IEEE%20paper.pdf

HLS Starship concept of operations slide.


They got the scale of Orion wrong in this slide, but I guess showing the actual size relationship of HLS and Orion might make for some uncomfortable questions.
:) "Not to scale"  :)   look at the Moon.
But at least this time, in contrast to the egregious Huntsville briefing last year,  they did use the same scale for the Starships and SLS/Orion.  Take a look at the Orion sitting atop the SLS. It's so small that it simply would not show up if used in the other three places on the infographic.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9270
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10740
  • Likes Given: 12347
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2107 on: 03/12/2022 08:01 pm »
I know that there is a lot of hate for Shelby but he did help fund HLS and never tried to block it as far as we know. He apparently prevented NASA from funding depots for a while but not for Starship as NASA is paying SpaceX $53M for an orbital refilling test:

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/solicitations/tipping_points/2020_selections

Dynetics and National Team are also using refilling.

If Shelby didn't allow Moon lander refueling, then his SLS rocket wouldn't have anywhere to go. So don't confuse this limited amount of money as Shelby finally admitting that in-space refueling should have always been allowed.

A governmental lander launching on a SLS Block 1B was a possibility.

No doubt still a possibility, since Congress could still direct NASA to build their own lander. HOWEVER, let's look at NASA's speed at building human-rated vehicles, shall we?

- Orion MPCV will have been in development for almost 20 years by the time the first operational mission (i.e. crewed) is scheduled to lift off.

- The SLS, which was supposed to benefit from Shuttle heritage and Shuttle contractors, will have taken 15 years before its first operational mission.

And I think Shelby understands that math, because waiting for a NASA moon lander to be developed would mean the SLS has nothing to do for at least a decade (likely two), and that would mandate the SLS be cancelled for a lack of need.

So no, a U.S. Government-owned lander has never really been an option, and from what we've seen of the "commercial" lander proposals that are not from SpaceX, they would not be much quicker than what NASA could do. SpaceX is only able to provide their lander "soon" because they started work on the basic vehicle years ago for Mars colonization, and they work like the NASA of the 1960's did, whereas NASA today can't work that fast anymore.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8389
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2593
  • Likes Given: 8476
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2108 on: 03/12/2022 11:57 pm »
In cost-plus contracts, the delays are a feature.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9108
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2109 on: 03/13/2022 01:46 am »
I know that there is a lot of hate for Shelby but he did help fund HLS and never tried to block it as far as we know.

Probably because he doesn't see HLS as a threat to Alabama jobs, may have something to do with the fact that HLS program office is in Marshall.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18276
  • Liked: 7887
  • Likes Given: 3303
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2110 on: 03/13/2022 03:23 am »
I know that there is a lot of hate for Shelby but he did help fund HLS and never tried to block it as far as we know. He apparently prevented NASA from funding depots for a while but not for Starship as NASA is paying SpaceX $53M for an orbital refilling test:

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/solicitations/tipping_points/2020_selections

Dynetics and National Team are also using refilling.

If Shelby didn't allow Moon lander refueling, then his SLS rocket wouldn't have anywhere to go. So don't confuse this limited amount of money as Shelby finally admitting that in-space refueling should have always been allowed.

A governmental lander launching on a SLS Block 1B was a possibility.
So no, a U.S. Government-owned lander has never really been an option, and from what we've seen of the "commercial" lander proposals that are not from SpaceX, they would not be much quicker than what NASA could do. SpaceX is only able to provide their lander "soon" because they started work on the basic vehicle years ago for Mars colonization, and they work like the NASA of the 1960's did, whereas NASA today can't work that fast anymore.

The estimates at the time were that a government lander would cost about $15B. It may have been possible to have a government lander but it wouldn't have been ready in 2024. It probably would have been at least 5 years late, like SLS, and perhaps even longer. I think that people underestimate how important it was that HLS be a commercial program. If the Obama Administration and Bolden are remembered for funding commercial crew, the Trump Administration and Bridenstine should be remembered for funding a commercial HLS program. I think that both of these commercial programs are equally important. Under the 2010 NASA Authorization, it was believed that LEO should be commercial but that BLEO should be governmental. Fortunately, Bridenstine and the Trump Administration did not follow that silly division. I like the fact that the Biden Administration and Nelson kept HLS commercial and decided to make spacesuits, a commercial service.
« Last Edit: 03/13/2022 01:08 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1813
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2111 on: 03/13/2022 05:17 am »
....
....

A governmental lander launching on a SLS Block 1B was a possibility.
So no, a U.S. Government-owned lander has never really been an option, and from what we've seen of the "commercial" lander proposals that are not from SpaceX, they would not be much quicker than what NASA could do. SpaceX is only able to provide their lander "soon" because they started work on the basic vehicle years ago for Mars colonization, and they work like the NASA of the 1960's did, whereas NASA today can't work that fast anymore.

The estimates at the time were that a government lander would cost about $15B. It may have been possible to have a government lander but it wouldn't have been ready in 2024. It probably would have been at least 5 years late, like SLS, and perhaps even longer. I think that people underestimate how important it was that HLS be a commercial program. If the Obama Administration and Bolden are remembered for funding commercial crew, the Trump Administration and Bridenstine should be remembered for funding a commercial HLS program. I think that both of these commercial programs are equally important. Under the 2010 NASA Authorization, it was believed that that LEO should be commercial but that BLEO should be governmental. Fortunately, Bridenstine and the Trump Administration did not follow that silly division. I like the fact that the Biden Administration and Nelson kept HLS commercial and decided to make spacesuits, a commercial service.
They don't want to see the spectacle of paying tourists being hoisted down to the regolith from a shiny spacecraft. While the SLS/Orion/NASA lander program progressing at a glacial pace with no flightworthy lander hardware. ;)

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9270
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10740
  • Likes Given: 12347
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2112 on: 03/13/2022 04:39 pm »
So no, a U.S. Government-owned lander has never really been an option, and from what we've seen of the "commercial" lander proposals that are not from SpaceX, they would not be much quicker than what NASA could do. SpaceX is only able to provide their lander "soon" because they started work on the basic vehicle years ago for Mars colonization, and they work like the NASA of the 1960's did, whereas NASA today can't work that fast anymore.
The estimates at the time were that a government lander would cost about $15B. It may have been possible to have a government lander but it wouldn't have been ready in 2024. It probably would have been at least 5 years late, like SLS, and perhaps even longer.

Let me put on my scheduling profession hat and remind everyone that it was the Trump Administration decision in 2017 to set the first Moon landing date for 2024. And they did that WITHOUT a comprehensive plan for how to do it. THAT decision has driven all of the plans and decisions, and it has forced NASA into pathways that are non-optimal.

Regarding a U.S. Government Moon lander, there were only proposals, no firm designs, so no firm cost or time estimates. Which is why a government-built Moon lander was not an option, because it could not be built in time to keep the SLS (and Orion) from being mothballed and/or cancelled.

Quote
I think that people underestimate how important it was that HLS be a commercial program.

The assumption your statement implies is that a return to Moon program HAD TO HAPPEN, and that the return date HAD TO BE 2024.

Again, that 2024 date, which Congress has not fully supported with money, has caused NASA to be pushed into risks that have not fully succeeded.

For the HLS NASA had no choice but to ask industry if they could build Moon lander of their own, because NASA was not going to be able to build one on their own in the time that Trump needed it (or anytime this decade).

Quote
If the Obama Administration and Bolden are remembered for funding commercial crew, the Trump Administration and Bridenstine should be remembered for funding a commercial HLS program.

I think you are missing some important distinctions. LEO is an important destination, since it is the first potential stop once humans leave Earth. Everyone has to go to, or pass thru, LEO. Landing on the Moon is not on the critical path for any activity yet, except for the Artemis program.

And in reality there isn't a true "commercial" industry for landing on the Moon, just a lander that SpaceX is modifying from their Mars design. And SpaceX was working on that years in advance of the Trump Moon goal, so if not for SpaceX NASA would likely not be able to land humans on the Moon this decade.

But that is NOT NASA creating a commercial transportation system to the Moon, that is NASA being lucky that SpaceX could modify their Mars vehicle. Because there are no other Moon landers being developed, so no commercial market has been created. Unlike Commercial Crew and LEO, where there will be at least two different commercial systems for getting to LEO.

Quote
I think that both of these commercial programs are equally important. Under the 2010 NASA Authorization, it was believed that LEO should be commercial but that BLEO should be governmental.

I think this is an internet meme, not a real thing. And I think it was created by those that were trying to justify the SLS. If you think it is real then provide proof please.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7496
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6093
  • Likes Given: 2551
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2113 on: 03/13/2022 05:19 pm »
[...]
And in reality there isn't a true "commercial" industry for landing on the Moon, just a lander that SpaceX is modifying from their Mars design. And SpaceX was working on that years in advance of the Trump Moon goal, so if not for SpaceX NASA would likely not be able to land humans on the Moon this decade.

But that is NOT NASA creating a commercial transportation system to the Moon, that is NASA being lucky that SpaceX could modify their Mars vehicle. Because there are no other Moon landers being developed, so no commercial market has been created. Unlike Commercial Crew and LEO, where there will be at least two different commercial systems for getting to LEO.
[...]
I think you are correct, but I have a minor nit to pick with your wording.  True, NASA got lucky because SpaceX was already developing Starship, but Starship is not "just" a Mars vehicle. It's an entire elaborate complex system and a business plan that makes it work, which includes e.g. Starlink. Because the grandiose vision requires many SS variants, the Starship architecture was already required to be very flexible and permit relatively easy design and development of yet another SS variant (HLS) plus the use of two variants (tanker and depot) already needed for Mars. Thus the big piece of luck is the ease with which SpaceX could create an entirely new variant, which is very different than the putative "Mars vehicle".

Offline billh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 827
  • Houston
  • Liked: 1214
  • Likes Given: 889
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2114 on: 03/13/2022 06:38 pm »
[...]
And in reality there isn't a true "commercial" industry for landing on the Moon, just a lander that SpaceX is modifying from their Mars design. And SpaceX was working on that years in advance of the Trump Moon goal, so if not for SpaceX NASA would likely not be able to land humans on the Moon this decade.

But that is NOT NASA creating a commercial transportation system to the Moon, that is NASA being lucky that SpaceX could modify their Mars vehicle. Because there are no other Moon landers being developed, so no commercial market has been created. Unlike Commercial Crew and LEO, where there will be at least two different commercial systems for getting to LEO.
[...]
I think you are correct, but I have a minor nit to pick with your wording.  True, NASA got lucky because SpaceX was already developing Starship, but Starship is not "just" a Mars vehicle. It's an entire elaborate complex system and a business plan that makes it work, which includes e.g. Starlink. Because the grandiose vision requires many SS variants, the Starship architecture was already required to be very flexible and permit relatively easy design and development of yet another SS variant (HLS) plus the use of two variants (tanker and depot) already needed for Mars. Thus the big piece of luck is the ease with which SpaceX could create an entirely new variant, which is very different than the putative "Mars vehicle".
Starship isn't so much customizable due to a particular design feature. It's that Starship is designed for efficient mass production, and at a scale where the mass budget is not so critical. It's an airframe, with plenty of margin for designing how the interior is going to be kitted out. HLS is actually a highly customized version compared to the standard airframe. But when someone offers you $2.9 billion the proper response is, "Do you want fries with that?"

Edit: I said "Starlink" where I meant "Starship".
« Last Edit: 03/13/2022 08:23 pm by billh »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18276
  • Liked: 7887
  • Likes Given: 3303
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2115 on: 03/13/2022 07:23 pm »
Let me put on my scheduling profession hat and remind everyone that it was the Trump Administration decision in 2017 to set the first Moon landing date for 2024. And they did that WITHOUT a comprehensive plan for how to do it. THAT decision has driven all of the plans and decisions, and it has forced NASA into pathways that are non-optimal.

Please provide examples where Bridenstine and the Trump Administration chose pathways that were less than optimal. HLS and CLPS were pretty good programs and were continued by the Biden Administration. 

Quote
The assumption your statement implies is that a return to Moon program HAD TO HAPPEN, and that the return date HAD TO BE 2024.

Again, that 2024 date, which Congress has not fully supported with money, has caused NASA to be pushed into risks that have not fully succeeded.

For the HLS NASA had no choice but to ask industry if they could build Moon lander of their own, because NASA was not going to be able to build one on their own in the time that Trump needed it (or anytime this decade).

Bridenstine and the Trump Administration were pro-commercial, they didn't choose a commercial HLS because of the 2024 date, they chose it because it was a better option. Please provide proof that HLS was commercial because of the 2024 date.

Quote
I think you are missing some important distinctions. LEO is an important destination, since it is the first potential stop once humans leave Earth. Everyone has to go to, or pass thru, LEO. Landing on the Moon is not on the critical path for any activity yet, except for the Artemis program.

And in reality there isn't a true "commercial" industry for landing on the Moon, just a lander that SpaceX is modifying from their Mars design. And SpaceX was working on that years in advance of the Trump Moon goal, so if not for SpaceX NASA would likely not be able to land humans on the Moon this decade.

But that is NOT NASA creating a commercial transportation system to the Moon, that is NASA being lucky that SpaceX could modify their Mars vehicle. Because there are no other Moon landers being developed, so no commercial market has been created. Unlike Commercial Crew and LEO, where there will be at least two different commercial systems for getting to LEO.

I disagree with you on that. SpaceX had no intention of building a lunar Starship before NASA asked them to. CLPS is proving that there is a market for commercial lunar missions: NASA is only one of many clients for CLPS. I expect that there will be commercial Starship missions to the Moon that will be announced in the next few months and years. Polaris and dear Moon are steps pointing in that direction. The fact that the Moon is a few days away makes it more practical for private astronaut missions than Mars.

The Moon is just as strategic [important a destination for astronauts] as LEO is. Just ask China and Russia.

Quote
I think this is an internet meme, not a real thing. And I think it was created by those that were trying to justify the SLS. If you think it is real then provide proof please.

It was repeated many times by Senator Nelson and Senator Hutchison at the time that commercial crew would allow NASA to focus on the hard things which is a BLEO exploration. Senator Nelson even repeated that when became NASA Administrator. That's how they presented it, if you don't believe me, I suggest that you do your own research. It may have been a political sales pitch but that's how they defended the 2010 NASA Authorization bill. 
« Last Edit: 03/13/2022 08:26 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Redclaws

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 773
  • Liked: 896
  • Likes Given: 1079
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2116 on: 03/13/2022 07:36 pm »
Quote
The Moon is just as strategic as LEO is. Just ask China and Russia.

I was with you until we got here - this seems like total nonsense to me, unless you’re suggesting LEO isn’t strategic and only higher orbits are?  (Which I’d also disagree with.)

The moon has basically exactly zero strategic value here on earth.  LEO and other earth orbits have massive strategic value.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18276
  • Liked: 7887
  • Likes Given: 3303
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2117 on: 03/13/2022 07:49 pm »
Quote
The Moon is just as strategic as LEO is. Just ask China and Russia.

I was with you until we got here - this seems like total nonsense to me, unless you’re suggesting LEO isn’t strategic and only higher orbits are?  (Which I’d also disagree with.)

The moon has basically exactly zero strategic value here on earth.  LEO and other earth orbits have massive strategic value.

I should have been clearer, I meant in terms of destinations for NASA astronauts, not strategic in a military sense.  I shouldn't have used the word strategic as it may have lead to some confusion but should have said that they are all important destinations for NASA astronauts. I think that NASA should maintain a human presence in LEO, the Moon and Mars. I think that it is important that NASA keep a presence in LEO as it pursues Artemis. I think that NASA should maintain a presence in LEO and the Moon once it pursues Mars as a destination.
« Last Edit: 03/14/2022 01:09 am by yg1968 »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9270
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10740
  • Likes Given: 12347
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2118 on: 03/13/2022 08:28 pm »
Quote
The Moon is just as strategic as LEO is. Just ask China and Russia.

I was with you until we got here - this seems like total nonsense to me, unless you’re suggesting LEO isn’t strategic and only higher orbits are?  (Which I’d also disagree with.)

The moon has basically exactly zero strategic value here on earth.  LEO and other earth orbits have massive strategic value.

I should have been clearer, I meant in terms of destinations for NASA astronauts.  I shouldn't have used the word strategic but should have said that they are all important destinations for NASA astronauts...

We're not going to the Moon, or anywhere else in space, because it is important for "NASA astronauts". That is a fundamental misunderstanding of why America does anything in space.

America does activity in space for U.S. national goals and needs, regardless if they involve humans or not. NASA astronauts are just government employees that are tasked with carrying out U.S. Government goals in space. NASA does not exist to please its workers...  ::)
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18276
  • Liked: 7887
  • Likes Given: 3303
Re: Starship Artemis Contract (Lunar Starship)
« Reply #2119 on: 03/13/2022 08:31 pm »
Quote
The Moon is just as strategic as LEO is. Just ask China and Russia.

I was with you until we got here - this seems like total nonsense to me, unless you’re suggesting LEO isn’t strategic and only higher orbits are?  (Which I’d also disagree with.)

The moon has basically exactly zero strategic value here on earth.  LEO and other earth orbits have massive strategic value.

I should have been clearer, I meant in terms of destinations for NASA astronauts.  I shouldn't have used the word strategic but should have said that they are all important destinations for NASA astronauts...

We're not going to the Moon, or anywhere else in space, because it is important for "NASA astronauts". That is a fundamental misunderstanding of why America does anything in space.

America does activity in space for U.S. national goals and needs, regardless if they involve humans or not. NASA astronauts are just government employees that are tasked with carrying out U.S. Government goals in space. NASA does not exist to please its workers...  ::)

You are putting words in my mouth as usual. ::)  I never said that going to the Moon was to please NASA astronauts. Humans are going to the Moon for the entire human race, not for these particular astronauts.
« Last Edit: 03/13/2022 08:33 pm by yg1968 »

Tags:
 

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