Author Topic: Prediction: Technical realities will result in selection of SLS-launched HLS  (Read 55036 times)

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11051
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1306
  • Likes Given: 754
Requiring the all up configuration on first launch which will never be needed again is just adding a configuration which potentially could cause mass growth.

While I would have put that slightly differently, this is broadly in agreement with my objection to jadebenn's suggestions.  Each successive mission will be different as the knowledge base increases, as lessons are learned, and as new innovations come on line.  the first launch is different from all subsequent launches.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Chris Bergin

Can members people post with a civil tone. Some of you sound like your in court (usual suspects too). It’s pathetic. Stop it.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Markstark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • Liked: 457
  • Likes Given: 83
Is there a scenario that HLS-1 launches indeed launches on Block 1B but the lander contractor is not Boeing ?

Offline rakaydos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2841
  • Liked: 1875
  • Likes Given: 70
Is there a scenario that HLS-1 launches indeed launches on Block 1B but the lander contractor is not Boeing ?
wasn't there something about Boeing needing to demonstrate that an additional SLS launch for a lunar lander would not affect the Artemis SLS rate? If Boeing does not get the lunar lander bid, I do not see them taking the steps needed to produce an extra SLS for a lander.

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1221
  • Likes Given: 3546
Is there a scenario that HLS-1 launches indeed launches on Block 1B but the lander contractor is not Boeing ?
Yes. Boeing will not be sole-sourced the lander contract even if it's decided to go with an integrated lander.

Offline Markstark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • Liked: 457
  • Likes Given: 83
Is there a scenario that HLS-1 launches indeed launches on Block 1B but the lander contractor is not Boeing ?
Yes. Boeing will not be sole-sourced the lander contract even if it's decided to go with an integrated lander.
I agree. I don’t anticipate that the HLS contract will be sole sourced to Boeing. I anticipate two or three HLS contracts. My question is, is there a scenario where the first HLS for 2024 landing is launched on a B1B but the HLS vendor is someone other than Boeing. They still get a contract, but it would be for a later date.

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1221
  • Likes Given: 3546
I agree. I don’t anticipate that the HLS contract will be sole sourced to Boeing. I anticipate two or three HLS contracts. My question is, is there a scenario where the first HLS for 2024 landing is launched on a B1B but the HLS vendor is someone other than Boeing. They still get a contract, but it would be for a later date.
I believe NASA has the ability to force Boeing to make an SLS rocket available to another contractor since SLS is a government-owned system, so I think that scenario is possible.
« Last Edit: 03/24/2020 03:03 am by jadebenn »

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9271
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10740
  • Likes Given: 12348
I believe NASA has the ability to force Boeing to make an SLS rocket available to another contractor since SLS is a government-owned system, so I think that scenario is possible.

Contractors have no say over how the U.S. Government uses its own assets, even if the contractor builds that asset.

So I'm not even sure why anyone would think that Boeing has a say regarding what flies on the SLS - NASA doesn't have to ask permission from Boeing for which payloads fly on the SLS.
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 su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9108
  • Likes Given: 885
Is there a scenario that HLS-1 launches indeed launches on Block 1B but the lander contractor is not Boeing ?

The lander contractor who uses SLS is supposed to be the prime for the extra SLS since NASA is not going to do the integration for them, I don't see anyone else can do this besides Boeing.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7395
  • Liked: 2915
  • Likes Given: 1505
The lander contractor who uses SLS is supposed to be the prime for the extra SLS since NASA is not going to do the integration for them, I don't see anyone else can do this besides Boeing.

Couldn't a non-Boeing lander contractor simply sub-contract integration to Boeing?

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
  • Home
  • Liked: 926
  • Likes Given: 205
Quote
1. To maximize payload, a 3-stage lander design will need to use slow, low-energy transfers
2. Slow, low-energy transfers are not compatible with cryogenic fuels
3. Non-cryogenic fuels are not compatible with Artemis objectives of Lunar ISRU and the "soft" objective of maximal reuse of landing architecture
4. The aggressive 2024 deadline makes in-space cryogenic refueling non-viable, and to change the fuel type at a later date would require a total redesign of most of the lander.
5. The extreme mass constraints imposed by launching each of the three fueled components on existing CLVs leaves them with very little growth potential

This whole argument relies on "Lunar ISRU" being an important goal but it doesn't seem to be a requirement for 2024 landing. The political imperative seems to be to perform a landing as soon as possible and NASA should pick an architecture using storable propellants if it can get boots on the moon faster with lower tech.

It could take many manned missions to get an ISRU system up and running and those missions could very well be based on storable propellants. Hell, even if you have a base that can produce hydrolox it makes sense to have a backups ascent vehicle based on hypergolics.

Another aspect is that current plan is for NASA to make two awards. It's not clear where they would find the budget for this but it is clearly the way to go for a "sustainable" system because it provides dissimilar redundancy. Setting up a race between an SLS-based HLS and one based on commercial vehicles would also help with the goal of landing as soon as possible.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9108
  • Likes Given: 885
The lander contractor who uses SLS is supposed to be the prime for the extra SLS since NASA is not going to do the integration for them, I don't see anyone else can do this besides Boeing.

Couldn't a non-Boeing lander contractor simply sub-contract integration to Boeing?

That could work, but I have trouble seeing this happening in the proposal stage. Maybe it could happen post award, after some persuasion from Loverro. A new national team of Blue + LM + Boeing sounds pretty good politically.

Offline Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1687
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 465
  • Likes Given: 199
Is there a scenario that HLS-1 launches indeed launches on Block 1B but the lander contractor is not Boeing ?
Yes. Boeing will not be sole-sourced the lander contract even if it's decided to go with an integrated lander.
I agree. I don’t anticipate that the HLS contract will be sole sourced to Boeing. I anticipate two or three HLS contracts. My question is, is there a scenario where the first HLS for 2024 landing is launched on a B1B but the HLS vendor is someone other than Boeing. They still get a contract, but it would be for a later date.
SpaceX won the first HLS contract in April 2021, and it was awarded an HLS contract in November 2022 for the Artemis 4 mission. That Blue Origin was just awarded the third HLS contract this month rather than SpaceX shows that there will be not one, but two companies for providing the HLS systems for the first three manned Artemis missions.

Links:
https://techcrunch.com/2021/04/16/spacex-wins-nasa-contract-to-develop-human-landing-system-for-returning-to-the-moon/
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-spacex-second-contract-option-for-artemis-moon-landing-0
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-selects-blue-origin-as-second-artemis-lunar-lander-provider

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1221
  • Likes Given: 3546
Why must you dig up my old shame.  :'(

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1813
  • Likes Given: 1302
Why must you dig up my old shame.  :'(
Because he is a tusker (wild boar) who like digging up old and buried threads.  >:(

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12442
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 19565
  • Likes Given: 13659
Why must you dig up my old shame.  :'(
Because he is a tusker (wild boar) who like digging up old and buried threads.  >:(

Threads are not buried until they are archived. Which btw. never happens on this forum. That is one feature of the NSF forums. Another major feature is that the NSF forums has a very good collective memory.

I've made some pretty stupid mistakes on this very forum over the years. They are still there for all to see. What sets forum members apart is the capability to "own" their mistakes.

Those who accept that they screwed up and are willing to admit it, won't have much problems here. Those who are ashamed of having made mistakes will probably be forgiven. But those who try to hide their mistakes, or deny that they made them, will eventually be exposed for what they truly are. Some of them even got axed for it permanently. ParabolicArc comes to mind for example.


But I digress.
« Last Edit: 05/23/2023 07:53 am by woods170 »

Tags: HLS Artemis 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1