Is a separate GLS spacecraft needed any more?

[DanClemmensen]

the Gateway logistics services (GLS) plan calls for an uncrewed cargo spacecraft to deliver up to 5 tonnes of cargo to Gateway and also to take out the trash.  SpaceX has proposed Dragon XL for this, which will launch on a Falcon Heavy. But all of this was before Starship HLS. Starship HLS has far more capacity than the initial HLS or sustained HLS requirements call for, so it can easily carry an additional 5 tonnes of supplies for Gateway. The concept would be for HLS to launch with the gateway cargo in addition to Moon-bound cargo, and dock to Gateway. HLS would dock to Gateway and offload the Gateway cargo, then perform its HLS lander mission, which ends with HLS again docked to Gateway. crew would stuff the trash into HLS. HLS would hang out at Gateway for up to six months (a GLS requirement) and then undock and dispose of itself.

Would NASA solicit such a proposal? Could SpaceX submit an unsolicited proposal?

[tbellman]

the Gateway logistics services (GLS) plan calls for an uncrewed cargo spacecraft to deliver up to 5 tonnes of cargo to Gateway and also to take out the trash.  SpaceX has proposed Dragon XL for this, which will launch on a Falcon Heavy. But all of this was before Starship HLS.  [ . . . ]

Would NASA solicit such a proposal? Could SpaceX submit an unsolicited proposal?

NASA did release an RFI for on-ramping new GLS solutions.  See this and following posts in the GLS thread.  Among the questions asked where if providers could deliver more cargo.  (But you surely already know this, since you commented in that discussion. )

The responses to that RFI were due more than half a year ago, though, and I don't think we have heard anything more about any GLS on-ramp since then.

Starship HLS has far more capacity than the initial HLS or sustained HLS requirements call for, so it can easily carry an additional 5 tonnes of supplies for Gateway. The concept would be for HLS to launch with the gateway cargo in addition to Moon-bound cargo, and dock to Gateway. HLS would dock to Gateway and offload the Gateway cargo, then perform its HLS lander mission, which ends with HLS again docked to Gateway. crew would stuff the trash into HLS. HLS would hang out at Gateway for up to six months (a GLS requirement) and then undock and dispose of itself.

"Dispose of itself" sounds like you are suggesting that it is sent to crash on the Moon or sent to some heliocentric orbit.  But the HLS lander (whether Starship, Alpaca, Blue Moon or something else) is going to be a somewhat expensive spacecraft, with its crew cabin and life support system.  You want to be able to reuse it for multiple sorties to the lunar surface, but disposing of it precludes that.

The alternative, sending the HLS lander down to LEO to be filled with new cargo, just adds the complexity of moving that cargo from the launch craft to the HLS lander.

Using the HLS lander for GLS duties also means that the cargo may need to be unloaded to the station before leaving for the surface, and then moving it back to the HLS lander afterwards, especially if some crew stays on the station during that sortie.  Only having to move things over when they are needed makes things easier.  And there might be experiments that you can keep on the GLS craft during its entire mission, if it doesn't go down to the Moon.

So, no, using the HLS lander Starship for this is silly.  Better to build a Starship dedicated for GLS service.  It can then have flaps and full thermal protection, so it can return to and land on Earth afterwards, bring cargo back from the station, and be reused.

(There was also some talk about soliciting services specifically for returning cargo from the Lunar Gateway, but I don't have time to locate any references to that right now.)

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

This also gets convoluted with the Starship Tanker and prop Depot versions where the Tanker has a small cargo capability of about 20-30t for pressurized self containerized modules that are docked by using the Gateway arm to remove the containers from the Tanker and transfer to the HLS or the Gateway as needed based on mission. NOTE the return stuff as well as some trash can be sent back to Earth on the Tanker's return because it would have fins and heat shield. Meaning Lunar surface samples as in tons can be shipped back to Earth easily. All while reusing the HLS and it never leaving the Moon area.

Added: Once you are at this point then continuous occupation of both Gateway and a Lunar surface Base is easily accomplished. The question is the yearly cost of operating both from the transport from Earth costs. Those are still a guess but look to be a total that may be equal to or less than just the current SLS and a HLS /yr costs of $5B+.

[DanClemmensen]

This also gets convoluted with the Starship Tanker and prop Depot versions where the Tanker has a small cargo capability of about 20-30t for pressurized self containerized modules that are docked by using the Gateway arm to remove the containers from the Tanker and transfer to the HLS or the Gateway as needed based on mission. NOTE the return stuff as well as some trash can be sent back to Earth on the Tanker's return because it would have fins and heat shield. Meaning Lunar surface samples as in tons can be shipped back to Earth easily. All while reusing the HLS and it never leaving the Moon area.

Added: Once you are at this point then continuous occupation of both Gateway and a Lunar surface Base is easily accomplished. The question is the yearly cost of operating both from the transport from Earth costs. Those are still a guess but look to be a total that may be equal to or less than just the current SLS and a HLS /yr costs of $5B+.

I was looking at the near term. I see combining the GLS flight with the HLS flight as a simple cost-saving measure by comparison with the current plan of an expended HLS and an expended FH+Dragon XL.

There is currently no plan to reuse HLS, so it will be disposed of. HLS reuse would require a large expansion of the refuelling operations at a minimum, e.g., by putting a depot in NRHO in addition to the one in EO and at least tripling the number of tanker flights. It also needs a way to service and reprovision HLS in LEO and transfer large cargo to it.

One minor drawback: A GLS-only Starship HLS flight would be needed to support any Appendix P flight if Orion needs an extended stay at Gateway. That's just a bit embarrassing.

[DanClemmensen]

the Gateway logistics services (GLS) plan calls for an uncrewed cargo spacecraft to deliver up to 5 tonnes of cargo to Gateway and also to take out the trash.  SpaceX has proposed Dragon XL for this, which will launch on a Falcon Heavy. But all of this was before Starship HLS.  [ . . . ]

Would NASA solicit such a proposal? Could SpaceX submit an unsolicited proposal?

NASA did release an RFI for on-ramping new GLS solutions.  See this and following posts in the GLS thread.  Among the questions asked where if providers could deliver more cargo.  (But you surely already know this, since you commented in that discussion. )

Sorry, my memory fades after about 2 weeks. I would blame this on advanced age except that it's been true for fifty years. 

[cohberg]

I was looking at the near term. I see combining the GLS flight with the HLS flight as a simple cost-saving measure by comparison with the current plan of an expended HLS and an expended FH+Dragon XL.

While no one will likely disagree on Starship being part of the plan for long term GLS logistics, 2 quick items come to mind

Early Gateway Unpressurized Cargo
Canadarm3 is planned to be delivered on a DragonXL. It is flown as unpressurized cargo and walks off from DragonXL onto the station. By switching to HLS delivery, you are essentially requiring modifications to a human rated vehicle (an additional cargo bay or fairing).

Time Sensitive Cargo Delivery
Early HLS flights may be fuel constrained as SpaceX ramps up the tanker flight rate. It has been posited that HLS could launch half full but still complete its mission. To accomplish an efficient, partially fueled, lunar transfer, HLS will likely need to use slow transit (~30 m/s for 120 days of transit time) as opposed to fast transit (>450m/s for 3 days of transit time) to get to NHRO.

There are likely time sensitive items (fresh food, experiments, spares, other late load items etc.) that NASA would like to send to Gateway much like it does today with ISS. Dragon XL is already being studied for fast transit and could potentially be the "faster" delivery vehicle compared to a theoretical fuel constrained HLS doing slow transit.

Again, likely not a factor when Starship fueling / cargo matures, but may be a factor early in the lifecycle when depot resources are constrained.

[DanClemmensen]

Early Gateway Unpressurized Cargo
Canadarm3 is planned to be delivered on a DragonXL. It is flown as unpressurized cargo and walks off from DragonXL onto the station. By switching to HLS delivery, you are essentially requiring modifications to a human rated vehicle (an additional cargo bay or fairing).

Starship HLS will apparently be designed to deliver large payloads such as rovers to the lunar surface through its big EVA hatch. I envision an unpressurized container that would be delivered to gateway through this hatch. I don't know if a Canadarm3 could "walk" from this hatch to Gateway after HLS has docked to the IDSS port.

Time Sensitive Cargo Delivery
Early HLS flights may be fuel constrained as SpaceX ramps up the tanker flight rate.

Again, likely not a factor when Starship fueling / cargo matures, but may be a factor early in the lifecycle when depot resources are constrained.

My uneducated estimate is that ramping up tanker flights can occur quickly since it does not require new development. By contrast, Dragon XL is a new development. The first depot and tanker are required even before Artemis III for the HLS demo flight, so there is plenty of time to ramp up.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

To deliver a Canadarm3 from the LSS cargo bay. What you need is a shipping frame with a powered arm docking target at the bottom and it oriented in the horizontal where all the sections are folded up in the frame. So that a small deployment motor pushes the folded up arm out horizontal so that it is sticking now out of the bay. So that it can unfold and then be commanded to dock the other end at another powered docking point closer up on the nose of the LSS so the the next hop reaches the Gateway. The frame detaches from the inside of the LSS so that it can be removed to make room for the operation of the elevator once the LSS reaches the surface. NOTE the frame is still attached to the Arm so the Arm does this removal.

No EVA and no significant modification of the LSS besides the addition of a arm docking point on the exterior. Possibly covered by a simple cover for launch.

There are other options for methods for carrying and deploying an Arm from the LSS cargo bay as well that involve its own small cargo door above the big cargo door and the frame is permanently attached to the "roof" of the cargo bay. Gives options for use of an Arm at other locations such as the surface to help with dragging large items from the bay onto the elevator or even in LEO or other cases where an arm would be useful. Alternately a crane could be mounted in the frame so that it could be deployed out and retracted. This would be useful if there was an oversize item that needed to get delivered that was longer than what would fit on the elevator to deploy to the surface. The fram would be very lightweight. different types of things could be placed in it to deploy that would have a powered Arm docking simple effector that would normally never be released but would have the capability to do a release so that a malfunction of the retraction enables the abandonment of the deployed item. Another item would be a larger solar array that can unfurl for on orbit use. It would make this frame generic for many applications and SS vehicle versions.

[DanClemmensen]

To deliver a Canadarm3 from the LSS cargo bay. What you need is a shipping frame with a powered arm docking target at the bottom and it oriented in the horizontal where all the sections are folded up in the frame. So that a small deployment motor pushes the folded up arm out horizontal so that it is sticking now out of the bay. So that it can unfold and then be commanded to dock the other end at another powered docking point closer up on the nose of the LSS so the the next hop reaches the Gateway. The frame detaches from the inside of the LSS so that it can be removed to make room for the operation of the elevator once the LSS reaches the surface. NOTE the frame is still attached to the Arm so the Arm does this removal.

No EVA and no significant modification of the LSS besides the addition of a arm docking point on the exterior. Possibly covered by a simple cover for launch.

There are other options for methods for carrying and deploying an Arm from the LSS cargo bay as well that involve its own small cargo door above the big cargo door and the frame is permanently attached to the "roof" of the cargo bay. Gives options for use of an Arm at other locations such as the surface to help with dragging large items from the bay onto the elevator or even in LEO or other cases where an arm would be useful. Alternately a crane could be mounted in the frame so that it could be deployed out and retracted. This would be useful if there was an oversize item that needed to get delivered that was longer than what would fit on the elevator to deploy to the surface. The fram would be very lightweight. different types of things could be placed in it to deploy that would have a powered Arm docking simple effector that would normally never be released but would have the capability to do a release so that a malfunction of the retraction enables the abandonment of the deployed item. Another item would be a larger solar array that can unfurl for on orbit use. It would make this frame generic for many applications and SS vehicle versions.

Great! This would also solve one of the big problems of HLS reuse, which is transfer of cargo and provisions to the HLS from a cargo SS in LEO. That in turn amortizes the relatively minor development costs over a broader set of functions. This is true even if it can only be used in microgravity and not on the lunar surface.

I still think it's cost-effective in then near term to use expendable HLSs. "Near term" means for one or two flights after Gateway is launched. Once we have reusable HLS operating from LEO, we have no need for Gateway or Orion anyway.

How far is it from the LSS EVA hatch to the IDSS port (presumably) on the nose? and from there to the closest Canadarm attachment point on Gateway? Can the Canadarm make this traverse with only a single external attachment point on HLS or will it need a second one?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

To deliver a Canadarm3 from the LSS cargo bay. What you need is a shipping frame with a powered arm docking target at the bottom and it oriented in the horizontal where all the sections are folded up in the frame. So that a small deployment motor pushes the folded up arm out horizontal so that it is sticking now out of the bay. So that it can unfold and then be commanded to dock the other end at another powered docking point closer up on the nose of the LSS so the the next hop reaches the Gateway. The frame detaches from the inside of the LSS so that it can be removed to make room for the operation of the elevator once the LSS reaches the surface. NOTE the frame is still attached to the Arm so the Arm does this removal.

No EVA and no significant modification of the LSS besides the addition of a arm docking point on the exterior. Possibly covered by a simple cover for launch.

There are other options for methods for carrying and deploying an Arm from the LSS cargo bay as well that involve its own small cargo door above the big cargo door and the frame is permanently attached to the "roof" of the cargo bay. Gives options for use of an Arm at other locations such as the surface to help with dragging large items from the bay onto the elevator or even in LEO or other cases where an arm would be useful. Alternately a crane could be mounted in the frame so that it could be deployed out and retracted. This would be useful if there was an oversize item that needed to get delivered that was longer than what would fit on the elevator to deploy to the surface. The fram would be very lightweight. different types of things could be placed in it to deploy that would have a powered Arm docking simple effector that would normally never be released but would have the capability to do a release so that a malfunction of the retraction enables the abandonment of the deployed item. Another item would be a larger solar array that can unfurl for on orbit use. It would make this frame generic for many applications and SS vehicle versions.

Great! This would also solve one of the big problems of HLS reuse, which is transfer of cargo and provisions to the HLS from a cargo SS in LEO. That in turn amortizes the relatively minor development costs over a broader set of functions. This is true even if it can only be used in microgravity and not on the lunar surface.

I still think it's cost-effective in then near term to use expendable HLSs. "Near term" means for one or two flights after Gateway is launched. Once we have reusable HLS operating from LEO, we have no need for Gateway or Orion anyway.

How far is it from the LSS EVA hatch to the IDSS port (presumably) on the nose? and from there to the closest Canadarm attachment point on Gateway? Can the Canadarm make this traverse with only a single external attachment point on HLS or will it need a second one?

I think you would be surprised at how strong these arms are. At 2kw peak power it can probably do quite a lot of heavy object moving. Such that in 1/6 G it could possibly even pick up and manipulate in free space a 1t object.

It's mass seems to be somewhere around 1t. It does not look like it is longer than 8.5m which can make it possible to put it inside the LSS horizontally wall to wall.
See the attached pdf.

[DanClemmensen]

A further thought: we do not yet know where the IDSS will be located on HLS. We (sort of) assume it is on the "nose", but that has some issues. An alternative would be to put the IDSS port in the airlock bay. Even better: put two IDSS ports there, 180 degrees apart and 90 degrees away from the EVA ports, to allow flexibility of docking with Gateway, Orion, and/or another HLS.

But in this configuration, the EVA ports are close to gateway when HLS is docked to Gateway, and using a Canadarm is simplified.

[DanClemmensen]

Other thoughts: a lot (most?) of the cargo of DragonXL is intended to be transshiped to the HLS anyway, to be landed on the Moon. That (sort of) made sense for mass-constrained non-Starship HLS designs, but with Starship HLS it is simpler to just load it onto the HLS on Earth and leave it there.

On later missions the crew will spend almost no time on Gateway because the whole crew will go to the surface. This means that very little trash will be generated on Gateway. Just throw the trash in a thrash heap on the Moon. The small amount of residual trash can either go back to Earth on Orion or can wait until the next HLS.

The trash heaps on the Moon should be carefully managed, as it is a resource for later missions and eventually for Space archeologists and historians. Lunar disposal is tidier than in-space disposal.

[tbellman]

Other thoughts: a lot (most?) of the cargo of DragonXL is intended to be transshiped to the HLS anyway, to be landed on the Moon. That (sort of) made sense for mass-constrained non-Starship HLS designs, but with Starship HLS it is simpler to just load it onto the HLS on Earth and leave it there.

So you are saying load up the HLS Option B Starship (to be launched for Artemis IV) with everything that is going to be needed for not just that mission, but also for the following 5-10 missions?  That's just silly.  A fair amount of that will not be ready for Artemis IV, has shelf life shorter than the time between first and last mission, or no-one knows what will be needed that far in advance.  For example:

• Food.  While e.g. freeze-dried food or conserved canned food can last 10+ years, you can get much nicer and higher quality food if it only has to last a few months.  Food is usually also customized to the tastes and needs of the individual crew members, and you won't know who will be sent several years in advance.

• EVA space suit parts.  Arms and legs for the EVA suits will come in multiple sizes, probably something like four or five different sizes.  Your plan would force them to to deliver some 16 or 20 complete sets of arms and legs on the Option B ship, instead of just delivering them on-demand.

• Spare parts.  For the EVA suits, for the HLS interior, and for Gateway itself.  You won't know what parts will be needed until they break, and then you want parts where the problem that caused them to break have been fixed or mitigated.

• Deep space experiments.  The Lunar Gateway is intended to be used for experiments to run in deep space (i.e. well beyond LEO).  Most of those won't be ready in time for Artemis IV, and many will not even be known at that time.

Or are you still under the delusion that the lander will be scrapped after each landing even during the "sustainable" phase?

On later missions the crew will spend almost no time on Gateway because the whole crew will go to the surface.

NASA does want to let some crews spend significant time on the Lunar Gateway.  They think it will be a good way to simulate going to Mars, with less cost and risk of actually going to Mars.  This is, I believe, the real motivation for LOP-G; having it as a meeting point between Orion and the lunar lander is largely a pretext for getting to build it.  Of course, there's no real funding for that yet, so at the moment it is just a vague hope in NASA's dreams, but many of the things they do in respect to the Lunar Gateway is done to further that; e.g. the extra modules they want from other partners, like iHab and the airlock.

This means that very little trash will be generated on Gateway. Just throw the trash in a thrash heap on the Moon. The small amount of residual trash can either go back to Earth on Orion or can wait until the next HLS.

No, it can't go back to Earth on Orion.  Orion is very constrained in both mass and volume it can bring back to Earth, and you want to make the very most use of that little capacity to bring back scientific samples from the Moon.  If NASA can bring back one more sample container by sending some trash out to the interplanetary void, they will do that.  At least as long as they don't have a separate spacecraft for returning cargo to Earth.

[DanClemmensen]

Or are you still under the delusion that the lander will be scrapped after each landing even during the "sustainable" phase?

If not scrapped, then you need some sort of serious refueling/re-provisioning system that is a lot more substantial than DragonXL. It can handle the DragonXL cargo (and trash) as a minor sideline. My alleged vision is that the first two HLSs (Starship HLSs for Artemis 3 and Artemis 4) are expended and reusablity will not start until the next Starship HLS mission. I have no idea what support a reusable Appendix P HLS will need or who will supply it. For reusable Starship HLS, cargo including GLS cargo will transfer wherever the reprovisioning is done: NRHO or LEO depending on how the mission architecture works out.

No, it can't go back to Earth on Orion.  Orion is very constrained in both mass and volume it can bring back to Earth, and you want to make the very most use of that little capacity to bring back scientific samples from the Moon.  If NASA can bring back one more sample container by sending some trash out to the interplanetary void, they will do that.  At least as long as they don't have a separate spacecraft for returning cargo to Earth.

For Artemis 3 and 4, does Orion have extra propellant to send stuff into the void, or is it going to clutter up NRHO? Orion could handle the small amount of trash for Artemis 3 (no gateway anyway) and for Artemis 4 (basically no time in Gateway). After that, use the HLS reprovisioning ships to return however much stuff (plus trash) you want.

[Valerij]

Or are you still under the delusion that the lander will be scrapped after each landing even during the "sustainable" phase?

If not scrapped, then you need some sort of serious refueling/re-provisioning system that is a lot more substantial than DragonXL. It can handle the DragonXL cargo (and trash) as a minor sideline.

   
In fact, a not too complicated system of refueling and cargo movement is required. It should be a reusable Starship tanker, with stretched tanks and a cargo hold with a large enough hatch, and several base points for a Canadarm-type manipulator.
       
The thermal protection tiles of this tanker must withstand re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere when flying from lunar orbit. Alternatively, it should have sufficient fuel to reduce reentry velocity to a safe value.
     
Such a tanker can take off from Earth incompletely fueled, refuel fully in LEO, then deliver cargo and fuel to lunar orbit. In lunar orbit, Starship HLS will refuel from a tanker. In addition, Starship HLS will receive cargo delivered for the next flight from Earth and transfer cargo to the tanker intended for delivery to Earth.

For reusable Starship HLS, cargo including GLS cargo will transfer wherever the reprovisioning is done: NRHO or LEO depending on how the mission architecture works out.

     
The tanker can also accept cargo intended for removal. This cargo can be destroyed by ejecting it before re-entry into the atmosphere.
   
It seems complicated, but SpaceX must work out these elements anyway.
     

[Valerij]

My alleged vision is that the first two HLSs (Starship HLSs for Artemis 3 and Artemis 4) are expended and reusablity will not start until the next Starship HLS mission. I have no idea what support a reusable Appendix P HLS will need or who will supply it.

   
You just have to understand that Starship HLS does not belong to NASA. NASA only charters the Starship HLS for a specific mission, and purchases specific required services from other elements of the SpaceX-owned system. At the same time, the Starship HLS can be used by SpaceX on non-NASA missions, and the DragonXL is tightly tied to the Lunar Gateway, and is not in demand if there are regularly flying Starships.
   
Therefore, I believe that SpaceX will immediately make Starship HLS for twelve crew members, and will not develop DragonXL at all.
   
I see only two reasons why Elon Musk might not want to reuse the first Starship HLS. First - if some difficult problem or malfunction appears in the initial mission. And the second is the unpreparedness of the infrastructure to ensure a re-flight.

[DanClemmensen]

   
I see only two reasons why Elon Musk might not want to reuse the first Starship HLS. First - if some difficult problem or malfunction appears in the initial mission. And the second is the unpreparedness of the infrastructure to ensure a re-flight.

SpaceX is a for-profit company. Lunar operations are not part of their strategic vision. They bid on the HLS contract because they could make money on it by leveraging their generic Starship design plus two variants (Depot and Tanker) needed for Mars operations. The $2.9 billion HLS contract pays the incremental development cost of the HLS itself plus the production and mission costs for the uncrewed and crewed missions, and presumably a tidy profit. The $1.15 billion for Option B pays for the (presumably small) incremental development cost for the Option B lander and the production and mission costs for one mission, and presumably an even nicer profit.

I don't see a reason for SpaceX to spend money on a reuse infrastructure for Starship HLS. I'm a big fan of reuse and I initially thought they should and would reuse Starship HLS, but the economics are just not there. A non-EDL SS like the HLS is actually quite inexpensive once Starships are in high production, while the full cost of a refueling/refurbishing/reprovisioning mission is high, because you must use multiple tanker flights and you must design and manufacture the Lunar tanker (your scenario) or use more fuel plus another depot to return the HLS to an Earth orbit. The cost of fully fitting out an HLS on Earth, before launch, will be much, much lower than the full cost of doing it in space, and you get a clean shiny new ship with clean toilets instead of a grubby reused ship.

[VSECOTSPE]

NASA also envisions expanding the overall Gateway Logistics Services contract to add more providers. He noted NASA issued a request for information last year to understand emerging industry capabilities, such as new launch vehicles.

“We want that. It’s just a matter of funding,” he said of adding providers. “We’ve got to get out first mission turned on and get a funding stream going so we can justify an on-ramp.”

https://spacenews.com/nasa-plans-to-start-work-this-year-on-first-gateway-logistics-mission/

[Vahe231991]

With Blue Origin's Integrated Lander Vehicle having recently been chosen by NASA as the lunar landing vehicle for the Artemis 5 mission, there may be a day when Blue Origin develops a 405 foot tall derivative of the New Glenn, called New Armstrong, to be used to loft a cargo spacecraft to haul supplies to the Gateway Lunar Station.

[AU1.52]

With Blue Origin's Integrated Lander Vehicle having recently been chosen by NASA as the lunar landing vehicle for the Artemis 5 mission, there may be a day when Blue Origin develops a 405 foot tall derivative of the New Glenn, called New Armstrong, to be used to loft a cargo spacecraft to haul supplies to the Gateway Lunar Station.

It would be Starship way before the non existent NA.