Quote from: yg1968 on 02/14/2023 04:23 pmI wasn't remembering this correctly, NASA changed its requirement in the final RFP of the Gateway Logistics Module to no longer require it to be less than 14mt. This could have been prevented SpaceX from bidding Starship for the Gateway Logistics Module in the future. The fact that this is no longer a requirement makes me believe that Dragon XL will eventually be replaced by Starship. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50467.msg2100085#msg2100085Without actually double-checking the final requirements document for GLS, as far as I know, the final RFP still had a maximum of 14 tonnes. And NASA has not formally changed that requirement for GLS; changing it has not been needed, as the only spacecraft contracted for GLS, is lighter than the limit, and there has not been any new GLS solicitations since.What has happened, is that after the GLS contract was awarded, Mark Wiese from NASA said on the MECO podcast, that that requirement was unnecessary, and that "going forward, that requirement will be gone". But the only action that has happened regarding GLS since then, is an RFI from NASA asking if anyone have new solutions with new capabilities and/or lower cost.And of course the HLS requirements did not include any maximum mass of the lander.
I wasn't remembering this correctly, NASA changed its requirement in the final RFP of the Gateway Logistics Module to no longer require it to be less than 14mt. This could have been prevented SpaceX from bidding Starship for the Gateway Logistics Module in the future. The fact that this is no longer a requirement makes me believe that Dragon XL will eventually be replaced by Starship. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50467.msg2100085#msg2100085
L3-GLS-1106 Maximum System Docking MassUpon first docking to Gateway, the Logistics Module mass, inclusive of cargo and payloads, shall not exceed 14 metric tons (30,865lb).Note: This requirement does not apply to CLIN 2 missions.Rationale: An LM upper mass limit of 14 metric tons was used in Gateway Integrated Analysis Cycle 3. A maximum mass constraint for Logistics Modules protects Gateway Guidance, Navigation, and Controls (GNC) and Attitude Control System sizing and development. Specialized delivery missions transporting Gateway elements to Gateway will not be held to this limit; specialized delivery mission Logistics Vehicle mass limits will be defined in the mission unique requirements set.
L3-GLS-1104 Logistics Module LifeThe Logistics Module shall operate for a minimum of one year while docked to Gateway.Rationale: Logistics Modules supporting crewed missions are expected to support a Gateway crew flight rate of one mission per year. A one year Logistics Module docked life supports this flight rate, with margin for on-orbit docking and checkout prior to crew arrival, and supports crewed missions of <TBD-007> days.
I wasn't remembering this correctly, NASA changed its requirement in the final RFP of [for] the Gateway Logistics Module to no longer require it to be less than 14mt. This could have been prevented SpaceX from bidding Starship for the Gateway Logistics Module in the future. The fact that this is no longer a requirement makes me believe that Dragon XL will eventually be replaced by Starship. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50467.msg2100085#msg2100085
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 02/14/2023 03:26 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 02/14/2023 02:12 pmNASA even changed its requirement for Gateway to allow large spacecrafts such as Starship to dock to it, so that SpaceX could propose it as a lander. I did not know this. Is it documented somewhere?I wasn't remembering this correctly, NASA changed its requirement in the final RFP of [for] the Gateway Logistics Module to no longer require it to be less than 14mt. This could have been prevented SpaceX from bidding Starship for the Gateway Logistics Module in the future. The fact that this is no longer a requirement makes me believe that Dragon XL will eventually be replaced by Starship. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50467.msg2100085#msg2100085Edit: see post below.
Quote from: yg1968 on 02/14/2023 02:12 pmNASA even changed its requirement for Gateway to allow large spacecrafts such as Starship to dock to it, so that SpaceX could propose it as a lander. I did not know this. Is it documented somewhere?
NASA even changed its requirement for Gateway to allow large spacecrafts such as Starship to dock to it, so that SpaceX could propose it as a lander.
Quote from: yg1968 on 02/14/2023 04:23 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 02/14/2023 03:26 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 02/14/2023 02:12 pmNASA even changed its requirement for Gateway to allow large spacecrafts such as Starship to dock to it, so that SpaceX could propose it as a lander. I did not know this. Is it documented somewhere?I wasn't remembering this correctly, NASA changed its requirement in the final RFP of [for] the Gateway Logistics Module to no longer require it to be less than 14mt. This could have been prevented SpaceX from bidding Starship for the Gateway Logistics Module in the future. The fact that this is no longer a requirement makes me believe that Dragon XL will eventually be replaced by Starship. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50467.msg2100085#msg2100085Edit: see post below. Emphasis mine.More like: Dragon XL will likely never exist. SpaceX still has not gotten authority to proceed on the GLS contract. And that is almost THREE YEARS AFTER contract award.Also: the contract completion date has not been updated since contract award in March of 2020. The contract completion date still is December 31, 2022. Needless to say, that was 1.5 months ago.Obligations history:- FY2020: 14,059,579- FY2021: $208,205- FY2022: $439,355- FY2023: $0Total obligations from award date to completion date: $14,707,139Total award value: $7,000,000,000My conclusion: the contract for Dragon XL has essentially been in limbo since it was awarded. This was confirmed as much by NASA in 2021 (https://spacenews.com/nasa-delays-starting-contract-with-spacex-for-gateway-cargo-services/).The fact that the completion date has not been altered might indicate that the contract has effectively expired. The slightly less than half-a-million dollars obligated in FY2022 might have been to cover the costs of closing out the contract.I don't think we will ever see Dragon XL fly.Attached screenshot is from the NAIS database, for FY2022
NASA's Mark Wiese says on a panel at SpaceCom that he expects the agency to give the formal authorization to proceed to SpaceX for the first Gateway logistics mission this year; planning a 48-month lead time to get it ready in time for Artemis 4 in ~2027.
QuoteNASA's Mark Wiese says on a panel at SpaceCom that he expects the agency to give the formal authorization to proceed to SpaceX for the first Gateway logistics mission this year; planning a 48-month lead time to get it ready in time for Artemis 4 in ~2027.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/22/2023 07:42 pmQuoteNASA's Mark Wiese says on a panel at SpaceCom that he expects the agency to give the formal authorization to proceed to SpaceX for the first Gateway logistics mission this year; planning a 48-month lead time to get it ready in time for Artemis 4 in ~2027.This will make for an "interesting" mission profile for Artemis 4. The initial Gateway is PPE+Halo. It has exactly three exposed IDSS ports. But now, we have four things that need to connect to Gateway all during the same mission. (Orion, I-HAB, Starship HLS, Dragon XL). This seems a bit ambitious, unless everything goes as planned. I assume HLS and Dragon XL will dock autonomously before Orion/I-HAB arrives. Orion would dock to an I-HAB axial port during the translunar flight. Orion's crew would then use Orion to dock Orion/I-HAB (using I-HAB's other axial port) to Halo's axial port. But all of this needs to happen before crew can transfer from Orion to HLS for the descent.
Speaking at the SpaceCom conference here Feb. 22, Bob Cabana, NASA associate administrator, said securing funding to support future Artemis missions and other agency priorities may be difficult given proposals in Congress to reduce overall federal spending...Those difficulties, said Alicia Brown, associate administrator for NASA’s office of legislative and intergovernmental affairs, come from proposals by the new Republican leadership in the House to cut spending for fiscal year 2024, such as going back to fiscal year 2022 levels.“It is going to be a tough couple of years for us,” she said at SpaceCom, citing those budget-cutting proposals. “We’re concerned about how it affects human spaceflight and Artemis, but it’s going to affect all of our programs.”She said NASA was particularly worried about how it would affect later missions in the Artemis program. “What we can do right now in this fiscal year is ensure that there is not a big gap between Artemis 3, our first landing, and Artemis 4, our first Gateway mission...”“We, and hopefully our partners, are going to spend a lot of time on the Hill talking about why it’s important, maybe in the context of what countries like China are doing, and why Congress needs to make those investments now in us to ensure that we’ve got a strong, steady cadence of lunar landings,” Brown said.
The Budget proposes $22.6 billion in discretionary funding in FY23 for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), a decrease of 3.0 percent from FY21 enacted levels...The Budget recognizes the importance of the Artemis Project, but funds are strictly limited to avoid such mission creep. The Budget allocates $8.8 billion for Deep Space Exploration, fully funding the Artemis Project, an increase of 37 percent from FY21 enacted.The Budget also proposes a 50 percent reduction in NASA Science programs and spending... The Budget allocates $3.6 billion for NASA Science. Saves $3.6 billion compared to FY21.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 02/22/2023 08:09 pmQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/22/2023 07:42 pmQuoteNASA's Mark Wiese says on a panel at SpaceCom that he expects the agency to give the formal authorization to proceed to SpaceX for the first Gateway logistics mission this year; planning a 48-month lead time to get it ready in time for Artemis 4 in ~2027.This will make for an "interesting" mission profile for Artemis 4. The initial Gateway is PPE+Halo. It has exactly three exposed IDSS ports. But now, we have four things that need to connect to Gateway all during the same mission. (Orion, I-HAB, Starship HLS, Dragon XL). This seems a bit ambitious, unless everything goes as planned. I assume HLS and Dragon XL will dock autonomously before Orion/I-HAB arrives. Orion would dock to an I-HAB axial port during the translunar flight. Orion's crew would then use Orion to dock Orion/I-HAB (using I-HAB's other axial port) to Halo's axial port. But all of this needs to happen before crew can transfer from Orion to HLS for the descent.This doesn't sound difficult to me. The SpaceX logistics module (whatever form that takes) will likely be launched long before the Artemis 4 mission. The HLS must be on-station amd verified operational before the crew can launch. They will already be docked to PPE+HALO, while Orion will remain docked to the I-Hab to deliver it. No docking ports will need to be juggled, the Artemis 4 crew will do just one docking, of the I-Hab+Orion to PPE+HALO+HLS+Logistics. The I-Hab also has 2 radial docking ports, providing some flexibility for future missions.
A couple previews today of coming budget battles involving Artemis...QuoteSpeaking at the SpaceCom conference here Feb. 22, Bob Cabana, NASA associate administrator, said securing funding to support future Artemis missions and other agency priorities may be difficult given proposals in Congress to reduce overall federal spending...Those difficulties, said Alicia Brown, associate administrator for NASA’s office of legislative and intergovernmental affairs, come from proposals by the new Republican leadership in the House to cut spending for fiscal year 2024, such as going back to fiscal year 2022 levels.“It is going to be a tough couple of years for us,” she said at SpaceCom, citing those budget-cutting proposals. “We’re concerned about how it affects human spaceflight and Artemis, but it’s going to affect all of our programs.”She said NASA was particularly worried about how it would affect later missions in the Artemis program. “What we can do right now in this fiscal year is ensure that there is not a big gap between Artemis 3, our first landing, and Artemis 4, our first Gateway mission...”“We, and hopefully our partners, are going to spend a lot of time on the Hill talking about why it’s important, maybe in the context of what countries like China are doing, and why Congress needs to make those investments now in us to ensure that we’ve got a strong, steady cadence of lunar landings,” Brown said.https://spacenews.com/nasa-warns-of-budget-challenges-in-year-ahead/QuoteThe Budget proposes $22.6 billion in discretionary funding in FY23 for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), a decrease of 3.0 percent from FY21 enacted levels...The Budget recognizes the importance of the Artemis Project, but funds are strictly limited to avoid such mission creep. The Budget allocates $8.8 billion for Deep Space Exploration, fully funding the Artemis Project, an increase of 37 percent from FY21 enacted.The Budget also proposes a 50 percent reduction in NASA Science programs and spending... The Budget allocates $3.6 billion for NASA Science. Saves $3.6 billion compared to FY21.https://americarenewing.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Budget-Center-for-Renewing-America-FY23.pdf
The second article is from 2021.
We will see what happens with the FY24 budget, my guess is that we will be on a full-year CR for FY24. I understand that the Republican's starting point is to use the FY22 budget amount for FY24 but that is just the starting point. Meeting in the middle would be to use the FY23 amounts instead.
Quote from: yg1968 on 02/23/2023 01:19 amThe second article is from 2021.It’s not an article. It’s a budget plan from a think tank. It’s not from 2021. It’s dated December 2022, and it’s doing the rounds in DC.
Orion's thrusters are not ideally placed to dock I-HAB, which is stuck out "in front" of Orion with a long moment arm.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 02/23/2023 01:05 amOrion's thrusters are not ideally placed to dock I-HAB, which is stuck out "in front" of Orion with a long moment arm.Orion was designed around this, launching modules on SLS to be carried and docked by Orion has been part of the intent since Gateway was proposed, it predates Artemis. If Orion can't do that job, then LM failed.
It’s not an article. It’s a budget plan from a think tank.
it's also humorously clueless (or is that just the sound of an axe being ground):However, under the Biden Administration, NASA is not immune from the left’s woke onslaught. Indeed, the Artemis Project is now being advertised with promises that astronauts will be selected for the mission based on gender and race instead of competence and excellence.
Quote from: VSECOTSPE on 02/23/2023 02:27 amIt’s not an article. It’s a budget plan from a think tank.Considering that VP Pence repeatedly touted that Artemis would land "the first woman" on the moon,Quote it's also humorously clueless (or is that just the sound of an axe being ground):However, under the Biden Administration, NASA is not immune from the left’s woke onslaught. Indeed, the Artemis Project is now being advertised with promises that astronauts will be selected for the mission based on gender and race instead of competence and excellence.
Quote from: Proponent on 02/23/2023 10:11 pmQuote from: VSECOTSPE on 02/23/2023 02:27 amIt’s not an article. It’s a budget plan from a think tank.Considering that VP Pence repeatedly touted that Artemis would land "the first woman" on the moon,Quote it's also humorously clueless (or is that just the sound of an axe being ground):However, under the Biden Administration, NASA is not immune from the left’s woke onslaught. Indeed, the Artemis Project is now being advertised with promises that astronauts will be selected for the mission based on gender and race instead of competence and excellence. Will point out that to be selected for NASA astronaut training means that one is competent and excellent with likely a handful of science and/or engineering degrees. In other word, there are no lesser active NASA astronauts among those who are qualified for spaceflight.
