MSFC to Manage Artemis Lander

[Proponent]

According to Eric Berger, Administrator Bridenstine will announce on Friday that MSFC will manage the lander.

I did not this coming.

I wonder if, from Sen. Shelby's point of view, this is a hedge, in that it keeps the money flowing to Alabama even if SLS goes away.

[Targeteer]

August 13, 2019
MEDIA ADVISORY M19-083
NASA Administrator to Discuss Human Lander Update for Artemis Program

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, joined by U.S. Representatives Mo Brooks, Robert Aderholt, Scott DesJarlais and Brian Babin, will discuss updates on the agency’s plans for landing humans on the Moon by 2024 through the Artemis program at 3:10 p.m. EDT Friday, Aug. 16. The remarks will air live on NASA Television and the agency’s website.

From the agency’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, Bridenstine will discuss the center’s role in launching astronauts to the Moon and landing them safely on the lunar surface. Brooks, Aderholt, DesJarlais and Babin also will deliver remarks, then join the administrator to take questions from the media.

In addition to making this announcement, Bridenstine will view progress on SLS and other efforts key to landing the first woman and the next man on the Moon in five years.

U.S. media who would like to attend the event should contact Tracy McMahan at 256-682-5326 or [email protected] no later than 5 p.m. CDT Thursday, Aug. 15, and plan to arrive at the Gate 9 Visitor’s Center on Rideout Road for the event by 1 p.m. CDT Friday, Aug. 16. Photo identification is required, and all media attendees must wear long pants and flat, closed-toe shoes.

For more on NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, visit:

https://www.nasa.gov/marshall

[GWH]

I really can't see what good will come from one center managing the ascent stage while another manages the transfer/descent stage.

Seems like a recipe for disaster.

[b0objunior]

I really can't see what good will come from one center managing the ascent stage while another manages the transfer/descent stage.

Seems like a recipe for disaster.

What center manages the ascent stage?

[envy887]

I really can't see what good will come from one center managing the ascent stage while another manages the transfer/descent stage.

Seems like a recipe for disaster.

What center manages the ascent stage?

JSC, but Marshall has overall control of the project.

[JohnFornaro]

I really can't see what good will come from one center managing the ascent stage while another manages the transfer/descent stage.

Seems like a recipe for disaster.

No "disaster" in principle, at least.   There's this thing called the telephone, and this other thing called the internet, and these documents called CAD files, all of which allow for detailed coordination between the centers.

[Proponent]

In principle, there's no difference between practice and principle.  In practice, there is.  There's a little thing called politics.

[GWH]

No "disaster" in principle, at least.   There's this thing called the telephone, and this other thing called the internet, and these documents called CAD files, all of which allow for detailed coordination between the centers.

There are also departments dedicated to document control which may or may not have separate standards for each center, their own expectations on what and how often things are to be communicated, how they are, and many many hurdles to that simple communication process.

Much more complicated is the potential for all these "mom said dad said" situations where any potential decision point may by conflicted by both centers, infighting and rivalries between the two, and much worse overriding of standards resulting in costly and time consuming rework.

At the worst both centers will obviously need to agree on decisions, a more time consuming process when  it's two parties rather than one, meaning the primary contractor sees more delays.

Agile and/or development processes like those in use at SpaceX will be highly constrained if just one center expects milestones to be met resembling a waterfall development process (which happens to be especially susceptible to delays when accommodating a broad user base).

Despite the best new technologies to manage virtual work teams, "too many chefs in the kitchen" is a very real barrier to engineering.

[butters]

I really can't see what good will come from one center managing the ascent stage while another manages the transfer/descent stage.

Seems like a recipe for disaster.

What center manages the ascent stage?

JSC, but Marshall has overall control of the project.

Along with the ascent stage, JSC will also manage the Gateway side of the architecture, including the Minimal Habitation Module and the lander refueling element. Unless Marshall really asserts itself as program manager, JSC will probably end up driving many of the key architectural decisions.

This is how I imagine this working: Marshall will have a relatively unfettered choice of descent stage proposals, and because that's the heaviest piece, the performance of the chosen descent stage (hydrolox vs. hypergolics etc.) will fix the mass budget for JSC's ascent stage. JSC will have much more control over the ascent stage design than Marshall will have over the design of its fixed-cost elements, and the propulsion system they choose for the ascent stage will determine what kind of refueling element they select for the Gateway. Marshall will then need to select a transfer stage which uses the same propellants.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Jody Singer and Mark Geyer will be exchanging pleasantries in their Christmas cards this year, but there is potential for considerable friction built into this division of labor.

[GWH]

This is how I imagine this working: Marshall will have a relatively unfettered choice of descent stage proposals, and because that's the heaviest piece, the performance of the chosen descent stage (hydrolox vs. hypergolics etc.) will fix the mass budget for JSC's ascent stage. JSC will have much more control over the ascent stage design than Marshall will have over the design of its fixed-cost elements, and the propulsion system they choose for the ascent stage will determine what kind of refueling element they select for the Gateway. Marshall will then need to select a transfer stage which uses the same propellants.

Didn't the latest solicitation specify that bidders are to submit integrated landers - eg. ascent + descent & optional transfer stages?
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=5f6768356bb378bce7b3e80cae39cf1f&_cview=0

The decision on propellants, sizing etc would all be dictated by what the primary contractor selects as their bid, then it would be up to JSC and MSFC to argue over which total package they prefer.

A logical split in my opinion would be to have MSFC provide guidance/review on all propulsion, GNC, landing gear etc, while JSC overviews strictly ECLSS, docking elements, and maybe propellant transfer.
While not a given, its plausible that contractors would want to use many common elements in both the ascent and descent stages, propulsion in particular. If said contractor has to get clearance from each center individually that could get messy.

I know from listening to Main Engine Cutoff, Intuitive Machines plans to partner with Boeing on a lander, the likely split there is Intuitive looks after the propulsion and GNC, while Boeing handles everything to do with docking and keeping meat bags alive. If the oversight between JFC and MSFC was split similarly that would make the most sense.

[Jim]

No "disaster" in principle, at least.   There's this thing called the telephone, and this other thing called the internet, and these documents called CAD files, all of which allow for detailed coordination between the centers.

There are also departments dedicated to document control which may or may not have separate standards for each center, their own expectations on what and how often things are to be communicated, how they are, and many many hurdles to that simple communication process.

Much more complicated is the potential for all these "mom said dad said" situations where any potential decision point may by conflicted by both centers, infighting and rivalries between the two, and much worse overriding of standards resulting in costly and time consuming rework.

At the worst both centers will obviously need to agree on decisions, a more time consuming process when  it's two parties rather than one, meaning the primary contractor sees more delays.

Agile and/or development processes like those in use at SpaceX will be highly constrained if just one center expects milestones to be met resembling a waterfall development process (which happens to be especially susceptible to delays when accommodating a broad user base).

Despite the best new technologies to manage virtual work teams, "too many chefs in the kitchen" is a very real barrier to engineering.

So how did the Saturn V work when Boeing made the first stage; NAA, the second; and MDD, the third?  Not to mention two spacecraft built by another two contractors.

[JohnFornaro]

So how did the Saturn V work when Boeing made the first stage; NAA, the second; and MDD, the third?  Not to mention two spacecraft built by another two contractors.

Easy Peesy.  They made sure not to use the internet.

[Lar]

So how did the Saturn V work when Boeing made the first stage; NAA, the second; and MDD, the third?  Not to mention two spacecraft built by another two contractors.

Easy Peesy.  They made sure not to use the internet.

While a facetious comment (stop it John!) there's a grain of truth there. The project required a LOT of coordination and it was done via telephone and paper memos and some onsite meetings. This of course took money, and lots of it... but the motto was waste anything but time....

[jadebenn]

Huh. I thought it was known that MSFC was going to have control over the HLS for a while now.

Anyways, I have it on good authority that MSFC is pushing for a hydrolox descent stage for reasons of future ISRU compatibility, which dovetails nicely with Blue Origin's plans. I'd be very surprised if they're not among the bids chosen.

[A_M_Swallow]

When an interface document is used to control the connecting of two pieces of equipment together the owner of the document needs the rank to order the two project managers to his office so he kick their asses.

The owner of the interface and the author of the document may be different people. The author is likely to be a young engineer who calls both sides sir. He may chair the meetings but acts as a sports referee not the team manager.

The high level design of the system needs thinking through and drives the design of the interface document. The high level design of each module reveals what it needs to supply and what it must receive. A good interface makes everyone's job easier.

Having taken part in it a few times interface design tends to be an iterative process but 75%-85% can be done pretty quickly.

Since both sides change there is no such thing as a cheap interface change but there is skiving off and getting the other team to do the work. Something the interface owner has to watch out for.

[Proponent]

No "disaster" in principle, at least.   There's this thing called the telephone, and this other thing called the internet, and these documents called CAD files, all of which allow for detailed coordination between the centers.

There are also departments dedicated to document control which may or may not have separate standards for each center, their own expectations on what and how often things are to be communicated, how they are, and many many hurdles to that simple communication process.

Much more complicated is the potential for all these "mom said dad said" situations where any potential decision point may by conflicted by both centers, infighting and rivalries between the two, and much worse overriding of standards resulting in costly and time consuming rework.

At the worst both centers will obviously need to agree on decisions, a more time consuming process when  it's two parties rather than one, meaning the primary contractor sees more delays.

Agile and/or development processes like those in use at SpaceX will be highly constrained if just one center expects milestones to be met resembling a waterfall development process (which happens to be especially susceptible to delays when accommodating a broad user base).

Despite the best new technologies to manage virtual work teams, "too many chefs in the kitchen" is a very real barrier to engineering.

So how did the Saturn V work when Boeing made the first stage; NAA, the second; and MDD, the third?  Not to mention two spacecraft built by another two contractors.

All three Saturn V contractors were managed by a single NASA center, as were the two spacecraft.

[su27k]

https://twitter.com/NexGenSpace/status/1161412028956913664

Yep, doesn't look good at all for HLS, seems like a disaster in the making...

Didn't the latest solicitation specify that bidders are to submit integrated landers - eg. ascent + descent & optional transfer stages?
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=5f6768356bb378bce7b3e80cae39cf1f&_cview=0

Also, how can NASA divide the lander into descend/ascend stage when the latest solicitation clearly states the 3 elements lander design is "non-prescriptive, shown for reference only"? What happens if company doesn't bid a 3-elements lander?

[GWH]

As far as I can tell its 2 or 3 stage only. 3 stage is the reference but a 2 stage system is allowable, with abort to orbit capabilities being the driving requirement.

EDIT to minimize posts:

Looks like things are proceeding swimmingly already: https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=4627

[Proponent]

Looks like things are proceeding swimmingly already: https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=4627

This is Bridenstine's second run-in with Congress, the first being when he suggested flying EM-1 without SLS. At least the first battle was over something significant. I thought working with Congress was supposed to be Mr. B's forte.

EDIT:  Added link to GWH's post to provide context.

[A_M_Swallow]

As far as I can tell its 2 or 3 stage only. 3 stage is the reference but a 2 stage system is allowable, with abort to orbit capabilities being the driving requirement.

EDIT to minimize posts:

Looks like things are proceeding swimmingly already: https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=4627

I do not know what the Johnson Space Center is complaining about since they have got the Ascent Element and crew cabin. The descent elements are basically rockets so they can be built by full time rocket engineers. The Ascent Element project manager will find managing life support development much easier when his boss is hundreds of miles away.

The overall chief engineer at Marshall Space Flight Center will have to worry about the Ascent Element's effects on other rest of the lander. That is the Elements total mass, total budget, mechanical connection to the main lander element, electrical controls to the 2 descent stages, telemetry back to the cabin and the ladder. Someone will have to decide which element will house the landing lidar.