HLS Option B and the Sustaining Lunar Development Phase (Appendix P)

[yg1968]

I’m not arguing against a second lander.  I’m arguing for investment in an Orion/SLS offramp now so those landers can actually see effective use as they come online.

Without that offramp, Artemis makes no programmatic sense whether it has one, two, or a dozen landers and should be terminated (but won’t be).

I agree with you on that. It would be nice to have a commercial crew to NRHO program that complements (and eventually replaces) SLS and Orion. I don't think that it's going to happen but it would be nice.

[pathfinder_01]

System B: HLS (HLS+tankers+depots) plus crewed EDL-capable Starship. This one is a bit further out since Elon claims that this crewed Starship must be preceded by "hundreds" of successful uncrewed EDL-capable starship missions, so no "hope" before Artemis III, but maybe at least as likely as Artemis V by 2027.

This does not need to be a EDL crew capable starship if other means for return exists such as Orion or some other capsule parked at the gateway(or even carried into LLO with it). It could leave it's crew at the gate way and return home without a crew. There would be two advantages ability to use lower delta v trajectories for return(longer trip time) and ability to land without the crew. 

[DanClemmensen]

System B: HLS (HLS+tankers+depots) plus crewed EDL-capable Starship. This one is a bit further out since Elon claims that this crewed Starship must be preceded by "hundreds" of successful uncrewed EDL-capable starship missions, so no "hope" before Artemis III, but maybe at least as likely as Artemis V by 2027.

This does not need to be a EDL crew capable starship if other means for return exists such as Orion or some other capsule parked at the gateway(or even carried into LLO with it). It could leave it's crew at the gate way and return home without a crew. There would be two advantages ability to use lower delta v trajectories for return(longer trip time) and ability to land without the crew.

Please look at the "System A" of the original post you trimmed.
That was  System A: HLS (HLS+tankers+depots) plus Crew Dragon.  Crew rendezvous in NRHO is not part of either of these systems. The both use a crew rendezvous in LEO together with depots in EO and NRHO.

[woods170]

The first two Starship HLS (uncrewed demo and Artemis III lander, i.e., Option A) will use an EO depot Artemis III is NET April 2025. As of now, NASA proposes to sole-source an enhanced Starship HLS under option B of the contract, which will fly a crewed mission as part of Artemis V in 2027(?). While nobody has explicitly mentioned the depot for this crewed flight, basically everybody seem to think this will use the same mission profile as the initial Starship HLS.  However, this Option B Starship HLS is supposed to be "sustainable", which means reusable, so SpaceX will need to figure out a way to refuel and reprovision it as part of the Option B contract extension.

Emphasis mine.

Wrong.

"Sustainable" in this case does NOT mean "reusable".

Here's the NASA list of additional required capabilities for Option B (paragraph 1.3.3. from this document)
- Operations and survival in periods of darkness (e.g. eclipse periods)
- Longer duration EVAs
- Increased cargo transportation mass, both from and to Gateway
- 4-crewmember missions
- Global access (access to polar and equatorial regions)
- Long-term affordability

NONE of those require reusability. What they DO require is for the initial HLS lander to become more capable. Much like the J-series LMs (Apollo 15-17) were more capable than the H-series LMs (Apollo 11-14).

What those additional capabilities boil down to is this:
- Closed loop ECLSS, sized for crew of 4, instead of 2.
- Upgraded EVA suits and their vehicle-side support systems.
- Upgraded and expanded airlocks.
- Full eclipse support for surface activities (non-solar electrical power provided by the lander, vehicle-mounted lighting systems, etc.)
- Increasing lunar liftoff mass capabilities (increased cargo hold, more liftoff thrust, biggger crew&cargo elevator, etc.)
- Increased amount of available delta V.
- Bringing production costs down.

Some of you really need to learn that "sustainable" does not equal "reusable".
Reusability can help in making things sustainable, but not vice versa.

[yg1968]

NASA defines "sustainable" as incorporating long-term affordability which strongly suggests reusability.

NASA defines “sustainable” as incorporating long-term affordability

While NASA expects to utilize commercial lander services available in the near term for some early robotic missions [CLPS], NASA also recognizes the need to foster the development of expertise and technologies required for reusable, sustainable, human-scale landing systems.

[...] the Offeror shall provide:

Offeror’s plans for disposal of non-reusable modules, or plans for how reusable modules, if proposed, between HLS surface missions will be dispositioned, such as parking or storage at or near Gateway, if necessary;

a “reusable” module is defined as a module that can be used to support multiple round-trip transportation missions between Gateway and the lunar surface.

See also this text from the Artemis plan:

Later sustainable surface exploration demonstration missions will make full use of the Gateway-enabled capabilities, including refueling and reuse of all or parts of the lander and conducting critical Mars mission simulations.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/artemis_plan-20200921.pdf

[yg1968]

One thing that I was thinking of is that perhaps, the sustainable HLS-Starship could use almost all of the space that it has for crew accommodations (and not for cargo). The advantage of that is that it could be used as a habitat on the Moon for longer stays. Perhaps HLS-Starship should have a Cargo Lander variant for cargo delivery but most of the crewed version should be used for crew accommodations.   

[DanClemmensen]

The first two Starship HLS (uncrewed demo and Artemis III lander, i.e., Option A) will use an EO depot Artemis III is NET April 2025. As of now, NASA proposes to sole-source an enhanced Starship HLS under option B of the contract, which will fly a crewed mission as part of Artemis V in 2027(?). While nobody has explicitly mentioned the depot for this crewed flight, basically everybody seem to think this will use the same mission profile as the initial Starship HLS.  However, this Option B Starship HLS is supposed to be "sustainable", which means reusable, so SpaceX will need to figure out a way to refuel and reprovision it as part of the Option B contract extension.

Emphasis mine.

Wrong.

"Sustainable" in this case does NOT mean "reusable".

Sorry, I was unclear. As opposed to the Appendix P landers, the Option B lander is assumed at least implicitly to be an enhanced Option A lander, and Starship HLS is very close to being reusable. I therefore assumed that making it fully reusable was the most efficient way to meet the affordability requirement. Starship HLS (Option A) has downmass/upmass capabilities far in excess of the "sustainable" requirements of the BAA, so the rest of the requirements can probably be met by throwing mass at the problem.

Is the HLS provider responsible for the EVA suits? If not, when will the EVA suit interface requirements be finalized?

[yg1968]

See below:

According to the NASA FY23 budget request, the budget for HLS would gradually increase:

Human Landing System
FY21 928.3  (Op plan)
FY22 1,195.0 (FY22 Request)
FY23 1,485.6
FY24 1,863.8
FY25 2,246.1
FY26 2,168.2
FY27 2,537.9

See page 3:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy23_nasa_budget_request_full_opt.pdf

[yg1968]

Here is a practical summary chart:

https://twitter.com/KenKirtland17/status/1507184384830488577

[savantu]

https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/status/1507525542060474372

I imagine that funding for the second HLS provider will start at $500M in the FY23 request and increase to $1B in FY24.

Best case is $500M per year, 5 years, contract amount same or less than 1st HLS.

[deadman1204]

https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/status/1507525542060474372

I imagine that funding for the second HLS provider will start at $500M in the FY23 request and increase to $1B in FY24.

Best case is $500M per year, 5 years, contract amount same or less than 1st HLS.

I disagree. The future requests will depend upon who the winner is and what their bid is. This is a blind request, because its unknown what the winning bid will be.

[yg1968]

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1508558558656446466

[yg1968]

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1508558558656446466

It's possible that the $500M is accurate after all. If it is, it means that about $1B of the $1.5B in FY23 is for Option A and $500M is for Appendix P and Option B.

To be honest, even without Chris Davenport's tweets, it is not that hard to figure out, for Option A, SpaceX needs about $1B per year for 3 years. The rest of the FY23 HLS funding is for Option B and Appendix P.

[Coastal Ron]

No irony, because there is ZERO commercial market for colonizing Mars. Even Elon Musk has stated this, so I'm not sure why this is news to you.

I actually describe the colonization effort of Mars like a humanitarian mission, where money is poured into the effort with ZERO expectation of an commercial return.

And there is ZERO commercial market for doing anything on the Moon with humans as of today, yet our Moon lacks its version of Elon Musk to spur investment...

SpaceX intends to charge $500,000 for a trip to Mars, so they intend to make money from their services.

Covering costs is NOT the same as "making money".

[yg1968]

No irony, because there is ZERO commercial market for colonizing Mars. Even Elon Musk has stated this, so I'm not sure why this is news to you.

I actually describe the colonization effort of Mars like a humanitarian mission, where money is poured into the effort with ZERO expectation of an commercial return.

And there is ZERO commercial market for doing anything on the Moon with humans as of today, yet our Moon lacks its version of Elon Musk to spur investment...

SpaceX intends to charge $500,000 for a trip to Mars, so they intend to make money from their services.

Covering costs is NOT the same as "making money".

I seriously doubt that they would only be covering costs, they are a for-profit corporation.

[yg1968]

The Artemis manifest (attached) shows that the pressurized rover would be delivered through the Cargo Lander (which is essentially an HLS-cargo) in 2030. The foundation surface habitat would be delivered (presumably also through the Cargo Lander or a variant of it) in 2031.

See page 7:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy23_nasa_budget_request_summary.pdf

[DanClemmensen]

The Artemis manifest (attached) shows that the pressurized rover would be delivered through the Cargo Lander (which is essentially an HLS-cargo) in 2030. The foundation surface habitat would be delivered (presumably also through the Cargo Lander or a variant of it) in 2031.

Do we have evidence that the cargo landers are variants of the HLSs? They are potentially very different. In particular, there is no requirement that a cargo lander be reusable: it can land its cargo and then just sit there. In the case of a lunar cargo Starship, a one-way mission can easily land more on the Moon than it can lift from Earth. I suspect cargo versions of the Appendix P HLSs will be similar in this regard. By the time you strip out the ascent stage and the crew support stuff, it's basically a different spacecraft.

[sdsds]

What are the implications for the various landers of the "Fission Surface Power" element being shown as ready for launch in the 2028/2029 timeframe? Clearly the launcher would need to be of the highest available reliability. But will the lander(s) also require extra .?. certification .?. for delivering that payload to the surface?

[yg1968]

The Artemis manifest (attached) shows that the pressurized rover would be delivered through the Cargo Lander (which is essentially an HLS-cargo) in 2030. The foundation surface habitat would be delivered (presumably also through the Cargo Lander or a variant of it) in 2031.

Do we have evidence that the cargo landers are variants of the HLSs? They are potentially very different. In particular, there is no requirement that a cargo lander be reusable: it can land its cargo and then just sit there. In the case of a lunar cargo Starship, a one-way mission can easily land more on the Moon than it can lift from Earth. I suspect cargo versions of the Appendix P HLSs will be similar in this regard. By the time you strip out the ascent stage and the crew support stuff, it's basically a different spacecraft.

We don't have that much information on the cargo landers. Lisa Watson Morgan said that there was a lot of synergies between these cargo landers and HLS and that NASA was asking HLS providers for fees for these missions and she said that the cargo services would be in the 14mt cargo delivery range.

It's at 1h3m of the press conference:
youtube.com/watch?v=mwdAcpIBWj8

They are referred to in the LETS design reference missions. Presumably LETS would have both crew and cargo missions:

LUNAR EXPLORATION TRANSPORTATION SERVICES (LETS)
DESIGN REFERENCE MISSIONS (DRMs)
07/19/2021

CARGO DESIGN REFERENCE MISSION 001 (CL-CDRM-001)

CDRM-001 is a large cargo delivery mission to the lunar South Pole region. The cargo lander will deliver the Foundation Surface Habitat (FSH) to the Artemis Base Camp (ABC). There will be two checkouts to determine the health and status of the cargo lander and the FSH prior to any subsequent crew mission. There will be one performed before descent to the surface, one after landing and safing of the vehicle is complete or, in case additional flight operations are planned, after the vehicle has been placed in an inactive but ready mode and prior to safing. Transit from Earth to the lunar surface will be partner specific and may or may not involve aggregation of elements in Earth and/or Lunar orbits. Once on the lunar surface, the cargo lander may need to provide the FSH with power for (TBD) days until the FSH is ready to be initiated and/or deployed. This period may involve (TBD) days of darkness, and this will be determined by the mission epoch and the location of the ABC. The cargo lander must ensure that any encapsulation or protective materials do not inhibit crew ingress to the FSH and remote operations to remove any inhibiting hardware must be completed prior to crew arrival in Lunar Staging Orbit (e.g., NRHO) to ensure that the crew descent preparations timeline is not affected. If the FSH is to be removed from the lander, this will also be done remotely prior to crew arrival in Once all the lander deployable operations are complete, the FSH operations will take over responsibility of the FSH and the cargo lander operations will be complete.

CARGO DESIGN REFERENCE MISSION 00[2] (CL-CDRM-002)

CDRM-002 is a large cargo delivery mission to the lunar South Pole region. The cargo lander will deliver the Pressurized Rover (PR) near the Artemis Base Camp (ABC). There will be two checkouts to determine the health and status of the cargo lander and the PR prior to any subsequent crew mission. There will be one performed before descent to the surface, one after landing and safing of the vehicle is complete or, in case additional fight operations are planned, after the vehicle has been placed in an inactive but ready mode and prior to safing. Transit from Earth to the lunar surface will be partner-specific and may or may not involve aggregation of elements in Earth and/or Lunar orbits. Once on the lunar surface, the cargo lander may need to provide the PR with power for (TBD) days until the PR is ready to be deployed to the surface. This period may involve (TBD) days of darkness, and this will be determined by the mission epoch and landing site. The PR may have protective fairings or other protective material that may need to be removed prior to crew arrival in Lunar Staging Orbit (e.g., NRHO) to support deployment and to ensure that the crew descent preparations timeline is not affected. The deployment method of the PR will be determined by the cargo lander and will be partner design specific. Once all of the cargo deployment operations are complete, the PR operations will take over responsibility of the PR and the cargo lander operations will be complete.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53708.msg2292964#msg2292964

[yg1968]

What are the implications for the various landers of the "Fission Surface Power" element being shown as ready for launch in the 2028/2029 timeframe? Clearly the launcher would need to be of the highest available reliability. But will the lander(s) also require extra .?. certification .?. for delivering that payload to the surface?

I would assume CLPS but I don't know.