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

[TrevorMonty]

I'm actually shaking my head over this. Other than creating another potential use for SLS, there really is no viable justification for this effort. NASA has self-limited the usefulness of a 2nd lander by requiring the use of SLS/Orion, while at the same time reducing the number of times by half that the SpaceX lander will be used to take crew to the surface. This is stupid. Expensive and stupid. SLS will fly only once per year, making an already EXTREMELY sparce program even less likely to be useful. What a waste.

NASA has no vision and no viable plan. It reminds me of kids throwing mud on a wall to see what sticks, and then looking at it to see what the plan is that the mud splatters created. The reason we have just one lander is because congress didn't want to spend the money for two in the first place. What the hell makes Nelson think that congress will pony up the extra cash this time, without slashing what it will pay for the original contract? NASA is not going to get significantly more money over this. The budget will stay close to where it already is and other programs will get raided to fund it. Stupid. Really, really stupid.

Once landers are operational their operators will develop alternative means of crew transport. Without it they can't sell private manned missions to moon.

Both landers are quite capable of being modified to ferry crew between LEO-Gateway-LEO. Just requires more tanker launches. Add lunar fuel into equation and tanker launches required drop dramatically.


Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[dror]

The depot can be used for all missions that refuel in LEO. the problem is that Starship HLS does not have enough fuel to get back to LEO after going LEO-NRHO-surface-NRHO. Therefore to get the Starship HLS back to LEO for reuse, it must ALSO be refuelled in NRHO (or somewhere) One way to do this would be send a tanker to NRHO: I think a tanker would have enough fuel to get itself plus the Starship HLS back to LEO. A longer-term and more flexible solution might be to  a permanent depot in NRHO in addition to the depot in LEO.  I have not done the math, so I don't know how expensive all of this would be in terms of fuel and considering boil-off, but clearly fuel carried to NRHO is costly since the tankers will themselves need to refill from the depot in LEO.  An empty tanker coming back from NRHO would aerobrake and EDL instead of stopping at the tanker, but the HLS must use fuel to get back into LEO.
...

That doesn't seem to be very sustainable.
A sustainable SpaceX plan could use a diffrent, smaller lander. That lander can be taken in a regular cargo Starship.
The smaller lander will use much less fuel for descend and ascent.
 In that way, the whole trip can be completed without a need for a refuel in NRHO.
The smaller lander could be brought back as cargo, or could stay in NRHO.

[DanClemmensen]

The depot can be used for all missions that refuel in LEO. the problem is that Starship HLS does not have enough fuel to get back to LEO after going LEO-NRHO-surface-NRHO. Therefore to get the Starship HLS back to LEO for reuse, it must ALSO be refuelled in NRHO (or somewhere) One way to do this would be send a tanker to NRHO: I think a tanker would have enough fuel to get itself plus the Starship HLS back to LEO. A longer-term and more flexible solution might be to  a permanent depot in NRHO in addition to the depot in LEO.  I have not done the math, so I don't know how expensive all of this would be in terms of fuel and considering boil-off, but clearly fuel carried to NRHO is costly since the tankers will themselves need to refill from the depot in LEO.  An empty tanker coming back from NRHO would aerobrake and EDL instead of stopping at the tanker, but the HLS must use fuel to get back into LEO.
...

That doesn't seem to be very sustainable.
A sustainable SpaceX plan could use a diffrent, smaller lander. That lander can be taken in a regular cargo Starship.
The smaller lander will use much less fuel for descend and ascent.
 In that way, the whole trip can be completed without a need for a refuel in NRHO.
The smaller lander could be brought back as cargo, or could stay in NRHO.

The basic question is the cost of a tanker mission. If it is cheap (< $10 million) then using 3 tanker missions to return HLS to LEO may make sense. An HLS will be able to land a very large payload or a fairly large crew, so it is more cost-effective than a small lander for such missions. Furthermore, this hare-brained scheme uses no designs except those that are already funded and in development as part of HLS Option A.

[dglow]

Regarding Option A: SpaceX is contracted to provide two lunar landings: uncrewed demo followed by the Artemis III landing. Is SpaceX required to use a separate lander for each mission, or contractually can they use the same lander twice?

IIRC the uncrewed demo mission will land on the lunar surface and remain there.

[DanClemmensen]

Regarding Option A: SpaceX is contracted to provide two lunar landings: uncrewed demo followed by the Artemis III landing. Is SpaceX required to use a separate lander for each mission, or contractually can they use the same lander twice?

IIRC the uncrewed demo mission will land on the lunar surface and remain there.

The uncrewed mission must successfully land on the moon. Must it remain there? It seem to me that NASA would like to see a demonstration of lunar ascent before they do a crewed mission.

[TrevorMonty]

Monumental waste of money. I couldn’t articulate it better than the individual below, who you might or might not be familiar with:

https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1506715061137649674?s=21

https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1506722584288706568?s=21

By this logic NASA should never have funded two commercial crew vehicles. If they had down selected to one it would not have been Dragon. Lets be thankful they got funding  for two.

Given SS has yet to do a successful return flight to LEO its far from done deal that it will be successful.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[clongton]

<snip> Senator Nelson has been in discussions with Congress and they have told him that they will fund a second lander. For FY22, NASA only requested the budget for one lander ($1.2B) which is why Appendix P won't be awarded until the FY23 Appropriations bills are enacted. The FY23 Budget comes out on Monday and Nelson said that people will be pleasantly surprised at the budget (presumably for HLS).

I come from the perspective of someone who has had a fair amount of dealings with congress, both directly and as part of my job before I retired. I know from personal experience how congress goes about funding things. It's really, really messy. You said Nelson has been in discussions with "congress" and "they" told him. Who exactly in congress? The House or the Senate? There are 435 members in the house and 100 in the senate and every single one of them have their own agendas, and they are all different. Who are "they"? Likely only 2 or 3 persons. And "they" do not speak for "congress".  The money people that Mr. Nelson knew when he was in congress are no longer there and the new money brokers that are there now do not have anywhere near the clout that the older members used to have. The biggest broker of all, Senator Shelby, is not seeking reelection in November of this year and will not have any influence on the FY2023 budget. Nelson's acting as if things haven't changed. Well they have and congress has also changed. By the time the FY2023 budget gets passed, it will look extremely different than what Mr. Nelson thinks it will.

[tbellman]

Regarding Option A: SpaceX is contracted to provide two lunar landings: uncrewed demo followed by the Artemis III landing. Is SpaceX required to use a separate lander for each mission, or contractually can they use the same lander twice?

The goal for the uncrewed demo is to verify that the design can safely land on the lunar surface.  Bonus if they e.g. can show safe ascent afterwards as well (doesn't have to actually return to NRHO; just lifting off and ascending a few hundred meters would be plenty).  Bonus if it can deliver some kind of science payload to the surface as well, even if just a retro-reflector.

Whatever happens to that lander afterwards doesn't matter to NASA (except that it must not cause problems for other missions).  If SpaceX are capable of reusing it for the crewed demo landing, sure, no problem.

However, I would be very surprised if that is possible.  It is in my opinion extremely unlikely that the uncrewed demo lander has a crew cabin.  I think it is unlikely that the crew cabin is even redy by the time SpaceX wants to attempt the uncrewed demo landing.  And even if it is, why risk an expensive cabin on a high-risk mission like this?  There's probably at least a 30% chance that the first attempt will end in a crash.

[hplan]

The reason we have just one lander is because congress didn't want to spend the money for two in the first place. What the hell makes Nelson think that congress will pony up the extra cash this time, without slashing what it will pay for the original contract? NASA is not going to get significantly more money over this. The budget will stay close to where it already is and other programs will get raided to fund it.

Maybe this uncertainty is the very reason for this plan. SpaceX gets an extra mission and more development money, without a competitive RFP, and congress is placated with a second lander contract -- but only if congress funds it.
 

[kevinof]

Regarding Option A: SpaceX is contracted to provide two lunar landings: uncrewed demo followed by the Artemis III landing. Is SpaceX required to use a separate lander for each mission, or contractually can they use the same lander twice?

IIRC the uncrewed demo mission will land on the lunar surface and remain there.

Have my doubts it will stay there. One of the negatives about the BO proposal for HLS was they couldn’t test one aspect until the crew actually flew on it. Not doing an ascent of the SpaceX HLS is the same thing - you need to test it can land and get back off the surface and rendezvous successfully.

And a bonus is if you get it back to lunar orbit then you have choices - keep it there attached to the gateway for additional space or get it back to LEO (eventually) and park it there as a station/destination or whatever.  It’s a lot of investment $$ so get some additional use out of it.

[yg1968]

<snip> Senator Nelson has been in discussions with Congress and they have told him that they will fund a second lander. For FY22, NASA only requested the budget for one lander ($1.2B) which is why Appendix P won't be awarded until the FY23 Appropriations bills are enacted. The FY23 Budget comes out on Monday and Nelson said that people will be pleasantly surprised at the budget (presumably for HLS).

I come from the perspective of someone who has had a fair amount of dealings with congress, both directly and as part of my job before I retired. I know from personal experience how congress goes about funding things. It's really, really messy. You said Nelson has been in discussions with "congress" and "they" told him. Who exactly in congress? The House or the Senate? There are 435 members in the house and 100 in the senate and every single one of them have their own agendas, and they are all different. Who are "they"? Likely only 2 or 3 persons. And "they" do not speak for "congress".  The money people that Mr. Nelson knew when he was in congress are no longer there and the new money brokers that are there now do not have anywhere near the clout that the older members used to have. The biggest broker of all, Senator Shelby, is not seeking reelection in November of this year and will not have any influence on the FY2023 budget. Nelson's acting as if things haven't changed. Well they have and congress has also changed. By the time the FY2023 budget gets passed, it will look extremely different than what Mr. Nelson thinks it will.

Nelson said that during the press conference but he didn't say who he talked to. Nelson said a while ago that a lot of his job is talking to Congress and making sure that Congress is on board with some of these initiatives. In terms of the FY23 Appropriations bills, usually most of the items are hashed out during the year. I wouldn't be surprised if the appropriations bills are passed by Congress in December while Shelby is still there. But even if it passes after January, you wouldn't expect the new Senator to start from scratch. Having said that, the topline figure could get reduced as it did this year. The HLS budget got reduced a little bit this year because of that ($100M below the Senate's proposal).

[yg1968]

Regarding Option A: SpaceX is contracted to provide two lunar landings: uncrewed demo followed by the Artemis III landing. Is SpaceX required to use a separate lander for each mission, or contractually can they use the same lander twice?

IIRC the uncrewed demo mission will land on the lunar surface and remain there.

That is one possibility but we don't know for sure. Some people speculated that the uncrewed Starship could be used as a habitat for later missions but that was just speculation.

[VaBlue]

I think Blue would be smart this time to base their proposal on a reusable and refuelable second stage for New Glenn.  A mini-Starship design would create a much better solution than they offered last time.

According to Bill Nelson, all new lander entrants must use SLS.  So don't hold your breath waiting for some fantastic sounding New Glenn or Vulcan reusability effort out of this.

[yg1968]

I think Blue would be smart this time to base their proposal on a reusable and refuelable second stage for New Glenn.  A mini-Starship design would create a much better solution than they offered last time.

I was thinking that also. Something like Jarvis or a lunar variant of Jarvis.

[yg1968]

I think Blue would be smart this time to base their proposal on a reusable and refuelable second stage for New Glenn.  A mini-Starship design would create a much better solution than they offered last time.

According to Bill Nelson, all new lander entrants must use SLS.  So don't hold your breath waiting for some fantastic sounding New Glenn or Vulcan reusability effort out of this.

The lander has to be sustainable and thus partly reusable.

[DanClemmensen]

I think Blue would be smart this time to base their proposal on a reusable and refuelable second stage for New Glenn.  A mini-Starship design would create a much better solution than they offered last time.

According to Bill Nelson, all new lander entrants must use SLS.  So don't hold your breath waiting for some fantastic sounding New Glenn or Vulcan reusability effort out of this.

Whoa. Does this mean the lander must be delivered to NRHO by SLS? I thought it meant that the crew would be delivered to NRHO by SLS/Orion.  Opinion: delivery to NRHO by SLS is such a severe constraint that a "sustainable lander" is infeasible.

[VaBlue]

According to Bill Nelson, all new lander entrants must use SLS.  So don't hold your breath waiting for some fantastic sounding New Glenn or Vulcan reusability effort out of this.

Whoa. Does this mean the lander must be delivered to NRHO by SLS? I thought it meant that the crew would be delivered to NRHO by SLS/Orion.  Opinion: delivery to NRHO by SLS is such a severe constraint that a "sustainable lander" is infeasible.

Huh...  I didn't take it that way, but it makes far more sense than what I was thinking!  You are correct - requiring the lander to arrive at the moon via SLS would be dumber than a soup sandwich.  Perhaps I took that out of context and screwed it up.  Any chance I can respectively withdraw my conclusion about NG or Vulcan reuse efforts? 

[yg1968]

I think Blue would be smart this time to base their proposal on a reusable and refuelable second stage for New Glenn.  A mini-Starship design would create a much better solution than they offered last time.

According to Bill Nelson, all new lander entrants must use SLS.  So don't hold your breath waiting for some fantastic sounding New Glenn or Vulcan reusability effort out of this.

Whoa. Does this mean the lander must be delivered to NRHO by SLS? I thought it meant that the crew would be delivered to NRHO by SLS/Orion.  Opinion: delivery to NRHO by SLS is such a severe constraint that a "sustainable lander" is infeasible.

No, Nelson didn't say that. Someone asked them if a company could bring NASA astronauts to the Moon without meeting up with SLS in NRHO. Nelson said no, as expected.

I have edited my summary. I now realize that I was the source of the confusion. Sorry about that.

[VaBlue]

I think Blue would be smart this time to base their proposal on a reusable and refuelable second stage for New Glenn.  A mini-Starship design would create a much better solution than they offered last time.

According to Bill Nelson, all new lander entrants must use SLS.  So don't hold your breath waiting for some fantastic sounding New Glenn or Vulcan reusability effort out of this.

Whoa. Does this mean the lander must be delivered to NRHO by SLS? I thought it meant that the crew would be delivered to NRHO by SLS/Orion.  Opinion: delivery to NRHO by SLS is such a severe constraint that a "sustainable lander" is infeasible.

No, Nelson didn't say that. Someone asked them if a company could bring NASA astronauts to the Moon without meeting up with SLS in NRHO. Nelson said no, as expected.

I have edited my summary. I now realize that I was the source of the confusion. Sorry about that.

No worries - thank you for the quick clarification, and I apologize for reading so poorly. 

[TrevorMonty]

I'm curious to see what LM, NG and Blue come up with now that they are doing individual landers.

Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk