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

[abaddon]

Dynetics could carry 4 astronauts even under Option A. National Team could only carry 2 astronauts under Option A. But I suspect that the National Team no longer exists anyways.

Dynetics could fit four astronauts in Alpaca, but the estimated vehicle mass far exceeded the mass allocation at the time of submission. I’m sure they’ve worked on it, but extended mission requirements won’t help.

Those four astronauts are going to have to go on some kind of diet.  I'm reminded of the great Eddie Izzard sketch, to paraphrase: "Leonardo Da Vinci designed a helicopter that did not fly... and so did I!"

[wannamoonbase]

Good luck Dynetics, I hope they beat Blue.  I'd love to see yet another Bezo's tantrum.

[dglow]

Good luck Dynetics, I hope they beat Blue.  I'd love to see yet another Bezo's tantrum.

I'm partial to Dynetics' design as well, though not the company, and have none of the insights of NASA's evaluation team.

But given what has transpired thus far – the pre-award shenanigans with Boeing, the litigious fit from Blue – my hope is that this competition will be fair, rule-abiding, and that all parties can be graceful in defeat.

May the best proposal win.

[menomos]

With SLS only launching every 2 years or so, there will only be 4-5 landings per decade. Redundancy is meaningless in this system, because only the lander would have it. SLS and Orion wouldn't. You gain nothing but more expense.

Yours and other comments are very true about the absurdity of having competition/redundancy for HLS when SLS doesn't, at least in the reality of *today*, but I think there is considerable chance that sometime later this decade we arrive at an architecture that has additional options beyond SLS to get humans to the moon, but does still utilize some parts of the the HLS vehicles currently planned for development. 

And I don't necessarily buy into any rosy predictions that it will "definitely" be Starship flying humans to the Moon by 2023, it could be some other architecture or combination of providers.  But as the commercial crew program has shown, having dissimilar, competitive development of HLS at this stage could be a big advantage over putting everything in one development basket.

[ThatOldJanxSpirit]

Here is what the lander could look like for the habitat (see attached image).

See also this link:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53708.msg2292988#msg2292988

That really shows one of the problems going forward. I understand the importance of government procurement processes, and the need to maintain a diverse manufacturing base. But how do you effectively compete a foundation habitat when a modified lander will likely significantly exceed requirements at a fraction of the cost.

[DanClemmensen]

It really sounded like NASA was doing contortions to justify paying billions for a second company.

With SLS only launching every 2 years or so, there will only be 4-5 landings per decade. Redundancy is meaningless in this system, because only the lander would have it. SLS and Orion wouldn't. You gain nothing but more expense.
They went out of their way to shape a bidding process where spaceX is banned from competing, JUST to make sure old space can come along for the ride.

I have a different interpretation, but I'm probably wrong. Assuming SpaceX accepts this arrangement and actually submits the Option B bid, they are guaranteed to get the lander contract for Artemis V. But that's a reusable lander, so it will be sitting in NRHO (or perhaps in LEO), available to compete for landing services for subsequent missions against any shiny new "Appendix P" landers. The competitors must provide either a lower mission cost or superior capabilities. If they can, NASA wins. If they cannot, NASA still wins.

Furthermore, since NASA is buying a service instead of a lander, SpaceX is free to use the hardware for a private "Polaris"-type mission to land Jacobson someone on the Moon: send a Crew Dragon to meet HLS in LEO, HLS can refuel in LEO and go LEO-lunar surface-NRHO, refuel again in NRHO, and return to LEO.  The first such trip requires a new depot in NRHO which SpaceX can charge to Option B. Each trip requires a bunch of tanker flights to refill the two depots.

That would be an interesting scenario. For the time being, SpaceX intends to refill in Earth orbit (whatever that means) but perhaps they could decide to refill at NRHO as part of Option B.

Yes, the Option A Starship HLS flights refill in LEO. But these two landers (uncrewed demo and Artemis III) do not include reuse, and the lander is abandoned in NRHO or possibly discarded onto the surface. To actually reuse, they need to refuel in NRHO also. The amount of fuel needed to do another NRHO-surface-NRHO flight is more(?) than the amount needed to do a NRHO-LEO return. We do not know if Option A Starship HLS is designed to handle all the complicated details required for a return (long loiter after return to NRHO, etc.) because there is no requirement in Option A for this. But they can make it part of the Option B enhancement effort.

[DanClemmensen]

Dumb question: it appears that the Appendix P lander is supposed to also convey heavy cargo from NRHO to the lunar surface. How is the cargo supposed to get to NRHO, and how is it supposed to be transshipped to the lander?

Not a dumb question. But you kinda could've figured out the answer yourself.

This is where the tie-in to SLS comes looking around the corner. The heavy cargo is supposed to be flown there on SLS Block 1B, towed by Orion. Similar to how Orion will tow the iHab and ESPRIT modules to NRHO.
The robot arm on Gateway will assist in transferring the cargo into the lander's cargo hold.

That is not true. Uncrewed and cargo HLS missions do not need to meet up with Gateway or SLS. Here is what the lander could look like for the habitat (see attached image).

See also this link:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53708.msg2292988#msg2292988

Sorry, but "HLS" stands for "Human Landing System". An uncrewed mission to deliver cargo from Earth to lunar surface is not HLS, even if it is the same or a similar lander. As of now, it's CLPS. The second tranche of LVs (in 2019) qualified under CLPS includes Starship. This would presumably be a cargo variant with no life support and would possibly be non-reusable.

[yg1968]

Yes, the Option A Starship HLS flights refill in LEO. But these two landers (uncrewed demo and Artemis III) do not include reuse, and the lander is abandoned in NRHO or possibly discarded onto the surface. To actually reuse, they need to refuel in NRHO also. The amount of fuel needed to do another NRHO-surface-NRHO flight is more(?) than the amount needed to do a NRHO-LEO return. We do not know if Option A Starship HLS is designed to handle all the complicated details required for a return (long loiter after return to NRHO, etc.) because there is no requirement in Option A for this. But they can make it part of the Option B enhancement effort.

If Starship can use the same depot in Earth orbit for the uncrewed and crewed HLS Starship (as stated by Woods170 below), couldn't they refill in Earth orbit for consecutive lunar surface missions? 

Depot ship stays in Earth orbit and is to be used for BOTH missions (uncrewed demo mission and the crewed landing).

On a further note: some SpaceX personnell informally refer to the depot ship as "the Shelby", in an obvious stab at a certain senator.

[menomos]

It really sounded like NASA was doing contortions to justify paying billions for a second company.

With SLS only launching every 2 years or so, there will only be 4-5 landings per decade. Redundancy is meaningless in this system, because only the lander would have it. SLS and Orion wouldn't. You gain nothing but more expense.
They went out of their way to shape a bidding process where spaceX is banned from competing, JUST to make sure old space can come along for the ride.

I have a different interpretation, but I'm probably wrong. Assuming SpaceX accepts this arrangement and actually submits the Option B bid, they are guaranteed to get the lander contract for Artemis V. But that's a reusable lander, so it will be sitting in NRHO (or perhaps in LEO), available to compete for landing services for subsequent missions against any shiny new "Appendix P" landers. The competitors must provide either a lower mission cost or superior capabilities. If they can, NASA wins. If they cannot, NASA still wins.

Furthermore, since NASA is buying a service instead of a lander, SpaceX is free to use the hardware for a private "Polaris"-type mission to land Jacobson someone on the Moon: send a Crew Dragon to meet HLS in LEO, HLS can refuel in LEO and go LEO-lunar surface-NRHO, refuel again in NRHO, and return to LEO.  The first such trip requires a new depot in NRHO which SpaceX can charge to Option B. Each trip requires a bunch of tanker flights to refill the two depots.

That would be an interesting scenario. For the time being, SpaceX intends to refill in Earth orbit (whatever that means) but perhaps they could decide to refill at NRHO as part of Option B.

...To actually reuse, they need to refuel in NRHO also. The amount of fuel needed to do another NRHO-surface-NRHO flight is more(?) than the amount needed to do a NRHO-LEO return. ...

I wonder if there will be any consideration in Option B to use ISRU to refuel oxygen from the Lunar Surface?  It seems like a no-brainer for both NASA and SpaceX to push for this for their long term goals, but that may be seen as too ambitious a challenge for the Option B phase.

[clongton]

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.

[libra]

Folks, after reading that thread and shaking my head like the above poster(s) sometimes I wonder if the one and only really clever use of goddam SLS shouldn't be... backup methalox tanker for LEO Starships - bound for the Moon, Mars, asteroids - whichever the destination.

Started a thread there, let's the fun begins.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56069.msg2353561#new

[yg1968]

Dumb question: it appears that the Appendix P lander is supposed to also convey heavy cargo from NRHO to the lunar surface. How is the cargo supposed to get to NRHO, and how is it supposed to be transshipped to the lander?

Not a dumb question. But you kinda could've figured out the answer yourself.

This is where the tie-in to SLS comes looking around the corner. The heavy cargo is supposed to be flown there on SLS Block 1B, towed by Orion. Similar to how Orion will tow the iHab and ESPRIT modules to NRHO.
The robot arm on Gateway will assist in transferring the cargo into the lander's cargo hold.

That is not true. Uncrewed and cargo HLS missions do not need to meet up with Gateway or SLS. Here is what the lander could look like for the habitat (see attached image).

See also this link:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53708.msg2292988#msg2292988

Sorry, but "HLS" stands for "Human Landing System". An uncrewed mission to deliver cargo from Earth to lunar surface is not HLS, even if it is the same or a similar lander. As of now, it's CLPS. The second tranche of LVs (in 2019) qualified under CLPS includes Starship. This would presumably be a cargo variant with no life support and would possibly be non-reusable.

No, NASA clarified this a few months ago. The HLS-cargo are actually called the Cargo Lander, if you want to use the real name and they are needed for two missions: the pressurized rover and the foundation surface habitat. These missions will be part of the services procurement. Lisa-Watson Morgan said yesterday that this Cargo Lander will need to be able to carry 14mt to the lunar surface and they are asking HLS providers how much that would cost.

CLPS is for a small and medium sized cargo and its total budget is limited to $2.6B, so they can't fit some of these heavier missions in there. The pressurized rover and the foundation surface habitat will not be using CLPS.

See also this link:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53708.msg2292988#msg2292988

[yg1968]

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.

The budget for the second lander will be in the FY23 Budget. Based on the proposed Cantwell amendment, it seems likely that HLS will get a budget of about $2B per year (presumably $1B per provider). 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).

[DanClemmensen]

If Starship can use the same depot in Earth orbit for the uncrewed and crewed HLS Starship (as stated by Woods170 below), couldn't they refill in Earth orbit for consecutive lunar surface missions? 

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220003725/downloads/22%203%207%20Kent%20IEEE%20paper.pdf

From that image, it doesn't look like the Propellant Starship is coming back to Earth. I guess that it can stay in Earth orbit and be used more than once.

Depot ship stays in Earth orbit and is to be used for BOTH missions (uncrewed demo mission and the crewed landing).

On a further note: some SpaceX personnell informally refer to the depot ship as "the Shelby", in an obvious stab at a certain senator.

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.

Please remember: Starship has not flown yet. We do not know if any of this will work. An option A mission needs three types of Starship to be designed and built (depot, tanker, HLS), and at least six flights.  Putting a tanker into NRHO would require three or more additional flights. Putting an empty depot into NRHO will cost one depot plus at least two additional flights, and filling it will cost about three tanker flights for each each starship to be returned to LEO.

[yg1968]

The refueling of Starship will be in Earth orbit but that doesn't necessarily mean LEO.

[DanClemmensen]

The refueling of Starship will be in Earth orbit but that doesn't necessarily mean LEO.

Thanks for the correction. This does not change the math unless it allows the HLS to get back to the depot (depot-NRHO-moonbase-NRHO-depot) for an Artemis mission, or depot-moonbase-depot for a non-artemis mission. The advantage of an LEO depot is better fuel delivery efficiency (i.e., less tanker flights)  to the depot. I don't know how to do the math on this.

[Eric Hedman]

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.

[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?

As a practical matter I don't see how to re-provision consumables other than fuel or how to move cargo that won't fit through the docking port. I'm asking about the contract, not the mission details.

[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?

As a practical matter I don't see how to re-provision consumables other than fuel or how to move cargo that won't fit through the docking port. I'm asking about the contract, not the mission details.

Lisa Watson-Morgan was asked about the goals of the uncrewed demo. She said that the objective of the demo is to land on the Moon and that NASA is discussing with SpaceX if there will be goals after that. That's all that we know.

[yg1968]

The refueling of Starship will be in Earth orbit but that doesn't necessarily mean LEO.

Thanks for the correction. This does not change the math unless it allows the HLS to get back to the depot (depot-NRHO-moonbase-NRHO-depot) for an Artemis mission, or depot-moonbase-depot for a non-artemis mission. The advantage of an LEO depot is better fuel delivery efficiency (i.e., less tanker flights)  to the depot. I don't know how to do the math on this.

I can't do the math either but earth orbit is fairly large (technically, it even includes the Moon). So nobody knows for sure.