I'm curious to see what LM, NG and Blue come up with now that they are doing individual landers.
Boeing not interested in HLS?
The main change from LETS, as I see it, is that the on-ramp for a second provider is delayed behind the Starship Option B mission (Artemis V), and a pair of demo missions are required to onboard a second provider for operational Artemis missions.So it's really just officially recognizing how far behind the prospective second providers are going to be, pushing their potential IOC closer toward the end of the decade, or hundreds of Starship launches from now. The gap between Starship and the second HLS provider will probably put the gap between Crew Dragon and Starliner to shame. We'll look back and pine for the good old days when Starliner was a pretty decent secondary provider. It was late but not by so much, and its capabilities and cost-effectiveness weren't so far from what SpaceX was offering. Using Starliner didn't mean no Crew Dragon mission this year. Everything about Commercial Crew's secondary provider will suck a lot less than the secondary provider for HLS.
Quote from: butters on 03/24/2022 06:13 pmThe main change from LETS, as I see it, is that the on-ramp for a second provider is delayed behind the Starship Option B mission (Artemis V), and a pair of demo missions are required to onboard a second provider for operational Artemis missions.So it's really just officially recognizing how far behind the prospective second providers are going to be, pushing their potential IOC closer toward the end of the decade, or hundreds of Starship launches from now. The gap between Starship and the second HLS provider will probably put the gap between Crew Dragon and Starliner to shame. We'll look back and pine for the good old days when Starliner was a pretty decent secondary provider. It was late but not by so much, and its capabilities and cost-effectiveness weren't so far from what SpaceX was offering. Using Starliner didn't mean no Crew Dragon mission this year. Everything about Commercial Crew's secondary provider will suck a lot less than the secondary provider for HLS.It's not clear but I would imagine that Artemis III and IV will be SpaceX and Artemis V and VI will by the second provider but who knows. They might decide to start the services phase early if the second HLS provider is late.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 03/24/2022 05:54 pmI'm curious to see what LM, NG and Blue come up with now that they are doing individual landers. I hope to hear from the CLPS providers and from ULA.A Xeus-ACES on SMART Vulcan specifically.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/24/2022 08:09 pmQuote from: butters on 03/24/2022 06:13 pmThe main change from LETS, as I see it, is that the on-ramp for a second provider is delayed behind the Starship Option B mission (Artemis V), and a pair of demo missions are required to onboard a second provider for operational Artemis missions.So it's really just officially recognizing how far behind the prospective second providers are going to be, pushing their potential IOC closer toward the end of the decade, or hundreds of Starship launches from now. The gap between Starship and the second HLS provider will probably put the gap between Crew Dragon and Starliner to shame. We'll look back and pine for the good old days when Starliner was a pretty decent secondary provider. It was late but not by so much, and its capabilities and cost-effectiveness weren't so far from what SpaceX was offering. Using Starliner didn't mean no Crew Dragon mission this year. Everything about Commercial Crew's secondary provider will suck a lot less than the secondary provider for HLS.It's not clear but I would imagine that Artemis III and IV will be SpaceX and Artemis V and VI will by the second provider but who knows. They might decide to start the services phase early if the second HLS provider is late.Artemis IV (2026?) does not include a lunar landing. Adding a landing would add a large additional workload, probably too much, since the crew will mostly be messing around with the Gateway and with adding the I-HAB to the Gateway. Thus the SpaceX option B lander will handle Artemis V (2027?) and the Option P lander(s) would handle Artemis missions NET 2028 after flying their uncrewed demo missions.
I’d assumed SpaceX owns the Artemis HLS Starships after completing the contracted missions. It would also own the crew Starship used for Polaris and Dear Moon. It would have Cargo/Tanker Starships and substantial experience at propellant transfer between Starships.It would have multiple Starship launch pads and Superheavies. AFAIK, Polaris, Dear Moon and later crew Starships will launch and land with humans aboard.So SpaceX will own a complete Lunar transport/base system capable of moving dozens of people at a time or 100 tons or so of cargo to the moon. In the meantime though, NASA will be funding more rickety little LM like Lunar landers and it’s own kinda pointless little “Gateway” rather than just booking further transport with SpaceX at lower cost? Is that the current plan? Or is it that in case the grand ambitions of Starship don’t work out, NASA will keep funding development of more conservative traditional approaches, unless/until they obviously are not required?
My take on the new Appendix P contracting procedure:Suppose there was an alternative universe where Congress made detailed specifications about how NASA must spend their money and not just general objectives.In this universe, when NASA set up competitive bidding for a moon-related program, just one company stood out from the rest and was the clear winner. The losers in this process were not just miffed but angry. Now in this alternative universe the losers could petition Congress for assistance, What scheme justification could we conceive that would allow us to participate in this money barrel? How about "we need competition." Putting aside the fact that the competitive race was already completed and won, we now say there must also be more than one winner, otherwise it is not "competitive." Then Congress and collaborators design a new program called Appendix P, which allows the losers to be declared winners. (Of course this could never happen in the real world.)The big problem I see in this parallel approach is that the group that devised this new program will also determine funding. They could determine the amounts allocated to Appendix A/B program and the Appendix P program. They could even reduce funding to A/B to ensure funding for Appendix P. The whole point of the parallel program would be to get funding to the losers; not the best use of taxpayer money. (Of course this could never happen in the real world.)
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 03/24/2022 03:08 pmI 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.
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.
Quote from: Ionmars on 03/25/2022 01:19 amMy take on the new Appendix P contracting procedure:Suppose there was an alternative universe where Congress made detailed specifications about how NASA must spend their money and not just general objectives.In this universe, when NASA set up competitive bidding for a moon-related program, just one company stood out from the rest and was the clear winner. The losers in this process were not just miffed but angry. Now in this alternative universe the losers could petition Congress for assistance, What scheme justification could we conceive that would allow us to participate in this money barrel? How about "we need competition." Putting aside the fact that the competitive race was already completed and won, we now say there must also be more than one winner, otherwise it is not "competitive." Then Congress and collaborators design a new program called Appendix P, which allows the losers to be declared winners. (Of course this could never happen in the real world.)The big problem I see in this parallel approach is that the group that devised this new program will also determine funding. They could determine the amounts allocated to Appendix A/B program and the Appendix P program. They could even reduce funding to A/B to ensure funding for Appendix P. The whole point of the parallel program would be to get funding to the losers; not the best use of taxpayer money. (Of course this could never happen in the real world.)I am not sure that I agree. NASA wanted to have competition for Option A but it only had enough funding for one provider and only one company had a good enough proposal anyways. I expect that there will be much better proposals for Appendix P, especially if Blue and NG submit separate bids. If there are no good proposals for Appendix P, NASA shouldn't select anyone. The budget for FY23 is coming out on Monday. At this point, the Appendix P bidders will know exactly how much they can ask for. If they ask for $6B and 10B$ as they did for Option A, no proposals will be selected again.
"It was a grand day for a royal parade. As the Emperor passed by with no clothes on, everyone bowed with due respect. No one dared state the obvious."
In the alternative universe:1) Congress sometimes allocates funding to NASA programs with detailed instructions.2) Losers in he first Artemis competition were angry.3) Losers had friends in Congress sympathetic to their plight.4) Certain persons inside (and outside) NASA helped persons inside Congress to develop the Appendix P program.5) Congress will have the authority to allocate funds to the Appendix A/B program and to the Appendix P program as it sees fit.Which of the above assumptions in the alternative universe are incorrect and do not fit the real world?.
