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

[dror]

There's another obvious positive to having a second and maybe a third HLS development contract.
SpaceX' contract goes to fund Starship, which is a huge technological step forward and a complete reusable and refuellable architecture. It is far from being only a moon lander. And it has set the tone for HLS.
If the next round will follow SpaceX' lead there could be much better designs (then the ones submitted in the last round) which could also further the development of competing reusable architectures.

In the same way that CRS created Falcon 9 and Antares, we could see HLS  create not only Starship but also  Jarvis, Aces, Jupiter and who knows.

Its not a total waste, it's also a good thing.

[deadman1204]

A less conspiratorial idea has occurred to me after a bit of thought.

In the mindset where congress/nasa wants to have competing designs/2 companies involved:

LETS was pointless, the eventual winner (spaceX) was a forgone conclusion. This is because spaceX would be the only one in the bidding with a system that had already been used (HLS landing for Artimis 3) which they could build upon. Everyone else was being forced to go from zero to a reusable vehicle with no usage in between (like falcon 1 to starship without a falcon 9 in between).

This new thing gives a second company a way to compete with spaceX, because all the other proposals can be developed outside of the shadow of spaceX.

Admittedly the justifications for a competing environment are... not as convincing. Only the lander part would be redundant, which means the system isn't really redundant. As well, SLS as envisioned cannot launch faster than once every 18 months right now. If both parties need to bid for a mission, is it a setup for failure? If spaceX wins the first 2 bids, does company B just quit? How can they keep their workforce together if they go 5+ years without a single mission?

[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.

Every sane bidder will make sure their system is compatible with other HLV in the market ( FH, Vulcan, etc ) and not specific for one.

If you are including Vulcan and New Glenn, you should probably include the cargo version of Starship, especially since SpaceX apparently intends to make the launch price lower than FH. The only drawback is that it makes it too easy to compare with Starship HLS. Caveat: Starship, Vulcan, and New Glenn have not launched.

[yg1968]

A less conspiratorial idea has occurred to me after a bit of thought.

In the mindset where congress/nasa wants to have competing designs/2 companies involved:

LETS was pointless, the eventual winner (spaceX) was a forgone conclusion. This is because spaceX would be the only one in the bidding with a system that had already been used (HLS landing for Artimis 3) which they could build upon. Everyone else was being forced to go from zero to a reusable vehicle with no usage in between (like falcon 1 to starship without a falcon 9 in between).

This new thing gives a second company a way to compete with spaceX, because all the other proposals can be developed outside of the shadow of spaceX.

Admittedly the justifications for a competing environment are... not as convincing. Only the lander part would be redundant, which means the system isn't really redundant. As well, SLS as envisioned cannot launch faster than once every 18 months right now. If both parties need to bid for a mission, is it a setup for failure? If spaceX wins the first 2 bids, does company B just quit? How can they keep their workforce together if they go 5+ years without a single mission?

LETS in the RFI also had a development phase that would have been similar to Appendix P (in addition to a services phase). The main advantage of this new strategy is that Option B will likely be exercised no matter what happens whereas Appendix P will only be exercised if Congress funds a second provider. So this strategy is Congress proof! 

As mentioned above, the other advantage of Appendix P is that NASA has more flexibility to down select an HLS provider during the services phase, if required.

[JayWee]

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.

Every sane bidder will make sure their system is compatible with other HLV in the market ( FH, Vulcan, etc ) and not specific for one.

I don't think BO designing the HLS around inhouse NG would be insane. NG is considerably larger than others, which allows bigger architectural pieces.

You could counter-argue with the Orbital experience with Cygnus-on-Atlas, but I think that's a specific situation.

[deadman1204]

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.

Every sane bidder will make sure their system is compatible with other HLV in the market ( FH, Vulcan, etc ) and not specific for one.

I don't think BO designing the HLS around inhouse NG would be insane. NG is considerably larger than others, which allows bigger architectural pieces.

You could counter-argue with the Orbital experience with Cygnus-on-Atlas, but I think that's a specific situation.

Doesn't NG have a limited amount of mass to leave earth orbit (c3 I think its called)?

[JayWee]

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.

Every sane bidder will make sure their system is compatible with other HLV in the market ( FH, Vulcan, etc ) and not specific for one.

I don't think BO designing the HLS around inhouse NG would be insane. NG is considerably larger than others, which allows bigger architectural pieces.

You could counter-argue with the Orbital experience with Cygnus-on-Atlas, but I think that's a specific situation.

Doesn't NG have a limited amount of mass to leave earth orbit (c3 I think its called)?

Yes, the NG TLI performace is pretty anemic (7t) , but LEO one isn't (36t). So if they go the depot route, it could be a decent system. Otoh, they are keen on hydrogen, so it'd be much harder than for methane SpaceX.

[DanClemmensen]

Regarding a reusable option B Starship HLS: does Starship HLS use Helium from COPVs to restart its engines? If so is there a way to replenish it from a depot or a supply ship? Alternatively, when restarting a methalox engine in a vacuum, could it be designed to use O₂, CH₄, or CO₂ instead?

[Paul451]

NASA wanted competition during Option A

You keep phrasing it that way. They had a competition for Option A. Three bidders, one award. What you mean is they wanted to award two designs. Those two designs would have no longer been in competition after selection, each would have their own contract, their own budget and milestones. Having two contractors is not "competition" unless there is intended to be a future down-select to one.

[tbellman]

NASA wanted competition during Option A

You keep phrasing it that way. They had a competition for Option A. Three bidders, one award. What you mean is they wanted to award two designs. Those two designs would have no longer been in competition after selection, each would have their own contract, their own budget and milestones. Having two contractors is not "competition" unless there is intended to be a future down-select to one.

There was such an intention.  It was called "Option B".

Also, competition does not require you to actually down-select someone.  It is enough that you have a credible threat of down-selecting a provider that stops providing good enough value.  (However, having multiple concurrent providers can increase the cost as well, if each provider then gets so few orders that their fixed costs dominate, and you now have to pay for more than one set of fixed costs.  This is almost certainly the case for HLS under Artemis, so I don't think it makes economic sense for NASA to have more than one provider of human lunar landing services.)

[yg1968]

NASA wanted competition during Option A

You keep phrasing it that way. They had a competition for Option A. Three bidders, one award. What you mean is they wanted to award two designs. Those two designs would have no longer been in competition after selection, each would have their own contract, their own budget and milestones. Having two contractors is not "competition" unless there is intended to be a future down-select to one.

If you select only one provider for Option A, you can't have competition after that. You only have one single provider for Option B that you have to sole-source. Sole-sourcing isn't competition. If you have two providers, the threat of down selection will make them compete against each other. 

[yg1968]

NASA wanted competition during Option A

You keep phrasing it that way. They had a competition for Option A. Three bidders, one award. What you mean is they wanted to award two designs. Those two designs would have no longer been in competition after selection, each would have their own contract, their own budget and milestones. Having two contractors is not "competition" unless there is intended to be a future down-select to one.

There was such an intention.  It was called "Option B".

Also, competition does not require you to actually down-select someone.  It is enough that you have a credible threat of down-selecting a provider that stops providing good enough value.  (However, having multiple concurrent providers can increase the cost as well, if each provider then gets so few orders that their fixed costs dominate, and you now have to pay for more than one set of fixed costs.  This is almost certainly the case for HLS under Artemis, so I don't think it makes economic sense for NASA to have more than one provider of human lunar landing services.)

Public-private partnerships work best if you have non-NASA clients. Commercial crew only has two missions per year (one per provider) but it still works because of non-NASA customers.

I believe that HLS can work the same way as commercial crew even though there is only one mission per year. Furthermore, there is the possibility of (HLS) Cargo Lander missions (14mt per Lisa Watson-Morgan).

[yg1968]

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

[yg1968]

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.

[deadman1204]

NASA wanted competition during Option A

You keep phrasing it that way. They had a competition for Option A. Three bidders, one award. What you mean is they wanted to award two designs. Those two designs would have no longer been in competition after selection, each would have their own contract, their own budget and milestones. Having two contractors is not "competition" unless there is intended to be a future down-select to one.

There was such an intention.  It was called "Option B".

Also, competition does not require you to actually down-select someone.  It is enough that you have a credible threat of down-selecting a provider that stops providing good enough value.  (However, having multiple concurrent providers can increase the cost as well, if each provider then gets so few orders that their fixed costs dominate, and you now have to pay for more than one set of fixed costs.  This is almost certainly the case for HLS under Artemis, so I don't think it makes economic sense for NASA to have more than one provider of human lunar landing services.)

Public-private partnerships work best if you have non-NASA clients. Commercial crew only has two missions per year (one per provider) but it still works because of non-NASA customers.

I think you are using WAY to broad of a brush here. Starliner is incapable of commercial use. Not only does it cost like 50% more a seat, it litearlly has no spare launches. "commercial crew" doesn't work. One of the contractors can make commercial crew sellable on the open market.

[yg1968]

NASA wanted competition during Option A

You keep phrasing it that way. They had a competition for Option A. Three bidders, one award. What you mean is they wanted to award two designs. Those two designs would have no longer been in competition after selection, each would have their own contract, their own budget and milestones. Having two contractors is not "competition" unless there is intended to be a future down-select to one.

There was such an intention.  It was called "Option B".

Also, competition does not require you to actually down-select someone.  It is enough that you have a credible threat of down-selecting a provider that stops providing good enough value.  (However, having multiple concurrent providers can increase the cost as well, if each provider then gets so few orders that their fixed costs dominate, and you now have to pay for more than one set of fixed costs.  This is almost certainly the case for HLS under Artemis, so I don't think it makes economic sense for NASA to have more than one provider of human lunar landing services.)

Public-private partnerships work best if you have non-NASA clients. Commercial crew only has two missions per year (one per provider) but it still works because of non-NASA customers.

I think you are using WAY to broad of a brush here. Starliner is incapable of commercial use. Not only does it cost like 50% more a seat, it litearlly has no spare launches. "commercial crew" doesn't work. One of the contractors can make commercial crew sellable on the open market.

My guess is that Dream Chaser will be incorporated in the next round of commercial crew (CCSTS). There are plans for both Starliner and crewed Dream Chaser to transport astronauts to Orbital Reef. The reasons that there is no extra Starliner missions is because Vulcan hasn't yet been certified. I expect that Vulcan will be certified in the next round of commercial crew (CCSTS).

[DanClemmensen]

My guess is that Dream Chaser will be incorporated in the next round of commercial crew (CCSTS). There are plans for both Starliner and crewed Dream Chaser to transport astronauts to Orbital Reef. The reasons that there is no extra Starliner missions is because Vulcan hasn't yet been certified. I expect that Vulcan will be certified in the next round of commercial crew (CCSTS).

Off-topic here. responding at
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49156.0  (Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3)

[yg1968]

OK, thanks. The direct link to your response is here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49156.msg2354127#msg2354127

[Paul451]

is not "competition" unless there is intended to be a future down-select to one.

There was such an intention.  It was called "Option B".

Looking at the new plan, and Congress's behaviour over the single Option A award, there was never an intention to down-select to one vendor.

Also, competition does not require you to actually down-select someone.  It is enough that you have a credible threat of down-selecting a provider that stops providing good enough value.

Tell that to Boeing in CCrew. Unless it's an explicitly stated stage of the program, the threat is never credible. And likewise, the insistence by certain members of Congress for two landers removes any real threat of future down-select, even when budgets inevitably get shorted.

However, having multiple concurrent providers can increase the cost as well, if each provider then gets so few orders that their fixed costs dominate, and you now have to pay for more than one set of fixed costs.

I'm also worried that the restrictions of a small second design will ripple through other developments, both in raising development costs and limiting mission capabilities. Lunar Starship brings an enormous capacity, both in terms of cargo downmass, and internal volume. Other proposals are tiny by comparison, and even cargo-only landers are severely limited.

Having to design equipment around the limitations of the second vendor not only raises cost (thanks to severe mass budgets) but also limits the things you can do. For eg, a rover that is limited to 10t is a fundamentally different beast than one that can stretch to, say, 25t. (Completely arbitrary numbers, just as an example.) Designing missions around limits of the second lander means you can't take advantage of the capabilities of Starship.

Unless, of course, you design specific equipment around specific landers, with bigger stuff delivered by Starship, but then you eliminate the supposed redundancy and "competition"; critical equipment depends on Starship. (Heh, literally too big to fail.)

[Coastal Ron]

NASA wanted competition during Option A

You keep phrasing it that way. They had a competition for Option A. Three bidders, one award. What you mean is they wanted to award two designs. Those two designs would have no longer been in competition after selection, each would have their own contract, their own budget and milestones. Having two contractors is not "competition" unless there is intended to be a future down-select to one.

There was such an intention.  It was called "Option B".

Also, competition does not require you to actually down-select someone.  It is enough that you have a credible threat of down-selecting a provider that stops providing good enough value.  (However, having multiple concurrent providers can increase the cost as well, if each provider then gets so few orders that their fixed costs dominate, and you now have to pay for more than one set of fixed costs.  This is almost certainly the case for HLS under Artemis, so I don't think it makes economic sense for NASA to have more than one provider of human lunar landing services.)

Public-private partnerships work best if you have non-NASA clients. Commercial crew only has two missions per year (one per provider) but it still works because of non-NASA customers.

Public-Private Partnerships (PPP), by definition, have private entities that are only investing in such arrangement if they think they can profit in the future, and that profit HAS TO BE from non-government commerce. Otherwise it is just a normal contracting arrangement, with the U.S. Government expected to pay 100% of the costs and profit.

From the start the concept for Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew was that there could be a potential non-government market for cargo and crew transportation services to LEO, and the companies that won those competitions were all working on developing non-government customer bases. Does everyone remember Bigelow and all the LOI's they had signed with potential customers?

So this is not a matter of "it works best", by definition there HAS TO BE some potential for non-government customers in order for a true PPP arrangement to work.
 

I believe that HLS can work the same way as commercial crew even though there is only one mission per year. Furthermore, there is the possibility of (HLS) Cargo Lander missions (14mt per Lisa Watson-Morgan).

As of today there is little hope for any near-term non-government market for landing cargo and crew on the Moon, so anyone involved in building a lander for NASA is likely to assume that their entire costs and potential profit has to be covered by the NASA contracts.

Remember there is only one transportation system being built to take humans to the Moon, and that relies on the U.S. Government SLS launcher + Orion spacecraft, which just for their portion of the mission costs over $1B/person.

There is no commercial market for sending humans to the Moon anytime soon.

SpaceX bid what they did for their HLS because they have already been developing their Starship for colonizing Mars, so they didn't need to pass along the full development cost to the HLS program.

Everyone else that bid the HLS program was assuming the U.S. Government was the only customer. We'll see if Jeff Bezos wants to spend money to buy into this new contract, but that still would not mean there is a true commercial market for landing humans on the Moon, since unless you can get humans to the lander, there is no market.