SpaceX Dragon XL

[wannamoonbase]

That is just fascinating, considering that SpaceX proposed the lowest price.

Has nothing to do with price. Has everything to do with NASA awarding multi-year contracts for a project for which NASA had secured neither political support nor the required funding.

Which is exactly what is going on with Artemis in general and Gateway in particular.

Writing contracts with money you don’t have is on brand for this administration.

I want a moonbase, if we truthfully need a gateway for that, fine.  If not, then let’s get down there?

[Robotbeat]

I haven't heard anyone in Congress speakout against Gateway. It might just be that they have to wait for the FY21 Appropriations bill to be passed.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50079.msg2133676#new

Gateway may be the most bipartisan part of Artemis, seeing as it was originally part of Obama-era ARRM. (Although Biden's campaign has mentioned they support continuing the effort to go to the Moon.) Whether or not it's a good idea or necessary, it does seem fairly bipartisan.

As usual, support or opposition for NASA direction often doesn't fall on partisan lines but on regional/local lines. I think the issue with Gateway is really that no one really cares that much about it.

And maybe the issue with getting logistics funding for Gateway is that SpaceX is the recipient, so it doesn't really bring money into Huntsville or Houston, so the big guns of Congressional support for NASA don't really see it as a priority. (Although I should say that Gateway probably has general support from Houston because it allows them to continue what they were doing with ISS.)

[clongton]

That's just woods170's opinion. Funding new programs takes time since Appropriations is a yearly process. The fact that we are likely to be on a CR for the next few months doesn't help. 

I know that. I've also been personally involved in the appropriations process so I know that as well. In either case a "Sad" button would have been appropriate.

[spacenut]

In my lifetime, congress has always been behind the curve in almost everything they do.  Has to go through a committee, then pass the house, then go to the senate, then through a senate committee, then pass the senate, then be signed by the president.  Slow process and any member of the house or senate could slow anything down.  It takes time, a lot of time. 

[woods170]

That's just woods170's opinion. Funding new programs takes time since Appropriations is a yearly process. The fact that we are likely to be on a CR for the next few months doesn't help. 

I know that. I've also been personally involved in the appropriations process so I know that as well. In either case a "Sad" button would have been appropriate.

My point stands. The administration and NASA award contracts on the expectation that their funding request are fully appropriated by US Congress. Unfortunately for NASA however US Congress has consistently underfunded both Artemis and Gateway.

Edit: post number 9,999. I'll let myself out now.

[Comga]

In my lifetime, congress has always been behind the curve in almost everything they do.  Has to go through a committee, then pass the house, then go to the senate, then through a senate committee, then pass the senate, then be signed by the president.  Slow process and any member of the house or senate could slow anything down.  It takes time, a lot of time. 

Yet Apollo went to the Moon.
As Churchill said, it's the worst system, except for all the others.
If the "mission statement" is sufficiently compelling, it gets funding.

[clongton]

Edit: post number 9,999. I'll let myself out now.

Watching for the big 10.

[spacenut]

NASA was started in 1958.  Funding was much easier during the "Cold War" to keep ahead of the Russians.  Goal was the moon.  Goal was achieved, then funding was cut. 

We haven't had any real "need" to go back to the moon or go to Mars.  Throw China in the mix, maybe a little competition to get funding. 

The only clear, bold, leadership in space today is Elon Musk.  He has a goal and objective of going to Mars and getting a colony started.  He has to get Starship going to drag congress and any administration along for funding of what the colony may need.  Musk and SpaceX can get to Mars.  However, establishing and maintaining a colony will require a lot of help, not only from the US and NASA, but probably some foreign help too as in ISS. 

[gongora]

September 28:

$7M "Gateway Logistics Services (GLS) - Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) - Modification 7 - Task Order SX-306-20 Enhanced Communication (E-Comm) MU Capability Development."   

$5M "Gateway Logistics Services (GLS) - Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) - Modification 6 - Task Order SX-305-20 Heavy Ion Environment Testing for Cislunar Mission Operations."

[yg1968]

DreamyPickle makes a good point in the post below. Given that Gateway is almost fully funded for FY21, we should expect the funding for Dragon XL to move forward.

It seems that Gateway is getting nearly $700M million in the 2021 budget. This is considerably more than the $450M in 2020, and almost as much as HLS.

Presumably all programs will go forward as planned, including Dragon XL which was on hold?

Yes, good point. The President requested $739M for Gateway, so at $698.8M, NASA is not too far off what was requested.

See page 95 of the PDF for the President's request for Gateway for FY21:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy2021_congressional_justification.pdf

[su27k]

This table from NASA's Management of the Gateway Program for Artemis Missions (IG-21-004) seems to show Dragon XL funding wouldn't ramp up until 2024.

[yg1968]

Thanks!

Table 1 of the same report says that Dragon XL's first mission would be in 2024 and the second one in 2026.

[yg1968]

One thing that I was wondering about is whether Dragon XL could take advantage of FH's stretched fairing.

[DreamyPickle]

Nearly zero budget for 3 years gives Starship plenty of time to prove itself as a substitute.

All that is required for logistics is to dock a pressurized container with relatively low-value cargo, comparable to the CRS missions. It does not require crew launch or life support and the consequences of failure would be low.

I can imagine "gateway logistics" being one of the first Starship missions for NASA.

[yg1968]

Nearly zero budget for 3 years gives Starship plenty of time to prove itself as a substitute.

All that is required for logistics is to dock a pressurized container with relatively low-value cargo, comparable to the CRS missions. It does not require crew launch or life support and the consequences of failure would be low.

I can imagine "gateway logistics" being one of the first Starship missions for NASA.

We haven't seen the contract but I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX gave itself the option to substitute FH for Starship but I would imagine that Dragon XL would still remain.

[Robotbeat]

Nearly zero budget for 3 years gives Starship plenty of time to prove itself as a substitute.

All that is required for logistics is to dock a pressurized container with relatively low-value cargo, comparable to the CRS missions. It does not require crew launch or life support and the consequences of failure would be low.

I can imagine "gateway logistics" being one of the first Starship missions for NASA.

We haven't seen the contract but I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX gave itself the option to substitute FH for Starship but I would imagine that Dragon XL would still remain.

you could  keep starship attached...

[yg1968]

Did you know that @SpaceX’s Dragon XL will be approximately the size and weight of two side-by-side school buses? Check out this @NASA illustration of Gateway in lunar orbit with the Dragon XL module on approach to docking:

https://twitter.com/NASAArtemis/status/1371459419754598400

[Asteroza]

Nearly zero budget for 3 years gives Starship plenty of time to prove itself as a substitute.

All that is required for logistics is to dock a pressurized container with relatively low-value cargo, comparable to the CRS missions. It does not require crew launch or life support and the consequences of failure would be low.

I can imagine "gateway logistics" being one of the first Starship missions for NASA.

We haven't seen the contract but I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX gave itself the option to substitute FH for Starship but I would imagine that Dragon XL would still remain.

you could  keep starship attached...

Wasn't there some discussion on docking and mass limits for the CBM ports gateway is using that might make that a little hairy?

[Robotbeat]

Nearly zero budget for 3 years gives Starship plenty of time to prove itself as a substitute.

All that is required for logistics is to dock a pressurized container with relatively low-value cargo, comparable to the CRS missions. It does not require crew launch or life support and the consequences of failure would be low.

I can imagine "gateway logistics" being one of the first Starship missions for NASA.

We haven't seen the contract but I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX gave itself the option to substitute FH for Starship but I would imagine that Dragon XL would still remain.

you could  keep starship attached...

Wasn't there some discussion on docking and mass limits for the CBM ports gateway is using that might make that a little hairy?

Hey, Starship is in the running for HLS which needs to dock to Gateway, so...

[tbellman]

Wasn't there some discussion on docking and mass limits for the CBM ports gateway is using that might make that [[docking Starship to Gateway]] a little hairy?

Explicit requirements in the procurement, setting a maximum for the mass of the visiting vehicle to 14 tonne.

However, Mark Wiese, Manager of NASA’s Gateway Deep Space Logistics, said later in a Main Engine CutOff podcast, that that requirement would be gone going forward, because it wasn't actually needed.  (And this was partly because at the time of the RFP, they thought the vehicle would stay three years at a time, partly because they hadn't finished all the analysis yet, and partly because they were over-prescriptive.)

https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/161, starting at 12:39.