Starship Artemis Contract & Lunar Starship

[Coastal Ron]

Let me put on my scheduling profession hat and remind everyone that it was the Trump Administration decision in 2017 to set the first Moon landing date for 2024. And they did that WITHOUT a comprehensive plan for how to do it. THAT decision has driven all of the plans and decisions, and it has forced NASA into pathways that are non-optimal.

Please provide examples where Bridenstine and the Trump Administration chose pathways that were less than optimal. HLS and CLPS were pretty good programs and were continued by the Biden Administration.

Again, the 2024 date was mandated by Pence/Trump for political reasons. Which is fine, but unlike President Kennedy and the Apollo Moon program, Trump never got buy-in from Congress for the 2024 goal. Which meant Trump's NASA never had the money or support from Congress in order to make the 2024 date in a safe way.

Everything NASA has done since then has included many dead-ends and half attempts to make the 2024 goal.

And this is very easy to see if you are dispassionate about the Artemis program, because in the annals of well run programs, the Artemis program would never be held up as a candidate. Why? Because at the beginning of the program it lacked well defined goals that were politically supported by Congress and well funded.

The HLS program is actually a great example, since Congress never allocated enough money for two providers, and in fact they really didn't provide enough money for one provider, but it turns out that SpaceX was already building their Mars lander, so they were able to modify their Mars lander for the Moon at a price that worked for NASA. But otherwise NASA can't afford redundant systems for the HLS program - and redundancy was a stated goal.

Bridenstine and the Trump Administration were pro-commercial, they didn't choose a commercial HLS because of the 2024 date, they chose it because it was a better option. Please provide proof that HLS was commercial because of the 2024 date.

You are ignoring the facts I laid out showing how the Artemis program could not have made the 2024 date using a NASA developed HLS. NASA had no choice but to ask industry for possible solutions.

And I want to point out again that when V.P. Pence announced the Artemis program and the 2024 goal, no one had decided that they were going to rely on using the SpaceX Starship for landing the crew on the Moon. There was so little planning for the Artemis program that they had NO IDEA how they were going to land humans on the Moon.

So if SpaceX hadn't already been spending their own money and time to build their Mars lander, the 2024 date would have been a fantasy (it still is, but not because of SpaceX). And we saw this with the lack of hardware maturity proposed in the HLS submissions. None of those could have made the 2024 date given the short amount of time there was.

Which point back to a severe lack of planning on the part of the Trump Administration and whoever in NASA was involved - which hopefully was Bridenstine, but in reality he reported to V.P. Pence.

I disagree with you on that. SpaceX had no intention of building a lunar Starship before NASA asked them to.

I never said they did. SpaceX is focused on going to Mars, and the HLS program just happens to be a way to help fund that while they are focused on Starship development.

CLPS is proving that there is a market for commercial lunar missions: NASA is only one of many clients for CLPS.

Your definition of "commercial" differs from mine, and until we see that there really is a non-government market for sending robotic hardware to the Moon, it is too early to declare that such a market exists.

I expect that there will be commercial Starship missions to the Moon that will be announced in the next few months and years.

Which has NOTHING to do with the Artemis program, and belongs on another thread.

The Moon is just as strategic [important a destination for astronauts] as LEO is. Just ask China and Russia.

Ooh, are you trying to say we should be scared of other nations reaching the Moon?

I think this is an internet meme, not a real thing. And I think it was created by those that were trying to justify the SLS. If you think it is real then provide proof please.

It was repeated many times by Senator Nelson and Senator Hutchison at the time that commercial crew would allow NASA to focus on the hard things which is a BLEO exploration.

And my point was that it was never EXPLICITLY legislated. There are no laws on the books stating that companies like SpaceX can't go beyond LEO. If anything this confirms what I stated, that it was political justification for the SLS. And, it was also a way for Boeing and Lockheed Martin to use politicians to push back against SpaceX, which in 2010 was starting to look like it would be a competitor for ULA, their joint venture.

[Coastal Ron]

I should have been clearer, I meant in terms of destinations for NASA astronauts.  I shouldn't have used the word strategic but should have said that they are all important destinations for NASA astronauts...

We're not going to the Moon, or anywhere else in space, because it is important for "NASA astronauts". That is a fundamental misunderstanding of why America does anything in space.

America does activity in space for U.S. national goals and needs, regardless if they involve humans or not. NASA astronauts are just government employees that are tasked with carrying out U.S. Government goals in space. NASA does not exist to please its workers... 

I never said that going to the Moon was to please NASA astronauts.

I responded to what you wrote. I'll let others judge...

Humans are going to the Moon for the entire human race, not for these particular astronauts.

The Artemis program, and landing Americans on the Moon by 2024, was a goal SPECIFICALLY created for President Trump. Sure, now others have been invited to come along too, but that wasn't a requirement in the creation of the 2024 goal. Let's stick with the facts here...

[Oersted]

Again, that 2024 date, which Congress has not fully supported with money, has caused NASA to be pushed into risks that have not fully succeeded.

If NASA is queasy about the 2024 date, I suggest SpaceX just do a few manned Moon landings with their own hardware exclusively. Refuelling Starships should have no problem doing a Moon landing mission on their own.

When NASA is satisfied that Starship can indeed land safely on the Moon, then by all means they should go ahead with Artemis. It will look quite comical to do such a subsequent, elaborate NASA return-to-the-Moon mission with Starship and HLS, but that would just reflect the reality of that particular mission design.

[DanClemmensen]

Again, that 2024 date, which Congress has not fully supported with money, has caused NASA to be pushed into risks that have not fully succeeded.

If NASA is queasy about the 2024 date, I suggest SpaceX just do a few manned Moon landings with their own hardware exclusively. Refuelling Starships should have no problem doing a Moon landing mission on their own.

When NASA is satisfied that Starship can indeed land safely on the Moon, then by all means they should go ahead with Artemis. It will look quite comical to do such a subsequent, elaborate NASA return-to-the-Moon mission with Starship and HLS, but that would just reflect the reality of that particular mission design.

SpaceX is contracted to land an uncrewed Starship HLS on the lunar surface and return it to NRHO prior to Artemis III. Surely you are not suggesting some sort of Heinlein-esque YF Sci Fi plot where a plucky teenager stows away on this flight? 

[yg1968]

The Artemis program, and landing Americans on the Moon by 2024, was a goal SPECIFICALLY created for President Trump. Sure, now others have been invited to come along too, but that wasn't a requirement in the creation of the 2024 goal. Let's stick with the facts here...

Glad that we are sticking to the facts because international and commercial partnerships were always part of the plan for Artemis (even before it was called Artemis):

Specifically, NASA has been directed to develop a plan for an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system, returning humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/new-space-policy-directive-calls-for-human-expansion-across-solar-system

[yg1968]

Again, the 2024 date was mandated by Pence/Trump for political reasons. Which is fine, but unlike President Kennedy and the Apollo Moon program, Trump never got buy-in from Congress for the 2024 goal. Which meant Trump's NASA never had the money or support from Congress in order to make the 2024 date in a safe way.

Everything NASA has done since then has included many dead-ends and half attempts to make the 2024 goal.

And this is very easy to see if you are dispassionate about the Artemis program, because in the annals of well run programs, the Artemis program would never be held up as a candidate. Why? Because at the beginning of the program it lacked well defined goals that were politically supported by Congress and well funded.

The HLS program is actually a great example, since Congress never allocated enough money for two providers, and in fact they really didn't provide enough money for one provider, but it turns out that SpaceX was already building their Mars lander, so they were able to modify their Mars lander for the Moon at a price that worked for NASA. But otherwise NASA can't afford redundant systems for the HLS program - and redundancy was a stated goal.

You are ignoring the facts I laid out showing how the Artemis program could not have made the 2024 date using a NASA developed HLS. NASA had no choice but to ask industry for possible solutions.

And I want to point out again that when V.P. Pence announced the Artemis program and the 2024 goal, no one had decided that they were going to rely on using the SpaceX Starship for landing the crew on the Moon. There was so little planning for the Artemis program that they had NO IDEA how they were going to land humans on the Moon.

So if SpaceX hadn't already been spending their own money and time to build their Mars lander, the 2024 date would have been a fantasy (it still is, but not because of SpaceX). And we saw this with the lack of hardware maturity proposed in the HLS submissions. None of those could have made the 2024 date given the short amount of time there was.

Which point back to a severe lack of planning on the part of the Trump Administration and whoever in NASA was involved - which hopefully was Bridenstine, but in reality he reported to V.P. Pence.

HLS and CLPS are very good programs. For commercial programs, you don't need to be overly prescriptive. NASA asked for $3.4B for HLS and got $850M from Congress. I am not sure how you can blame that on the Trump Administration. In any event, this may have been the best outcome, the only company that had a good proposal for HLS Option A was SpaceX, the other companies didn't have good enough proposals. I expect Dynetics and Blue to submit better proposals for LETS. If they don't, NASA should select only one HLS provider again (incidentally, LETS is expected to have an on-ramp clause).

Ooh, are you trying to say we should be scared of other nations reaching the Moon?

It would be a missed opportunity and we should be concerned about it.
 

[The potential for private astronauts lunar Starship missions] has NOTHING to do with the Artemis program, and belongs on another thread.

It is related, by buying a service for HLS, NASA hopes to be one of many customers, in order to reduce cost (see the quote from the BAA below). So SpaceX having customers other than NASA is important to the long term success of HLS.

The [HLS] Offeror shall propose a description of its commercial approach for leveraging this effort to enable future commercial uses of HLS capabilities or technologies while maintaining compatibility with NASA’s objectives and facilitating sustainable and cost-effective recurring lunar transportation services for NASA and other stakeholders.

[Oersted]

Again, that 2024 date, which Congress has not fully supported with money, has caused NASA to be pushed into risks that have not fully succeeded.

If NASA is queasy about the 2024 date, I suggest SpaceX just do a few manned Moon landings with their own hardware exclusively. Refuelling Starships should have no problem doing a Moon landing mission on their own.

When NASA is satisfied that Starship can indeed land safely on the Moon, then by all means they should go ahead with Artemis. It will look quite comical to do such a subsequent, elaborate NASA return-to-the-Moon mission with Starship and HLS, but that would just reflect the reality of that particular mission design.

SpaceX is contracted to land an uncrewed Starship HLS on the lunar surface and return it to NRHO prior to Artemis III. Surely you are not suggesting some sort of Heinlein-esque YF Sci Fi plot where a plucky teenager stows away on this flight? 

Good idea, but what I am suggesting is just that SpaceX performs its own Moon landing mission while waiting for its Artemis partners to get ready. A Starship HLS launching from Earth, fuelling in LEO, flying to the Moon and landing there, lifting off from the Moon and fuelling in lunar orbit (if needed) and then returning to a landing on Earth.

Seems to me a good exercise, uncrewed or crewed, before partaking in the Artemis missions. "Stretch her legs!"   

[Coastal Ron]

The Artemis program, and landing Americans on the Moon by 2024, was a goal SPECIFICALLY created for President Trump. Sure, now others have been invited to come along too, but that wasn't a requirement in the creation of the 2024 goal. Let's stick with the facts here...

Glad that we are sticking to the facts because international and commercial partnerships were always part of the plan for Artemis (even before it was called Artemis):

Specifically, NASA has been directed to develop a plan for an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system, returning humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/new-space-policy-directive-calls-for-human-expansion-across-solar-system

In 2017 the Trump Administration announced Space Policy Directive 1 (what you linked above), which was "a change in national space policy that provides for a U.S.-led, integrated program with private sector partners for a human return to the Moon, followed by missions to Mars and beyond."

And yes, NASA was directed to do what you quoted above. However when the Trump Administration announced the 2024 goal, this is what Pence said (from a SpaceNews article on the announcement):

“At the direction of the President of the United States, it is the stated policy of this administration and the United States of America to return American astronauts to the moon within the next five years,” Pence said. “To be clear: the first woman and the next man on the moon will both be American astronauts, launched by American rockets from American soil.”

That was very prescriptive, and clearly did not require international partners, nor did it state that so called "commercial" efforts be part of the goal. In fact because of that announcement the SLS was declared to be the only rocket that would carry those astronauts.

And just to be clear, having a non-U.S. provider does not mean that are a true "partner". To me a partner is someone that shares in the end goals, which means they have to either profit in some way (for "commercial" partners) or their people participate in the goals (for international partners). The way Pence stated the goals, it would be a purely American effort, and whatever it would take (i.e. commercial efforts were not required).

The 2024 date also upset all the planning that had been done since the 2017 announcement of Space Policy Directive 1, but the Trump Administration never did get Congressional buy-in for all of the goals they wanted. For instance, Congress never agreed to the 2024 date, and the funding for the HLS program has shown that despite public comments, members of Congress don't seem to care that the Artemis program has a redundant HLS provider.

Without competition, you don't have anything that you can truly call "commercial". I think SpaceX will be providing a terrific value for what they are doing, and they may decide to provide a service in the future with the hardware they built for the HLS program, but the HLS program, as it stands today, doesn't look like it will result in something anyone could truly call "commercial".

[yg1968]

The only thing that changed was the timeline. Pence did mention international and commercial cooperation in his March 2019 speech:

Last year, NASA and American innovators began designing the precursor to outposts on the Moon and the mission to Mars, the Lunar Gateway.  And we are rallying the world to join us in this vital work.  This month, Canada became our first international partner and announced a 24-year commitment to cooperate on the Lunar Gateway.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200309091811/https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-vice-president-pence-fifth-meeting-national-space-council-huntsville-al/

You have your facts wrong, Bridenstine was looking at alternatives to SLS in the same month that the 2024 goal was announced (March 2019):
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-studying-launching-em-1-on-commercial-rockets-not-sls/

That plan to look at SLS alternatives for Artemis I was abandoned because Congress and Senator Shelby strongly opposed it, not because of the 2024 goal. 

[DanClemmensen]

Again, that 2024 date, which Congress has not fully supported with money, has caused NASA to be pushed into risks that have not fully succeeded.

If NASA is queasy about the 2024 date, I suggest SpaceX just do a few manned Moon landings with their own hardware exclusively. Refuelling Starships should have no problem doing a Moon landing mission on their own.

When NASA is satisfied that Starship can indeed land safely on the Moon, then by all means they should go ahead with Artemis. It will look quite comical to do such a subsequent, elaborate NASA return-to-the-Moon mission with Starship and HLS, but that would just reflect the reality of that particular mission design.

SpaceX is contracted to land an uncrewed Starship HLS on the lunar surface and return it to NRHO prior to Artemis III. Surely you are not suggesting some sort of Heinlein-esque YF Sci Fi plot where a plucky teenager stows away on this flight? 

Good idea, but what I am suggesting is just that SpaceX performs its own Moon landing mission while waiting for its Artemis partners to get ready. A Starship HLS launching from Earth, fuelling in LEO, flying to the Moon and landing there, lifting off from the Moon and fuelling in lunar orbit (if needed) and then returning to a landing on Earth.

Seems to me a good exercise, uncrewed or crewed, before partaking in the Artemis missions. "Stretch her legs!"

Two problems:
  1) how to get the fuel to lunar orbit?
  2) Starship HLS cannot EDL, so return to to LEO, not Earth surface, so you must send a Crew Dragon up to retrieve the crew.
Also  if you want to not have a plucky teenage stowaway on HLS from Earth, your crew must join Starship HLS in LEO via a Crew Dragon.
All of this is doable, but It's getting very expensive, with upward of ten Starship launches and two F9/Crew Dragon launches and maybe an extra depot to pay for.

[su27k]

The Moon is just as strategic as LEO is. Just ask China and Russia.

I was with you until we got here - this seems like total nonsense to me, unless you’re suggesting LEO isn’t strategic and only higher orbits are?  (Which I’d also disagree with.)

The moon has basically exactly zero strategic value here on earth.  LEO and other earth orbits have massive strategic value.

Yes, some people believe the Moon has strategic importance.

I just posted an article here which shows US military is increasingly interested in the Moon, but it was locked since we can't talk about military stuff here, take this into account if your perception is based entirely on what is being discussed on this forum.

You can also listen to this podcast interviewing Dennis Wingo, where he explained why he thinks the Moon has strategic importance.

[yg1968]

The Moon is just as strategic as LEO is. Just ask China and Russia.

I was with you until we got here - this seems like total nonsense to me, unless you’re suggesting LEO isn’t strategic and only higher orbits are?  (Which I’d also disagree with.)

The moon has basically exactly zero strategic value here on earth.  LEO and other earth orbits have massive strategic value.

Yes, some people believe the Moon has strategic importance.

I just posted an article here which shows US military is increasingly interested in the Moon, but it was locked since we can't talk about military stuff here, take this into account if your perception is based entirely on what is being discussed on this forum.

You can also listen to this podcast interviewing Dennis Wingo, where he explained why he thinks the Moon has strategic importance.

Just to be clear, as I stated above, I didn't mean strategic in a military sense. I meant strategic in its more general meaning: "carefully designed or planned to serve a particular purpose or advantage" (Oxford Languages dictionary definition). I think that humans staying on the Moon does serve a particular purpose or advantage but it isn't a military one.

[Jim]

The Moon is just as strategic as LEO is. Just ask China and Russia.

I was with you until we got here - this seems like total nonsense to me, unless you’re suggesting LEO isn’t strategic and only higher orbits are?  (Which I’d also disagree with.)

The moon has basically exactly zero strategic value here on earth.  LEO and other earth orbits have massive strategic value.

Yes, some people believe the Moon has strategic importance.

I just posted an article here which shows US military is increasingly interested in the Moon, but it was locked since we can't talk about military stuff here, take this into account if your perception is based entirely on what is being discussed on this forum.

You can also listen to this podcast interviewing Dennis Wingo, where he explained why he thinks the Moon has strategic importance.

No more an expert on the subject than anybody else on this forum

[Oersted]

Again, that 2024 date, which Congress has not fully supported with money, has caused NASA to be pushed into risks that have not fully succeeded.

If NASA is queasy about the 2024 date, I suggest SpaceX just do a few manned Moon landings with their own hardware exclusively. Refuelling Starships should have no problem doing a Moon landing mission on their own.

When NASA is satisfied that Starship can indeed land safely on the Moon, then by all means they should go ahead with Artemis. It will look quite comical to do such a subsequent, elaborate NASA return-to-the-Moon mission with Starship and HLS, but that would just reflect the reality of that particular mission design.

SpaceX is contracted to land an uncrewed Starship HLS on the lunar surface and return it to NRHO prior to Artemis III. Surely you are not suggesting some sort of Heinlein-esque YF Sci Fi plot where a plucky teenager stows away on this flight? 

Good idea, but what I am suggesting is just that SpaceX performs its own Moon landing mission while waiting for its Artemis partners to get ready. A Starship HLS launching from Earth, fuelling in LEO, flying to the Moon and landing there, lifting off from the Moon and fuelling in lunar orbit (if needed) and then returning to a landing on Earth.

Seems to me a good exercise, uncrewed or crewed, before partaking in the Artemis missions. "Stretch her legs!"

Two problems:
  1) how to get the fuel to lunar orbit?
  2) Starship HLS cannot EDL, so return to to LEO, not Earth surface, so you must send a Crew Dragon up to retrieve the crew.
Also  if you want to not have a plucky teenage stowaway on HLS from Earth, your crew must join Starship HLS in LEO via a Crew Dragon.
All of this is doable, but It's getting very expensive, with upward of ten Starship launches and two F9/Crew Dragon launches and maybe an extra depot to pay for.

Ah yes, Starship HLS cannot land back on Earth, that's right.

As for all the other issues, they can be solved with Starship flights, and those will be very cheap if SpaceX' plans come true. A fuelled tanker Starship can fly to lunar orbit and replenish the Starship before it descends to the lunar surface. Another Starship (or a Dragon if you prefer) can bring the crew back to the surface of the Earth.

[yg1968]

See below:

Cool video of Starship by NASA:
https://images.nasa.gov/details-MSFC_StakeholderTour_v3

https://twitter.com/ThePrimalDino/status/1503392702276071428

[DanClemmensen]

Again, that 2024 date, which Congress has not fully supported with money, has caused NASA to be pushed into risks that have not fully succeeded.

If NASA is queasy about the 2024 date, I suggest SpaceX just do a few manned Moon landings with their own hardware exclusively. Refuelling Starships should have no problem doing a Moon landing mission on their own.

When NASA is satisfied that Starship can indeed land safely on the Moon, then by all means they should go ahead with Artemis. It will look quite comical to do such a subsequent, elaborate NASA return-to-the-Moon mission with Starship and HLS, but that would just reflect the reality of that particular mission design.

SpaceX is contracted to land an uncrewed Starship HLS on the lunar surface and return it to NRHO prior to Artemis III. Surely you are not suggesting some sort of Heinlein-esque YF Sci Fi plot where a plucky teenager stows away on this flight? 

Good idea, but what I am suggesting is just that SpaceX performs its own Moon landing mission while waiting for its Artemis partners to get ready. A Starship HLS launching from Earth, fuelling in LEO, flying to the Moon and landing there, lifting off from the Moon and fuelling in lunar orbit (if needed) and then returning to a landing on Earth.

Seems to me a good exercise, uncrewed or crewed, before partaking in the Artemis missions. "Stretch her legs!"

Two problems:
  1) how to get the fuel to lunar orbit?
  2) Starship HLS cannot EDL, so return to to LEO, not Earth surface, so you must send a Crew Dragon up to retrieve the crew.
Also  if you want to not have a plucky teenage stowaway on HLS from Earth, your crew must join Starship HLS in LEO via a Crew Dragon.
All of this is doable, but It's getting very expensive, with upward of ten Starship launches and two F9/Crew Dragon launches and maybe an extra depot to pay for.

Ah yes, Starship HLS cannot land back on Earth, that's right.

As for all the other issues, they can be solved with Starship flights, and those will be very cheap if SpaceX' plans come true. A fuelled tanker Starship can fly to lunar orbit and replenish the Starship before it descends to the lunar surface. Another Starship (or a Dragon if you prefer) can bring the crew back to the surface of the Earth.

For an Artemis mission, a Starship HLS gets refueled from the depot in Earth orbit (LEO?) and has enough fuel to get from there to NRHO, to the lunar surface, and back to NRHO. No need for an additional refueling before Lunar descent. To retrieve the HLS, it will need to be refueled get it back to the depot. I think this can be done by a single tanker that refuels from the depot, meets the empty HLS in NRHO and refuels it, and then returns to the depot. However, all of this requires a bunch of tanker flights to the depot.

Once SpaceX (or someone) has paid for the various reusable Starship components of this system, the main mission cost will be the Dragon flights. You need two dragon flights for every four crew, one ascent to LEO and one descent from LEO. This could be reduced to a single mission if the Dragon can self-sufficiently loiter in LEO, but as of now I think it needs to dock to ISS if it wants to last more than a week: this is surely true if crewed. I do not know if it can loiter longer it it's unoccupied.

That was all if using only the existing Dragon hardware plus the hardware that is already part of the Starship HLS contract (HLS, tanker, depot). If you are willing to wait for additional hardware you can add a few years and get a crew-qualified Starship with EDL capability, but even the Starships needed for Artemis have never flown yet.

[yg1968]

Interesting image in the NASA video of two Starships at Gateway. The one that is departing is HLS. The other ones seems to be a regular Starship.

[Alvian@IDN]

Interest image in the NASA video of two Starships at Gateway. The one that is departing is HLS. The other ones seems to be a regular Starship.

May I repeat?

As you can see from top right corner, it's NOT an official render (although interesting that NASA use one)

Please no misinformation (tbf the ability of David Willis to research before posting is questionable anyway)

[Robotbeat]

Interest image in the NASA video of two Starships at Gateway. The one that is departing is HLS. The other ones seems to be a regular Starship.

May I repeat?

As you can see from top right corner, it's NOT an official render (although interesting that NASA use one)

Please no misinformation (tbf the ability of David Willis to research before posting is questionable anyway)

The watermark proves nothing. NASA usually uses contractors to produce official renders. NASA does not, and legally cannot, just randomly clip together stuff from the Internet.

[yg1968]

They must have asked for permission. I found the twitter account of Deep Space Courier:
https://twitter.com/ds_courier?lang=en