Starship Artemis Contract & Lunar Starship

[Skyway]

As far as I know (and I could be wrong in this specific case) a company's attitude towards its internal affairs is always different from the attitude towards matters related to a customer.

As far as what SpaceX does in developing the Starship, it's pretty transparent. However, when you have a signed contract, even more so in a company that frequently performs services that require confidentiality, the posture must be different regardless of whether it is a less confidential contract or not. It's like a standard for handling a customer's information. Some are more restrictive than others, but none are as open as SpaceX-only issues.

[robot_enthusiast]

As far as number of refueling missions for a HLS flight, it's not really an answerable question. It depends on too many unknowable specifics based on external factors that I wouldn't be surprised if they don't know the exact number even after the first tanker in the campaign has launched. They've also explicitly stated that they plan to use the depots for a range of mission profiles, making the math even more complicated. If they fill a depot and then use it to fill two ships, which ship's mission does the boil off get pencilled under? If they start topping off depots with excess fuel leftover from smaller satellite launches as some have suggested, does that count as a refueling flight? How many scrubs were there during the refueling campaign and how much prop boiled off in that time? Phase of the solar cycle? Ground reflectivity? Debris avoidance burns? That's not to mention the amount of flux there still is in the design and requirements. How much payload NASA wants is still up in the air, which would have a huge impact. Really, they've said all they can.

[yg1968]

See below for a presentation (mostly) on HLS-Starship:

Landing on the Moon and What We’ll Do When We Get There:

[StevenOBrien]

.@NASA announced that  @SpaceX will provide a 2nd crewed landing demo on the Moon as part of the Artemis IV mission.

With multiple planned lunar landers—from SpaceX & future partners—NASA will be better positioned to accomplish our bold missions.

https://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/status/1592650439706972164

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-spacex-second-contract-option-for-artemis-moon-landing-0

Nov 15, 2022

NASA Awards SpaceX Second Contract Option for Artemis Moon Landing

NASA has awarded a contract modification to SpaceX to further develop its Starship human landing system to meet agency requirements for long-term human exploration of the Moon under Artemis.

With this addition, SpaceX will provide a second crewed landing demonstration mission in 2027 as part of NASA’s Artemis IV mission.

“Returning astronauts to the Moon to learn, live, and work is a bold endeavor. With multiple planned landers, from SpaceX and future partners, NASA will be better positioned to accomplish the missions of tomorrow: conducting more science on the surface of the Moon than ever before and preparing for crewed missions to Mars,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson.

Known as Option B, the modification follows an original award to SpaceX in April 2021 under the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships-2 (NextSTEP-2) Appendix H Option A contract. NASA previously announced plans to pursue this Option B with SpaceX.

“Continuing our collaborative efforts with SpaceX through Option B furthers our resilient plans for regular crewed transportation to the lunar surface and establishing a long-term human presence under Artemis,” said Lisa Watson-Morgan, manager for the Human Landing System program at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. “This critical work will help us focus on the development of sustainable, service-based lunar landers anchored to NASA’s requirements for regularly recurring missions to the lunar surface.”

The aim of this new work under Option B is to develop and demonstrate a Starship lunar lander that meets NASA’s sustaining requirements for missions beyond Artemis III, including docking with Gateway, accommodating four crew members, and delivering more mass to the surface.

NASA initially selected SpaceX to develop a human landing system variant of Starship to land the next American astronauts on the Moon under Artemis III, which will mark humanity’s first return to the lunar surface in more than 50 years. As part of that contract, SpaceX will also conduct an uncrewed demonstration mission to the Moon prior to Artemis III.

The agency is pursuing two parallel paths for human lunar landers developed according to NASA’s sustained requirements to increase the competitive pool of capable industry providers – the existing contract with SpaceX and another solicitation released earlier this year. The other solicitation, NextSTEP-2 Appendix P, is open to all other U.S. companies to develop additional human landing system capabilities and includes uncrewed and crewed demonstration missions from lunar orbit to the surface of the Moon.

Astronaut Moon landers are a vital part of NASA’s deep space exploration plans, along with the Space Launch System rocket, Orion spacecraft, ground systems, spacesuits and rovers, and Gateway.

Under Artemis, NASA  will send a suite of new lunar science instruments and technology demonstrations to study the Moon, land the first woman and first person of color on the lunar surface, establish a long term lunar presence, and more. The agency will leverage its Artemis experiences and technologies to prepare for the next giant leap – sending astronauts to Mars.

For more information about Artemis, visit:

https://www.nasa.gov/artemis

-end-

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1592668560932970502

NASA says the Option B award is valued at $1.15 billion (and their press release updated to include that.)

Sooner or later these Starship contract awards are going to add up to a serious amount of money …

[DanClemmensen]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1592668560932970502

NASA says the Option B award is valued at $1.15 billion (and their press release updated to include that.)

Sooner or later these Starship contract awards are going to add up to a serious amount of money …

It's still fairly early in the HLS Option A design cycle. Is there any speculation that SpaceX might just fold the Option B capabilities into the Option A design to reduce the overall development cost? It does not appear (from the outside) that the Option B enhancements are that big of a stretch, and the whole thing is fixed price.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

twitter.com/senbillnelson/status/1592650439706972164

.@NASA announced that @SpaceX will provide a 2nd crewed landing demo on the Moon as part of the Artemis IV mission.

With multiple planned lunar landers—from SpaceX & future partners—NASA will be better positioned to accomplish our bold missions.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1592652399856201729

Much appreciated, SpaceX will not let NASA down!

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1592668560932970502

NASA says the Option B award is valued at $1.15 billion (and their press release updated to include that.)

Sooner or later these Starship contract awards are going to add up to a serious amount of money …

It's still fairly early in the HLS Option A design cycle. Is there any speculation that SpaceX might just fold the Option B capabilities into the Option A design to reduce the overall development cost? It does not appear (from the outside) that the Option B enhancements are that big of a stretch, and the whole thing is fixed price.

The main requirement difference is 4 crew vs the Option A 2 crew. I believe the Option A is already aimed at fully fulfilling the Option B requirements set. It is mostly about crew number/duration/supplies/power/internal and external cargo capabilities.

[DanClemmensen]

NASA says the Option B award is valued at $1.15 billion (and their press release updated to include that.)

Sooner or later these Starship contract awards are going to add up to a serious amount of money …

It's still fairly early in the HLS Option A design cycle. Is there any speculation that SpaceX might just fold the Option B capabilities into the Option A design to reduce the overall development cost? It does not appear (from the outside) that the Option B enhancements are that big of a stretch, and the whole thing is fixed price.

The main requirement difference is 4 crew vs the Option A 2 crew. I believe the Option A is already aimed at fully fulfilling the Option B requirements set. It is mostly about crew number/duration/supplies/power/internal and external cargo capabilities.

Sure. SpaceX got $3 B for two Option A missions and an additional $1 B for an Option B mission. But they can choose to treat this as $4B for three missions that all use identical hardware, and it may be a lower total cost of development. Mission duration is probably the biggest challenge, but even so it may be easier to build it in from the beginning than it would be to enhance it later.

[tbellman]

The main requirement difference is 4 crew vs the Option A 2 crew. I believe the Option A is already aimed at fully fulfilling the Option B requirements set. It is mostly about crew number/duration/supplies/power/internal and external cargo capabilities.

Option B also requires handling longer stays on the surface, and be able to survive more than 6 (Earth) days of lunar night.  I believe those are at least as significant as the increase from two to four crew members.

Also development of procedures for refilling of propellant between landings.

And all the myriad of fixes and upgrades you don't realize you want until after you have actually tested it in real life and get feedback from real-world usage. 

[Oersted]

Obviously Lunar Starship is designed from the get go for very robust, long-lasting missions. They will just continue along with the original design which clearly encompasses all of the options.

[yg1968]

The main requirement difference is 4 crew vs the Option A 2 crew. I believe the Option A is already aimed at fully fulfilling the Option B requirements set. It is mostly about crew number/duration/supplies/power/internal and external cargo capabilities.

Option B also requires handling longer stays on the surface, and be able to survive more than 6 (Earth) days of lunar night.  I believe those are at least as significant as the increase from two to four crew members.

Also development of procedures for refilling of propellant between landings.

And all the myriad of fixes and upgrades you don't realize you want until after you have actually tested it in real life and get feedback from real-world usage.

See below for the key differences between Options A & B:

Separate question: do we have information on how NASA wants SpaceX to revise its proposal "into a spacecraft that meets the agency’s requirements for recurring services?" What additional or revised requirements does NASA have in mind?

There is some discussions of Option B in the original November 2019 Appendix H BAA (attached).

Some of the differences between Option A (the first crewed demo) and Option B (the sustainable crewed demo lander):

For purposes of this solicitation, NASA defines “sustainable” as incorporating long-term affordability, as well as the following capabilities per the requirements marked as “sustaining” in HLS Requirements (Attachment F):
• Operations and survival in periods of darkness (e.g. eclipse periods)
• Longer duration EVAs
• Increased cargo transportation mass, both from and to Gateway
• 4-crewmember missions
• Global access (access to polar and equatorial regions)
• Long-term affordability

[yg1968]

NASA says the Option B award is valued at $1.15 billion (and their press release updated to include that.)

Sooner or later these Starship contract awards are going to add up to a serious amount of money …

It's still fairly early in the HLS Option A design cycle. Is there any speculation that SpaceX might just fold the Option B capabilities into the Option A design to reduce the overall development cost? It does not appear (from the outside) that the Option B enhancements are that big of a stretch, and the whole thing is fixed price.

The main requirement difference is 4 crew vs the Option A 2 crew. I believe the Option A is already aimed at fully fulfilling the Option B requirements set. It is mostly about crew number/duration/supplies/power/internal and external cargo capabilities.

Sure. SpaceX got $3 B for two Option A missions and an additional $1 B for an Option B mission. But they can choose to treat this as $4B for three missions that all use identical hardware, and it may be a lower total cost of development. Mission duration is probably the biggest challenge, but even so it may be easier to build it in from the beginning than it would be to enhance it later.

I am guessing that SpaceX will use a lot of that $1B to improve HLS-Starship. Usually, the funds are tied to specific milestones. Unfortunately, NASA doesn't publish these milestones for some reason (but they did for commercial crew).

[CMac]

Would a HC4/O2 burning electricity generation plant be part of design for long duration stay? How would a vacuum environment turbine work? Just vanes and exhausting to vacuum? Capture of gases for later solar-powered regeneration of CH4+O2?

[frith01]

Would a HC4/O2 burning electricity generation plant be part of design for long duration stay? How would a vacuum environment turbine work? Just vanes and exhausting to vacuum? Capture of gases for later solar-powered regeneration of CH4+O2?

I'm sure they would try to use a methane fuel cell as part of the solution.  (methane -> Power  , Power -> Methane)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378775322005407

[DanClemmensen]

NASA says the Option B award is valued at $1.15 billion (and their press release updated to include that.)

Sooner or later these Starship contract awards are going to add up to a serious amount of money …

It's still fairly early in the HLS Option A design cycle. Is there any speculation that SpaceX might just fold the Option B capabilities into the Option A design to reduce the overall development cost? It does not appear (from the outside) that the Option B enhancements are that big of a stretch, and the whole thing is fixed price.

The main requirement difference is 4 crew vs the Option A 2 crew. I believe the Option A is already aimed at fully fulfilling the Option B requirements set. It is mostly about crew number/duration/supplies/power/internal and external cargo capabilities.

Sure. SpaceX got $3 B for two Option A missions and an additional $1 B for an Option B mission. But they can choose to treat this as $4B for three missions that all use identical hardware, and it may be a lower total cost of development. Mission duration is probably the biggest challenge, but even so it may be easier to build it in from the beginning than it would be to enhance it later.

I am guessing that SpaceX will use a lot of that $1B to improve HLS-Starship. Usually, the funds are tied to specific milestones. Unfortunately, NASA doesn't publish these milestones for some reason (but they did for commercial crew).

So? Depending on how the Option B contract extension is worded, It may be possible to meet some of the new Option B milestones before the first HLS has launched. In any event, if the SpaceX can do the whole job for a lower internal cost by consolidating the designs, then SpaceX may choose to self-fund the additional early work, knowing it will eventually get paid.

In a traditional contract extension scenario, part of the additional $1 B is for the development ("improve HLS-Starship") as you said, and the rest is for production of the new lander and operations cost of the mission. It's only the development portion that would need to be accelerated.

[wannamoonbase]

I'm really excited about this added HLS.

I think NASA and SpaceX can work together and iterate the HLS and it's systems to make for some really great capabilities for the moon as well as parallel development and testing for systems that can be directly applied to Mars.

This is a big win.

[DanClemmensen]

Would a HC4/O2 burning electricity generation plant be part of design for long duration stay? How would a vacuum environment turbine work? Just vanes and exhausting to vacuum? Capture of gases for later solar-powered regeneration of CH4+O2?

They need some sort of extended energy storage system to make it through the Lunar night.  If it is a closed system that regenerates from solar electricity, then it's effectively a battery. It's not clear that a turbine is better than a fuel cell or some other battery: there are several well-understood options. A turbine is inefficient, so you have a heat management problem if it's closed-loop, and capturing all that exhaust gas until the next day constitutes an "interesting" problem.

If it's open-loop (fuel cell or turbine), the trade-off is mass of the CH₄ and O₂.

[marsbase]

I'm really excited about this added HLS.

I think NASA and SpaceX can work together and iterate the HLS and it's systems to make for some really great capabilities for the moon as well as parallel development and testing for systems that can be directly applied to Mars.

This is a big win.

Dear Mr. Moonbase,  I am heartened to read that you are coming over to the Marsbase point of view.  I have never really understood what aspects of moon systems would be "directly applied" to Mars.  They are very different places and except for distance and time of travel, Mars is by far the more hospitable location for human settlement.  It would be much more efficient to focus on Mars systems than to worry about what moon systems might eventually be applied to Mars.  Occupy Mars!