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

[DanClemmensen]

So… does this mean SpaceX has been awarded a second crewed mission for Starship HLS? Kind of confusing.

I think it means that SpaceX is invited to (sole-source) bid on a contract for a second crewed mission for an HLS. I'm a bit unclear if NASA requires it to be identical to the first two Starship HLSs or if SpaceX is permitted to bid an enhanced version.

[yg1968]

So… does this mean SpaceX has been awarded a second crewed mission for Starship HLS? Kind of confusing.

I think it means that SpaceX is invited to (sole-source) bid on a contract for a second crewed mission for an HLS. I'm a bit unclear if NASA requires it to be identical to the first two Starship HLSs or if SpaceX is permitted to bid an enhanced version.

There are different requirements for Option B. But it's not clear if Starship already meets them. NASA had already released a set of requirements in a long document. I am guessing that they will be very similar (if not identical) to these:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53708.msg2306057#msg2306057

[yg1968]

Given that NASA is setting up a dual track procurement for HLS providers, what exactly does Jim Free mean in this Irene Klotz' tweet?

"But: NASA says the SpaceX contract option &  new award will have provisions so agency cut the program if it does not receive adequate funding of if contractor fails to make progress. “We’re not buying both landers at the same time," said NASA's Jim Free."

https://twitter.com/Free_Space/status/1506746945796247559?s=20&t=At2jN8zRcDshAImeo09YCQ

Are they proposing to fund one track, then the other? Are they setting up a Congressional popularity contest, where whichever contractor that can lobby up funding for their track gets to fly?

It's at 47 minutes of the press conference. I wouldn't read too much into it, it just means that NASA has some flexibility in the contracts if the budget is not sufficient or if they need to drop a provider for some reason. The award for the new provider is likely to be made at the beginning of 2023 once that the FY23 Appropriations bills are enacted.

[M.E.T.]

I can only imagine the awkwardness in ~2027 when a mature Starship is landing on the moon, offloading bulldozers and large habitation modules, and next to it we have tiny Apollo-Eagle size landers delivering 2-4 astronauts for the same price (who am I kidding, it won’t be for the same price, it will be for twice the price).

[yg1968]

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

[dglow]

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

I think it’s really this simple: SpaceX’s HLS was on-track to deliver a ‘sustainable lander’ – or damn close to it – in HLS version 1.0 anyway.

What was announced today feels like a giant contortion, because it is, but it allows NASA to accomplish the following: 1) on-board a second lander for redundancy (and Congress), 2) honor SpaceX’s win and existing contract while removing them from the new competition, and 3) formally synchronize the requirements between the two paths, clearing the way for eventual ‘fair’ bidding between the providers that emerge.

Since SpaceX is developing a sustainable program from the jump, opening Option B now might flesh out some longer-term objectives with NASA sooner than later. Greater visibility into future requirements = better planning and possibly earlier implementation. We’ll see. And separating SpaceX from the rest of the crowd makes sense, but man – it feels a bit like sending the smart kid away for gifted classes, doesn’t it? 

[M.E.T.]

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

Good info. My question is, how does most of that support the case for any lander other than Starship HLS for sustainable services?

[yg1968]

I am not sure what you mean. Starship gets a sustainable crewed demo mission under option B. Other providers get a chance to bid on an uncrewed and crewed sustainable demo mission.

[Ben Baley]

So… does this mean SpaceX has been awarded a second crewed mission for Starship HLS? Kind of confusing.

I think it means that SpaceX is invited to (sole-source) bid on a contract for a second crewed mission for an HLS. I'm a bit unclear if NASA requires it to be identical to the first two Starship HLSs or if SpaceX is permitted to bid an enhanced version.

From listening to the teleconference what I understood is that SpaceX is expected to bid an upgraded version of LSS for option B, even though the current version meets or exceeds all or most of the requirements for a sustainable lander, and is going to be paid to perform an additional uncrewed demo mission before it is used for crew.

[VSECOTSPE]

-A reporter asked, is SLS necessary for the lander proposals? Nelson said yes.

This is the problem right here.  Aspirationally, Orion/SLS will deliver crew once a year, at best.  Realistically, looking at the next decade, Orion/SLS will only deliver crew once every two years or so.  With two landers, this means that if they alternate missions, each lander will only deliver crew once every two years, at best, and probably only once every four years, realistically.  I’m all for redundancy and competition, but this is idiotic.  We’re going to spend billions of dollars developing a second lander and some more upgrading Lunar Starship and only use each of them to land crew a couple or few times a decade.  Not because of deficiencies in the landers, but because they’re both tied to the Orion/SLS albatross.  It’s like building two shiny, new off-ramps for the same exit from a freeway that’s been reduced to one lane by large potholes and broken bridges.

“Today’s announcement is what I said to Congress. I promised competition, so here it is,” NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said during a call with reporters about the new program.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-to-support-development-of-second-artemis-lunar-lander/

The cognitive dissonance is strong with Nelson and Artemis.  Competition for crew lunar landers but not for the Earth-to-lunar-orbit transport that gets the crew to the landers.  It’s like building two faucets for the same cocktail straw.  Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

[yg1968]

So… does this mean SpaceX has been awarded a second crewed mission for Starship HLS? Kind of confusing.

I think it means that SpaceX is invited to (sole-source) bid on a contract for a second crewed mission for an HLS. I'm a bit unclear if NASA requires it to be identical to the first two Starship HLSs or if SpaceX is permitted to bid an enhanced version.

From listening to the teleconference what I understood is that SpaceX is expected to bid an upgraded version of LSS for option B, even though the current version meets or exceeds all or most of the requirements for a sustainable lander, and is going to be paid to perform an additional uncrewed demo mission before it is used for crew.

No Jim Free specifically said that Option B did not have an uncrewed mission. He made a mistake about that at the beginning but corrected himself later on.

[yg1968]

In terms of the requirements between Option A and the sustainable demo missions (Option B and Appendix P). NASA released 300 pages documents detailing these requirements (attached). There are differences but I couldn't tell you what they are.

[Ben Baley]

My guess is that SpaceX is still working on the regenerative ECLS need for long term occupation and the technology needed for surviving the lunar night. They are not necessary for the short term mission planned for Artemis III but NASA will want them tested before they trust them with astronauts lives.
This development seems good for SpaceX it will allow them to work gradually through technology that they will need for a Mars SS while getting NASA funding and assistance.

[M.E.T.]

I am not sure what you mean. Starship gets a sustainable crewed demo mission under option B. Other providers get a chance to bid on an uncrewed and crewed sustainable demo mission.

I mean, if Starship HLS is expected to meet these improved sustainability requirements, it surely means that any competitors would need to meet them too - if they want to be sustainable long term providers rather than just being thrown a “once off demo landing” bone.

And yet, all of these requirements seem to heavily favour - and in fact require - Starship levels of performance given the mass implications.

So Starship is the only option that will meet the rather lofty (for traditional architectures) sustainability targets stipulated.

[yg1968]

I am not sure what you mean. Starship gets a sustainable crewed demo mission under option B. Other providers get a chance to bid on an uncrewed and crewed sustainable demo mission.

I mean, if Starship HLS is expected to meet these improved sustainability requirements, it surely means that any competitors would need to meet them too - if they want to be sustainable long term providers rather than just being thrown a “once off demo landing” bone.

And yet, all of these requirements seem to heavily favour - and in fact require - Starship levels of performance given the mass implications.

So Starship is the only option that will meet the rather lofty (for traditional architectures) sustainability targets stipulated.

No, I don't think so. Lisa Watson-Morgan seemed confidant that the Appendix N companies would submit good proposals for this new Appendix P competition.

[yg1968]

-A reporter asked, is SLS necessary for the lander proposals? Nelson said yes.

This is the problem right here.  Aspirationally, Orion/SLS will deliver crew once a year, at best.  Realistically, looking at the next decade, Orion/SLS will only deliver crew once every two years or so.  With two landers, this means that if they alternate missions, each lander will only deliver crew once every two years, at best, and probably only once every four years, realistically.  I’m all for redundancy and competition, but this is idiotic.  We’re going to spend billions of dollars developing a second lander and some more upgrading Lunar Starship and only use each of them to land crew a couple or few times a decade.  Not because of deficiencies in the landers, but because they’re both tied to the Orion/SLS albatross.  It’s like building two shiny, new off-ramps for the same exit from a freeway that’s been reduced to one lane by large potholes and broken bridges.

“Today’s announcement is what I said to Congress. I promised competition, so here it is,” NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said during a call with reporters about the new program.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-to-support-development-of-second-artemis-lunar-lander/

The cognitive dissonance is strong with Nelson and Artemis.  Competition for crew lunar landers but not for the Earth-to-lunar-orbit transport that gets the crew to the landers.  It’s like building two faucets for the same cocktail straw.  Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

That's why it's important to have non-NASA missions. SLS is planned for every year starting with Artemis II.

[oiorionsbelt]

No, I don't think so. Lisa Watson-Morgan seemed confidant that the Appendix N companies would submit good proposals for this new Appendix P competition.

A lot of people were confident that HLS and commercial crew bidding companies would submit good proposals.

[deadman1204]

It really sounded like NASA was doing contortions to justify paying billions for a second company.

With SLS only launching every 2 years or so, there will only be 4-5 landings per decade. Redundancy is meaningless in this system, because only the lander would have it. SLS and Orion wouldn't. You gain nothing but more expense.
They went out of their way to shape a bidding process where spaceX is banned from competing, JUST to make sure old space can come along for the ride.

[yg1968]

No, I don't think so. Lisa Watson-Morgan seemed confidant that the Appendix N companies would submit good proposals for this new Appendix P competition.

A lot of people were confident that HLS and commercial crew bidding companies would submit good proposals.

Commercial crew had pretty good proposals. It's unfortunate that Dream Chaser didn't get selected.

I liked Dynetics' lander. If they have solved their mass problem, they should have a good proposal. I am expecting Blue to come out with a much better proposal. Ditching its partners should improve Blue's chances this time around. Lisa Watson-Morgan said that the Appendix N companies were also working to make their landers more affordable.

[Khadgars]

Monumental waste of money. I couldn’t articulate it better than the individual below, who you might or might not be familiar with:

https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1506715061137649674?s=21

https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1506722584288706568?s=21

I couldn't disagree more.  Aircraft Carriers are military and doesn't apply and U.S airlines purchase both Boeing and Airbus.  The equivalency is not the same.

Regardless, two providers is about capability, redundancy and fostering development within the industry.