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

[Coastal Ron]

That doesn't contradict anything that I said. The press release...

The Orion discussion is OT for this thread, and I have moved my response to the Orion thread:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37310.msg2356057#msg2356057

[yg1968]

The Conops documentation is pretty interesting (attached).

Here are the DRMs from the first CONOPS document. DRM Crew 1.

[yg1968]

DRM Crew 1b.

[yg1968]

DRM Crew 2.

[Athelstane]

DRM Crew 2.

33 days? Hmmm.

I haven't had time to sort through all these docs...does it indicate at what point in the Artemis program that they would move to a DRM-2 mission profile?

[yg1968]

DRM Crew 2.

33 days? Hmmm.

I haven't had time to sort through all these docs...does it indicate at what point in the Artemis program that they would move to a DRM-2 mission profile?

I don't think that the documents go into that but the longer missions require the pressurized rover and the surface habitat (2 astronauts would stay in the pressurized rover and two would stay in the surface habitat per the presentation linked below). According to the NASA FY23 budget document, the surface habitat would be delivered as part of Artemis VIII. So I think that starting with Artemis VIII, the missions could be 33 days on the surface.

See page 7:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy23_nasa_budget_request_summary.pdf

See also the presentation discussed in this post:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55813.msg2342319#msg2342319

[DanClemmensen]

DRM Crew 2.

33 days? Hmmm.

I haven't had time to sort through all these docs...does it indicate at what point in the Artemis program that they would move to a DRM-2 mission profile?

That profile was based on a nominal lander like the one in the picture, which is NASA's Advanced Exploration Lander from 2018. It has a small crew space and small awkward airlocks. It may not be relevant with a larger lander. I hope NASA will adapt the mission profiles to the actual landers after they are designed.

[yg1968]

One thing that should be noted is that Appendix P's target date for a crewed demo is July 2027. Given that NASA said in its March 23rd press release that it was looking at the 2026-2027 timeframe for Option B and Appendix P, that likely means that NASA is looking at 2026 for Option B.

[yg1968]

DRM Crew 2.

33 days? Hmmm.

I haven't had time to sort through all these docs...does it indicate at what point in the Artemis program that they would move to a DRM-2 mission profile?

That profile was based on a nominal lander like the one in the picture, which is NASA's Advanced Exploration Lander from 2018. It has a small crew space and small awkward airlocks. It may not be relevant with a larger lander. I hope NASA will adapt the mission profiles to the actual landers after they are designed.

I think that SpaceX could propose a HLS Starship as a foundation surface habitat but they have to win that contract.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56067.msg2355673#msg2355673

I don't think that NASA will update its DRMs until SpaceX wins a lander services contract. For planning purposes, NASA can't assume that SpaceX will win those but it can assume that its minimum requirements will be met.

[Zed_Noir]

DRM Crew 2.

33 days? Hmmm.

I haven't had time to sort through all these docs...does it indicate at what point in the Artemis program that they would move to a DRM-2 mission profile?

My emphasis bold

Think they could go directly to the DRM-2 mission profile with the Lunar Starship as the HLS lander. The DRM-1 and DRM-1b mission profiles was probably generated with a smallish baseline HLS lander in mind. The Lunar Starship is effectively a better surface habitat than what is required along with the capability to carry and deployed a pressurized rover.

It appears to me for the DRM-2 mission profile that NASA was planning to separately landed the HLS lander with crew, the surface habitat and the pressurized rover with the baseline HLS lander and it's modified cargo carrying variants. Probably need additional cargo landers to bring the rest of the supplies and equipment that couldn't be landed with the HLS lander and the surface habitat. IIRC the NASA was only asking for about a four tonne payload capacity for the HLS lander. SpaceX's Lunar Starship can landed at least 50 tonnes of payload on the Lunar surface and have enough room for 4 spare EVA suits.

Darn, took too long to posted a reply.

[yg1968]

DRM Crew 2.

33 days? Hmmm.

I haven't had time to sort through all these docs...does it indicate at what point in the Artemis program that they would move to a DRM-2 mission profile?

My emphasis bold

Think they could go directly to the DRM-2 mission profile with the Lunar Starship as the HLS lander. The DRM-1 and DRM-1b mission profiles was probably generated with a smallish baseline HLS lander in mind. The Lunar Starship is effectively a better surface habitat than what is required along with the capability to carry and deployed a pressurized rover.

It appears to me for the DRM-2 mission profile that NASA was planning to separately landed the HLS lander with crew, the surface habitat and the pressurized rover with the baseline HLS lander and it's modified cargo carrying variants. Probably need additional cargo landers to bring the rest of the supplies and equipment that couldn't be landed with the HLS lander and the surface habitat. IIRC the NASA was only asking for about a four tonne payload capacity for the HLS lander. SpaceX's Lunar Starship can landed at least 50 tonnes of payload on the Lunar surface and have enough room for 4 spare EVA suits.

Darn, took too long to posted a reply.

According to Lisa Watson-Morgan, NASA is now looking at 14mt for the large cargo landers (HDL).

[Zed_Noir]

DRM Crew 2.

33 days? Hmmm.

I haven't had time to sort through all these docs...does it indicate at what point in the Artemis program that they would move to a DRM-2 mission profile?

My emphasis bold

Think they could go directly to the DRM-2 mission profile with the Lunar Starship as the HLS lander. The DRM-1 and DRM-1b mission profiles was probably generated with a smallish baseline HLS lander in mind. The Lunar Starship is effectively a better surface habitat than what is required along with the capability to carry and deployed a pressurized rover.

It appears to me for the DRM-2 mission profile that NASA was planning to separately landed the HLS lander with crew, the surface habitat and the pressurized rover with the baseline HLS lander and it's modified cargo carrying variants. Probably need additional cargo landers to bring the rest of the supplies and equipment that couldn't be landed with the HLS lander and the surface habitat. IIRC the NASA was only asking for about a four tonne payload capacity for the HLS lander. SpaceX's Lunar Starship can landed at least 50 tonnes of payload on the Lunar surface and have enough room for 4 spare EVA suits.

Darn, took too long to posted a reply.

According to Lisa Watson-Morgan, NASA is now looking at 14mt for the large cargo landers (HDL).

Well if you replace the ascent module with a cargo module in the baseline HLS lander, it is pretty close to 14 tonnes.

[Coastal Ron]

I don't think that NASA will update its DRMs until SpaceX wins a lander services contract. For planning purposes, NASA can't assume that SpaceX will win those but it can assume that its minimum requirements will be met.

How does NASA announcing that SpaceX will be awarded a landing contract with crew affect that?

NASA Provides Update to Astronaut Moon Lander Plans Under Artemis | NASA

From the announcement:

...NASA now is asking SpaceX to transform the company’s proposed human landing system into a spacecraft that meets the agency’s requirements for recurring services for a second demonstration mission. Pursuing more development work under the original contract maximizes NASA’s investment and partnership with SpaceX.

To bring a second entrant to market for the development of a lunar lander in parallel with SpaceX, NASA will issue a draft solicitation in the coming weeks. This upcoming activity will lay out requirements for a future development and demonstration lunar landing capability to take astronauts between orbit and the surface of the Moon.

This additional contract seems to result in landing crew on the surface of the Moon.

[Zed_Noir]

DRM Crew 2.

33 days? Hmmm.

I haven't had time to sort through all these docs...does it indicate at what point in the Artemis program that they would move to a DRM-2 mission profile?

That profile was based on a nominal lander like the one in the picture, which is NASA's Advanced Exploration Lander from 2018. It has a small crew space and small awkward airlocks. It may not be relevant with a larger lander. I hope NASA will adapt the mission profiles to the actual landers after they are designed.

More likely an Apollo era type airlock. Which is no airlock with the vehicle crew cabin open to vacuum and the crew in pressure suits for egress. Just like what the National Team and the Dynetics HLS landers as shown in their mockups.

[Zed_Noir]

More likely an Apollo era type airlock. Which is no airlock with the vehicle crew cabin open to vacuum and the crew in pressure suits for egress. Just like what the National Team and the Dynetics HLS landers as shown in their mockups.

The Dynetics HLS cabin is split into a airlock and main cabin. Only the airlock depressurizes.

IIRC the flight controls were close to the exit hatch. And there don't seem to be room for a crew of 4 with EVA suits in either the Dynetics lander or the National Team lander mockups.

[yg1968]

I don't think that NASA will update its DRMs until SpaceX wins a lander services contract. For planning purposes, NASA can't assume that SpaceX will win those but it can assume that its minimum requirements will be met.

How does NASA announcing that SpaceX will be awarded a landing contract with crew affect that?

NASA Provides Update to Astronaut Moon Lander Plans Under Artemis | NASA

From the announcement:

...NASA now is asking SpaceX to transform the company’s proposed human landing system into a spacecraft that meets the agency’s requirements for recurring services for a second demonstration mission. Pursuing more development work under the original contract maximizes NASA’s investment and partnership with SpaceX.

To bring a second entrant to market for the development of a lunar lander in parallel with SpaceX, NASA will issue a draft solicitation in the coming weeks. This upcoming activity will lay out requirements for a future development and demonstration lunar landing capability to take astronauts between orbit and the surface of the Moon.

This additional contract seems to result in landing crew on the surface of the Moon.

Presumably, Option B will, after it is awarded, impact the Artemis V mission (or perhaps Artemis IV if that NASA changes its mind on that mission not landing on the Moon). I don't think that it affects missions after that. For the time being, NASA said that the new landers haven't been assigned to any specific Artemis missions.

[lykos]

IIRC the flight controls were close to the exit hatch. And there don't seem to be room for a crew of 4 with EVA suits in either the Dynetics lander or the National Team lander mockups.

The Dynetic Lander and the National Team Lander we know so far where proposed for the first phase (2 Astronauts) which won SpaceX.
Now for the second phase (2026/2027) they will need to construct a new lander for 4 Astronauts and other new demands.
SpaceX too has to come up with a "better" lander and a new manned testflight.

[yg1968]

IIRC the flight controls were close to the exit hatch. And there don't seem to be room for a crew of 4 with EVA suits in either the Dynetics lander or the National Team lander mockups.

The Dynetic Lander and the National Team Lander we know so far where proposed for the first phase (2 Astronauts) which won SpaceX.
Now for the second phase (2026/2027) they will need to construct a new lander for 4 Astronauts and other new demands.
SpaceX too has to come up with a "better" lander and a new manned testflight.

Dynetics could already carry 4 astronauts under its Option A proposal. Only Blue proposed a 2 person lander for Option A (which was difficult to upgrade to 4). Don't forget that these were minimum requirements and both SpaceX and Dynetics exceeded these.

Furthermore, Option B only involves a crewed demo (i.e., no uncrewed demo is necessary). Appendix P involves an uncrewed and a crewed demo.

[Athelstane]

DRM Crew 2.

33 days? Hmmm.

I haven't had time to sort through all these docs...does it indicate at what point in the Artemis program that they would move to a DRM-2 mission profile?

I don't think that the documents go into that but the longer missions require the pressurized rover and the surface habitat (2 astronauts would stay in the pressurized rover and two would stay in the surface habitat per the presentation linked below). According to the NASA FY23 budget document, the surface habitat would be delivered as part of Artemis VIII. So I think that starting with Artemis VIII, the missions could be 33 days on the surface.

See page 7:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy23_nasa_budget_request_summary.pdf

See also the presentation discussed in this post:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55813.msg2342319#msg2342319

Thanks.

[DanClemmensen]

The Dynetic Lander and the National Team Lander we know so far where proposed for the first phase (2 Astronauts) which won SpaceX.
Now for the second phase (2026/2027) they will need to construct a new lander for 4 Astronauts and other new demands.
SpaceX too has to come up with a "better" lander and a new manned testflight.

What we know (I think) is that the SpaceX Option B lander msut meet the same more stringent requirements as the Appendix P landers, and that the SpaceX Option A lander only needed to meet the Option A requirements.

Do we know that the Option A lander design does not already meet the Appendix P requirements or that SpaceX will not just go ahead and update the design prior to building the Option A lander?