Author Topic: HLS Option B and the Sustaining Lunar Development Phase (Appendix P)  (Read 232049 times)

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1745
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1934
  • Likes Given: 1278
Are there any rumors about what Dynetics has been up to since they lost the intitial round with HLS?  Did they lay off new hires and put the whole thing on ice, or have they quietly been sharpening their pencils in the background this whole time? I'd heard they had solved the mass problem, but that was right around the post HLS legal scuffle.

Offline TrevorMonty

Are there any rumors about what Dynetics has been up to since they lost the intitial round with HLS?  Did they lay off new hires and put the whole thing on ice, or have they quietly been sharpening their pencils in the background this whole time? I'd heard they had solved the mass problem, but that was right around the post HLS legal scuffle.
Continued development of landers methalox engines.

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1841
  • USA
  • Liked: 1507
  • Likes Given: 2609
Does the selection officer have the option of transforming Appendix P awards into essentially more Appendix N risk reduction work?

The Appendix P has a lot of optional items (CLINs) which gives NASA a lot of flexibility if it doesn't receive enough funding from Congress or if a provider underperforms (see the link below). Option B is apparently very similar to Appendix P, so it probably also has optional items (CLINs).

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56067.msg2432528#msg2432528

The BAA also specifies that selecting zero bids is a possible outcome.
This just means that congress tells NASA to do another round.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8905
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10260
  • Likes Given: 11990
Does the selection officer have the option of transforming Appendix P awards into essentially more Appendix N risk reduction work?
The Appendix P has a lot of optional items (CLINs) which gives NASA a lot of flexibility if it doesn't receive enough funding from Congress or if a provider underperforms (see the link below). Option B is apparently very similar to Appendix P, so it probably also has optional items (CLINs).

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56067.msg2432528#msg2432528
The BAA also specifies that selecting zero bids is a possible outcome.
This just means that congress tells NASA to do another round.

More specifically it would mean there were no qualified bids. What Congress wants to do with the funding is a completely separate question.

And just to note, if for some reason no qualified bids were accepted on this round, that would signal that there is something in the requirements, the funding, or both, that are outside the bounds of American industry to satisfy.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Ben Baley

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 284
  • Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 305
Some of the highlights from the BAA (it's fairly similar to the draft BAA as far as I can tell):

Snip

Quote from: page 34 of the BAA
4.4.5.4 Management Focus 4: Business Approach

The Offeror shall propose a description of its business approach for leveraging any aspect of its HLS effort to enable current and future business uses of HLS capabilities or technologies while maintaining compatibility with NASA’s HLS requirements, facilitating sustainable and cost-effective recurring lunar transportation services for NASA and other customers, and in doing so, stimulating the growth of a viable lunar economy in these areas. The Offeror’s approach shall describe all planned business applications of technologies and capabilities developed and/or demonstrated under this effort and its approach for integrating such technologies and capabilities into current or future applications for existing or emerging markets. If the Offeror proposes to provide services to non-NASA customers during performance of contract activities, the Offeror shall explain how such activities will provide benefits to NASA, including, but not limited to, actual or potential impacts on the Offeror’s firm fixed price (in accordance with contract section H clause, Non-NASA Cargo, Payloads, and Services).


https://sam.gov/opp/846a06fdcf3e408fa84ab6ac93b8cdc8/view

emphasis added


If I'm reading this correctly SpaceX is allowed to sell the excess capacity of it's LSS during NASA missions as long as NASA benefits by, including but not limited to, reducing costs.

So in theory SpaceX could sell extra seats on Artemis III to someone like Jared Isaacman as long as they could demonstrate that NASA will come out ahead.

Maybe they could sell it as testing the ECLS before NASA crew has to rely on it.

Sure, whoever bought them would have to pay for an extra Dragon flight to deliver them to and from LSS in LEO and for the extra tanker flights to get LSS back to LEO, but think of the opportunities. If you got SpaceX to put a really long umbilical on the Polaris EVA suit you could even photobomb NASA's "First woman and person of colour" moment.

I know it's unlikely but just the thought of having someone there to greet the astronauts as they transfer from the relatively cramped Orion to the roomy LSS, makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

And demonstrating an CONOPS that didn't need SLS would make the excrement hit the ventilator in the most wonderful way.

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1841
  • USA
  • Liked: 1507
  • Likes Given: 2609
Some of the highlights from the BAA (it's fairly similar to the draft BAA as far as I can tell):

Snip

Quote from: page 34 of the BAA
4.4.5.4 Management Focus 4: Business Approach

The Offeror shall propose a description of its business approach for leveraging any aspect of its HLS effort to enable current and future business uses of HLS capabilities or technologies while maintaining compatibility with NASA’s HLS requirements, facilitating sustainable and cost-effective recurring lunar transportation services for NASA and other customers, and in doing so, stimulating the growth of a viable lunar economy in these areas. The Offeror’s approach shall describe all planned business applications of technologies and capabilities developed and/or demonstrated under this effort and its approach for integrating such technologies and capabilities into current or future applications for existing or emerging markets. If the Offeror proposes to provide services to non-NASA customers during performance of contract activities, the Offeror shall explain how such activities will provide benefits to NASA, including, but not limited to, actual or potential impacts on the Offeror’s firm fixed price (in accordance with contract section H clause, Non-NASA Cargo, Payloads, and Services).


https://sam.gov/opp/846a06fdcf3e408fa84ab6ac93b8cdc8/view

emphasis added


If I'm reading this correctly SpaceX is allowed to sell the excess capacity of it's LSS during NASA missions as long as NASA benefits by, including but not limited to, reducing costs.

So in theory SpaceX could sell extra seats on Artemis III to someone like Jared Isaacman as long as they could demonstrate that NASA will come out ahead.

Maybe they could sell it as testing the ECLS before NASA crew has to rely on it.

Sure, whoever bought them would have to pay for an extra Dragon flight to deliver them to and from LSS in LEO and for the extra tanker flights to get LSS back to LEO, but think of the opportunities. If you got SpaceX to put a really long umbilical on the Polaris EVA suit you could even photobomb NASA's "First woman and person of colour" moment.

I know it's unlikely but just the thought of having someone there to greet the astronauts as they transfer from the relatively cramped Orion to the roomy LSS, makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

And demonstrating an CONOPS that didn't need SLS would make the excrement hit the ventilator in the most wonderful way.
NASA is buying the launch. Its 100% theirs and spaceX won't have the "rights" bring random rich people with. Also, if you listen to industry watchers, the question is really will lunar starship be ready on time.
SLS works. Undoubtedly orion's ECLS will work. All the big tech questions revolve around starship now for artimis 3.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5705
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4464
  • Likes Given: 1865

More specifically it would mean there were no qualified bids. What Congress wants to do with the funding is a completely separate question.

And just to note, if for some reason no qualified bids were accepted on this round, that would signal that there is something in the requirements, the funding, or both, that are outside the bounds of American industry to satisfy.
Yep. The only Appendix P requirement that "American industry" cannot satisfy is that the bidder cannot be SpaceX. If SpaceX were permitted to bid, the bid would be $1.3 B plus aboue $200M for the extra uncrewed demo. I think SpaceX qualifies as "American industry".  Except for "no SpaceX" the Appendix P requirements are identical to the Option B requirements.

I suppose in some fantasy world SpaceX could have spun off its Falcon and Dragon business into a new non-SpaceX company and bid a new little toy Appendix P lander based on Dragon, to be delivered in three pieces to NRHO via FH. Higher cost, vastly less capable, consistent with the original NASA HLS reference architecture, and cheaper than the alternatives. But why bother?

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5705
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4464
  • Likes Given: 1865
... Also, if you listen to industry watchers, the question is really will lunar starship be ready on time.
SLS works. Undoubtedly orion's ECLS will work. All the big tech questions revolve around starship now for artimis 3.
Artemis 1 retires the main perceived risks in SLS/Orion for Artemis 3. Since NASA's procurement cycle did not manage to award an HLS contract and authorize the bidder to proceed until thirteen months ago (Nov 2021), HLS is now one of the highest remaining tech risks and it will remain so until its uncrewed demo flight. The other big Artemis 3 risk is the spacesuits.


Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39286
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25281
  • Likes Given: 12125
We ARE “The Industry Watchers.” Forum.NASASpaceflight.com
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3585
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2538
  • Likes Given: 2207
If you got SpaceX to put a really long umbilical on the Polaris EVA suit you could even photobomb NASA's "First woman and person of colour" moment.

I guess it needs to be said again:

SpaceX will not shit on its primary customer.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12071
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7411
  • Likes Given: 3777
If you got SpaceX to put a really long umbilical on the Polaris EVA suit you could even photobomb NASA's "First woman and person of colour" moment.

I guess it needs to be said again:

SpaceX will not shit on its primary customer.

It wouldn't be. NASA's statement referred to the moon. NASA has already flown those people in space. Polaris Dawn wouldn't be doing anything different.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5705
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4464
  • Likes Given: 1865
If you got SpaceX to put a really long umbilical on the Polaris EVA suit you could even photobomb NASA's "First woman and person of colour" moment.

I guess it needs to be said again:

SpaceX will not shit on its primary customer.
NASA is not SpaceX' primary customer. Nevertheless, SpaceX will not deliberately antagonize NASA.

Online TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4524
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3374
  • Likes Given: 649
If you got SpaceX to put a really long umbilical on the Polaris EVA suit you could even photobomb NASA's "First woman and person of colour" moment.

I guess it needs to be said again:

SpaceX will not shit on its primary customer.

Or at least they'll hold it until after Artemis III.

One possible fart in NASA's general direction:  They could return the Option A test flight to NRHO, refuel it, and bring it back to LEO.  Then they could send Jared in a D2 to examine the systems for lunar dust wear and tear.  That pretty much exercises all the elements without actually hoisting the Jolly Roger.

After Arty III, all bets are off.  Either NASA (and Congress) acknowledge the reality that Artemis is going nowhere without higher cadence and lower transportation expenses, or it doesn't really matter if SpaceX annoys them, because the program is gonna go down, sooner rather than later.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17365
  • Liked: 7182
  • Likes Given: 3081
If you got SpaceX to put a really long umbilical on the Polaris EVA suit you could even photobomb NASA's "First woman and person of colour" moment.

I guess it needs to be said again:

SpaceX will not shit on its primary customer.
NASA is not SpaceX' primary customer. Nevertheless, SpaceX will not deliberately antagonize NASA.

Primary as in first (not more than 50%). I am pretty sure that NASA is first.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17365
  • Liked: 7182
  • Likes Given: 3081
HLS will be fully funded (including Appendix P) in the FY23 CJS Appropriations bill:

Quote from: page 110 (page 136 of the PDF)
Human Landing System (HLS).- The agreement provides not less than $1,485,600,000 for HLS, including the request level for Sustaining Lunar Development activities, and no less than the requested amount for the Lunar Lander office. NASA is expected to ensure redundancy and competition in the HLS program for research, development testing and evaluation of multiple HLS systems.
« Last Edit: 12/20/2022 01:32 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Ben Baley

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 284
  • Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 305
HLS will be fully funded (including Appendix P) in the FY23 CJS Appropriations bill:

Quote from: page 110 (page 136 of the PDF)
Human Landing System (HLS).- The agreement provides not less than $1,485,600,000 for HLS, including the request level for Sustaining Lunar Development activities, and no less than the requested amount for the Lunar Lander office. NASA is expected to ensure redundancy and competition in the HLS program for research, development testing and evaluation of multiple HLS systems.

HLS is being fully funded with the expectation that pork will flow

 
If you got SpaceX to put a really long umbilical on the Polaris EVA suit you could even photobomb NASA's "First woman and person of colour" moment.

I guess it needs to be said again:

SpaceX will not shit on its primary customer.

Or at least they'll hold it until after Artemis III.

One possible fart in NASA's general direction:  They could return the Option A test flight to NRHO, refuel it, and bring it back to LEO.  Then they could send Jared in a D2 to examine the systems for lunar dust wear and tear.  That pretty much exercises all the elements without actually hoisting the Jolly Roger.

After Arty III, all bets are off.  Either NASA (and Congress) acknowledge the reality that Artemis is going nowhere without higher cadence and lower transportation expenses, or it doesn't really matter if SpaceX annoys them, because the program is gonna go down, sooner rather than later.

My original post was a little tongue in cheek, I don't think think SpaceX will mess with Artemis III, but I agree that after that, that SpaceX's demonstrating a cheaper alternative to Orion/SLS won't hurt them.
« Last Edit: 12/21/2022 02:00 am by Ben Baley »

Online punder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1245
  • Liked: 1841
  • Likes Given: 1444
…if you listen to industry watchers, the question is really will lunar starship be ready on time.
SLS works. Undoubtedly orion's ECLS will work. All the big tech questions revolve around starship now for artimis 3.
Yep. It’s not like SpaceX has a long successful track record at, in addition to other far more substantial things, proving the “industry watchers” wrong on a tediously regular basis.

The obvious retort is “Elon time” but the counter-retort is Boeing time, Lockheed time, Blue Origin time, ESA time, etc.

Edit, sorry, just can’t let this go. Sometimes obtuse assertions like this, absent any and all context, just really (for all y’all Brits) twist my knickers. In 2010, Congress directed NASA to field SLS as “operational” by the end of 2016. So is SLS “operational” now? Six years overdue (now THAT’S some serious Elon time), many $B over budget (who really knows how many), launching an Orion (also years late and $B’s over budget) that still doesn’t have a crew-capable ECLSS *or* a docking system, without which it is utterly pointless? And two years (at least) before a second try.

Meanwhile SpaceX wins the HLS contract in *2020* with an order of magnitude less funding (for a freaking CREWED LUNAR LANDER the size of the S-II), suffers months of legally induced delays, and now it’s cast as the scapegoat, the “long pole”, the reason we won’t get back to the Moon “on schedule.” Schedule? Wha??

Amazing. It surpasseth all understanding.
« Last Edit: 12/21/2022 05:21 am by punder »

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1841
  • USA
  • Liked: 1507
  • Likes Given: 2609
…if you listen to industry watchers, the question is really will lunar starship be ready on time.
SLS works. Undoubtedly orion's ECLS will work. All the big tech questions revolve around starship now for artimis 3.
Yep. It’s not like SpaceX has a long successful track record at, in addition to other far more substantial things, proving the “industry watchers” wrong on a tediously regular basis.

The obvious retort is “Elon time” but the counter-retort is Boeing time, Lockheed time, Blue Origin time, ESA time, etc.

Edit, sorry, just can’t let this go. Sometimes obtuse assertions like this, absent any and all context, just really (for all y’all Brits) twist my knickers. In 2010, Congress directed NASA to field SLS as “operational” by the end of 2016. So is SLS “operational” now? Six years overdue (now THAT’S some serious Elon time), many $B over budget (who really knows how many), launching an Orion (also years late and $B’s over budget) that still doesn’t have a crew-capable ECLSS *or* a docking system, without which it is utterly pointless? And two years (at least) before a second try.

Meanwhile SpaceX wins the HLS contract in *2020* with an order of magnitude less funding (for a freaking CREWED LUNAR LANDER the size of the S-II), suffers months of legally induced delays, and now it’s cast as the scapegoat, the “long pole”, the reason we won’t get back to the Moon “on schedule.” Schedule? Wha??

Amazing. It surpasseth all understanding.
Not really sure what your point was, but it kinda seemed like you said everyone else sux but spaceX got big brain power?

Can spaceX finish HLS? Probably. However that isn't garunteed because there are alot of new things that need to be developed. Starship is a very ambitious program that could run into some very serious problems. Any of these could wreck the schedule and make it very late.
What if propellant transferring doesn't work well. What if the heat tiles fail cause a mild breeze seems to blow them off. What if landing on the moon the first time doesn't work well and they have to try again. There are alot of things that can go wrong and delay the project by years.
« Last Edit: 12/21/2022 03:13 pm by deadman1204 »

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5705
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4464
  • Likes Given: 1865
HLS will be fully funded (including Appendix P) in the FY23 CJS Appropriations bill:

Quote from: page 110 (page 136 of the PDF)
Human Landing System (HLS).- The agreement provides not less than $1,485,600,000 for HLS, including the request level for Sustaining Lunar Development activities, and no less than the requested amount for the Lunar Lander office. NASA is expected to ensure redundancy and competition in the HLS program for research, development testing and evaluation of multiple HLS systems.
HLS is being fully funded with the expectation that pork will flow
Actually, Appendix H was funded with this expectation, but the flow was intercepted and sent to the wrong place, so Congress insisted on funding Appendix P instead to try to get it to flow properly.

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1527
  • Liked: 4834
  • Likes Given: 2

Lunar Starship may develop major technical issues/delays.  That doesn’t change the fact that NASA/Congress had an insane approach to civil human space exploration that funded a heavy lifter and capsule for years with nothing for landers or other necessary elements of an actual exploration architecture.  That’s fundamentally why we’re going to spend $4B to $5B+ a year for Orion/SLS for years to come with no human lunar landing.  Any SpaceX issues would be added to that already lengthy and elongated timeline, not the original cause of it.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1