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

[yg1968]

You can’t control what a future, TBD NASA Administrator, White House, or even Congress will do (although Congress is a bit more predictable) a decade or more into the future.  Heck, we couldn’t control the reversals and left turns Griffin took just a couple years after the VSE.

Yes, I agree. But I think that Nelson needs to say and repeat that NASA is going to the Moon to stay. Bridenstine used to say it more often. 

All you can really do now is put in place the building blocks that will make it easier for future decision makers to continue or expand the program that you favor.  That’s why I’m harping on getting alternatives to Orion/SLS started now, not years from now.  By then, it’s too late.

Why would it be too late? I am not advocating for delaying a commercial crew to BLEO program (namely because I want more than one commercial provider and I also think that SpaceX could use the money) but you can argue that NASA should wait for SpaceX to finish its crewed Starship before buying services from them for Earth to BLEO services.

[Coastal Ron]

You can’t control what a future, TBD NASA Administrator, White House, or even Congress will do (although Congress is a bit more predictable) a decade or more into the future.  Heck, we couldn’t control the reversals and left turns Griffin took just a couple years after the VSE.

Yes, I agree. But I think that Nelson needs to say and repeat that NASA is going to the Moon to stay.

The Artemis program is not a program to "stay" on the Moon, but only visit for a few weeks each year.

Bridenstine used to say it more often.

Bridenstine was uttering aspirational wishes, not policy.

All you can really do now is put in place the building blocks that will make it easier for future decision makers to continue or expand the program that you favor.  That’s why I’m harping on getting alternatives to Orion/SLS started now, not years from now.  By then, it’s too late.

Why would it be too late? I am not advocating for delaying a commercial crew to BLEO program (namely because I want more than one commercial provider and I also think that SpaceX could use the money) but you can argue that NASA should wait for SpaceX to finish its crewed Starship before buying services from them for Earth to BLEO services.

Despite what you are saying, you keep making this an either/or situation between the SLS and the Starship. It is NOT, and it never has been.

We don't need to wait for any transportation system to be developed before cancelling the SLS, and in fact it would save time and money to cancel the SLS now, and allow NASA to focus 100% on the better solution.

Well before the Starship became a thing I've been advocating that the President should announce that America is expending its economic sphere of influence out into space, starting with a reusable transportation system to the region of the Moon. This can be an international effort, and should certainly rely on private transportation systems that can provide redundant transportation opportunities.

After this reusable, redundant transport segment is in place, then adding transport segments to the surface of the Moon or beyond Earth orbit (BEO) would be relatively easy.

The SpaceX Starship can be part of this, but the SLS can't. So the sooner we end the SLS program the sooner NASA can focus on creating the transportation systems that can truly allow NASA to stay on the Moon - not just visit once a year.

[VSECOTSPE]

Why would it be too late? I am not advocating for delaying a commercial crew to BLEO program (namely because I want more than one commercial provider and I also think that SpaceX could use the money) but you can argue that NASA should wait for SpaceX to finish its crewed Starship before buying services from them for Earth to BLEO services.

The FY23 budget is out.  So starting “now” means means that we’re working with the FY24 budget, which won’t come out until this time next year (February 2023) and likely won’t be passed until sometime after the election (early CY 2024).  Assuming NASA has the final solicitation ready to go, it will still take the better part of a year for industry to respond and NASA to assess proposals.  So we’re looking at early 2025-ish before someone is under contract and bending metal.  I think even for a Starship fleet/industry base flying bazillionaire tourists by that time (maybe, maybe not), it’s going to be a few years until it can be modified and certified for NASA lunar crew transport needs/requirements.  That’s pushing 2028-2030.  That’s into the next Administration, which may be too late to help Artemis.

That’s a very optimistic scenario.  More likely, Congress, even with Shelby’s retirement, opposes or grumbles about the idea for a year or two (as they did with commercial crew, ISS follow-on, HLS, etc.) and delays or slow rolls funding.  Also likely, I think, it will take some time for Starship to get to the point it is flying human payloads.  Consistent with the IG, I think 2027-2028 is much more likely for a crewed Lunar Starship than 2025.  We also shouldn’t assume or rely solely on Starship.  A system that requires more development from scratch may be selected instead.  Any of those singly or in combination would push a service start well into the early or mid-2030s.  I think that definitely risks being too late to help Artemis.

Although I’d love to be surprised, the reality is that none of this is going to get started while Nelson sits in the Administrator’s chair, which pushes it too far into the future to help Artemis at all.  And even if Nelson had to retire tomorrow, I don’t see this Administration grappling with this given everything else they’re juggling, which again pushes this too far into the future to help Artemis at all.  So that’s why I advise terminating Artemis sooner (although I obviously do not expect that to happen) than later.

[deadman1204]

Why would it be too late? I am not advocating for delaying a commercial crew to BLEO program (namely because I want more than one commercial provider and I also think that SpaceX could use the money) but you can argue that NASA should wait for SpaceX to finish its crewed Starship before buying services from them for Earth to BLEO services.

The FY23 budget is out.  So starting “now” means means that we’re working with the FY24 budget, which won’t come out until this time next year (February 2023) and likely won’t be passed until sometime after the election (early CY 2024).  Assuming NASA has the final solicitation ready to go, it will still take the better part of a year for industry to respond and NASA to assess proposals.  So we’re looking at early 2025-ish before someone is under contract and bending metal.  I think even for a Starship fleet/industry base flying bazillionaire tourists by that time (maybe, maybe not), it’s going to be a few years until it can be modified and certified for NASA lunar crew transport needs/requirements.  That’s pushing 2028-2030.  That’s into the next Administration, which may be too late to help Artemis.

That’s a very optimistic scenario.  More likely, Congress, even with Shelby’s retirement, opposes or grumbles about the idea for a year or two (as they did with commercial crew, ISS follow-on, HLS, etc.) and delays or slow rolls funding.  Also likely, I think, it will take some time for Starship to get to the point it is flying human payloads.  Consistent with the IG, I think 2027-2028 is much more likely for a crewed Lunar Starship than 2025.  We also shouldn’t assume or rely solely on Starship.  A system that requires more development from scratch may be selected instead.  Any of those singly or in combination would push a service start well into the early or mid-2030s.  I think that definitely risks being too late to help Artemis.

Although I’d love to be surprised, the reality is that none of this is going to get started while Nelson sits in the Administrator’s chair, which pushes it too far into the future to help Artemis at all.  And even if Nelson had to retire tomorrow, I don’t see this Administration grappling with this given everything else they’re juggling, which again pushes this too far into the future to help Artemis at all.  So that’s why I advise terminating Artemis sooner (although I obviously do not expect that to happen) than later.

This budget won't ever see the light of day. Its an election year where republicans will probably take part of congress. The 2022 budget was so late because they tried to slow walk everything. There is no way they will allow another budget to pass.

[yg1968]

The Artemis program is not a program to "stay" on the Moon, but only visit for a few weeks each year.

You know what I mean when I say "stay on the Moon", I mean to not leave the Moon for decades as we did for Apollo.

Bridenstine was uttering aspirational wishes, not policy.

No, I disagree, the Artemis Plan made it clear that it was a sustainable program, meaning that it isn't suppose to end after a few missions. See below and also the slide that I posted above.

Sustainable Artemis Missions

[...] NASA will work with Artemis providers to ensure spacecraft are built to international interoperability standards with as many reusable components as possible for long-term sustainability at the Moon.

This incremental build-up of capabilities on and around the Moon is essential to establishing long term exploration of Earth’s nearest neighbor and preparing for human exploration of Mars.

Americans will return to the Moon in 2024. Following this 2024 landing, we will develop a sustained, strategic presence at the lunar South Pole called the Artemis Base Camp. Our activities at the Artemis Base Camp over the next decade will pave the way for long-term economic and scientific activity at the Moon, as well as for the first human mission to Mars in the 2030s.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/artemis_plan-20200921.pdf

[yg1968]

Why would it be too late? I am not advocating for delaying a commercial crew to BLEO program (namely because I want more than one commercial provider and I also think that SpaceX could use the money) but you can argue that NASA should wait for SpaceX to finish its crewed Starship before buying services from them for Earth to BLEO services.

The FY23 budget is out.  So starting “now” means means that we’re working with the FY24 budget, which won’t come out until this time next year (February 2023) and likely won’t be passed until sometime after the election (early CY 2024).  Assuming NASA has the final solicitation ready to go, it will still take the better part of a year for industry to respond and NASA to assess proposals.  So we’re looking at early 2025-ish before someone is under contract and bending metal.  I think even for a Starship fleet/industry base flying bazillionaire tourists by that time (maybe, maybe not), it’s going to be a few years until it can be modified and certified for NASA lunar crew transport needs/requirements.  That’s pushing 2028-2030.  That’s into the next Administration, which may be too late to help Artemis.

That’s a very optimistic scenario.  More likely, Congress, even with Shelby’s retirement, opposes or grumbles about the idea for a year or two (as they did with commercial crew, ISS follow-on, HLS, etc.) and delays or slow rolls funding.  Also likely, I think, it will take some time for Starship to get to the point it is flying human payloads.  Consistent with the IG, I think 2027-2028 is much more likely for a crewed Lunar Starship than 2025.  We also shouldn’t assume or rely solely on Starship.  A system that requires more development from scratch may be selected instead.  Any of those singly or in combination would push a service start well into the early or mid-2030s.  I think that definitely risks being too late to help Artemis.

Although I’d love to be surprised, the reality is that none of this is going to get started while Nelson sits in the Administrator’s chair, which pushes it too far into the future to help Artemis at all.  And even if Nelson had to retire tomorrow, I don’t see this Administration grappling with this given everything else they’re juggling, which again pushes this too far into the future to help Artemis at all.  So that’s why I advise terminating Artemis sooner (although I obviously do not expect that to happen) than later.

This budget won't ever see the light of day. Its an election year where republicans will probably take part of congress. The 2022 budget was so late because they tried to slow walk everything. There is no way they will allow another budget to pass.

As I told you before, full-year CRs are very rare. You need a bipartisan support (60 senators) for appropriations bill to pass in the Senate anyways, so that doesn't change after the election. They will agree to something after the election, possibly in March again.

[TheRadicalModerate]

One thing that I wish that a reporter would have asked is the timing of Option B. Like Option A, Option B requires a new solicitation, so it's a not just a matter of exercising an option. My guess is that Option B will be awarded before Appendix P since it fits under the current budget.

Lisa Watson-Morgan mentioned that the App. P and Option B requirements will "mirror" each other.  I think that's a way of saying that they're the same.  So I think that it's basically a level playing field from a requirements standpoint, with SpaceX having to convince NASA that its bid is worthy of exercising Option B.

I confess to not having read the full thread yet, but I'm deeply confused by Arty 4 not having a landing associated with it.  Is this likely to change once NASA (presumably) accepts SpaceX's Option B bid?  The most obvious thing would be if Option B uncrewed occurred in 2026, where there's no SLS/Orion, and then Option B crewed was matched up to Arty 4 in 2027.  Then, assuming somebody gets their act together, Arty 5 can be the first Appendix P crewed flight.

Does that make sense?  Does anybody disagree that wasting an SLS/Orion without a lunar surface mission makes no sense at all?

[yg1968]

Despite what you are saying, you keep making this an either/or situation between the SLS and the Starship. It is NOT, and it never has been.

We don't need to wait for any transportation system to be developed before cancelling the SLS, and in fact it would save time and money to cancel the SLS now, and allow NASA to focus 100% on the better solution.

Well before the Starship became a thing I've been advocating that the President should announce that America is expending its economic sphere of influence out into space, starting with a reusable transportation system to the region of the Moon. This can be an international effort, and should certainly rely on private transportation systems that can provide redundant transportation opportunities.

After this reusable, redundant transport segment is in place, then adding transport segments to the surface of the Moon or beyond Earth orbit (BEO) would be relatively easy.

The SpaceX Starship can be part of this, but the SLS can't. So the sooner we end the SLS program the sooner NASA can focus on creating the transportation systems that can truly allow NASA to stay on the Moon - not just visit once a year.

Despite what you are saying, SLS isn't getting cancelled by Congress any time soon.

[yg1968]

One thing that I wish that a reporter would have asked is the timing of Option B. Like Option A, Option B requires a new solicitation, so it's a not just a matter of exercising an option. My guess is that Option B will be awarded before Appendix P since it fits under the current budget.

Lisa Watson-Morgan mentioned that the App. P and Option B requirements will "mirror" each other.  I think that's a way of saying that they're the same.  So I think that it's basically a level playing field from a requirements standpoint, with SpaceX having to convince NASA that its bid is worthy of exercising Option B.

I confess to not having read the full thread yet, but I'm deeply confused by Arty 4 not having a landing associated with it.  Is this likely to change once NASA (presumably) accepts SpaceX's Option B bid?  The most obvious thing would be if Option B uncrewed occurred in 2026, where there's no SLS/Orion, and then Option B crewed was matched up to Arty 4 in 2027.  Then, assuming somebody gets their act together, Arty 5 can be the first Appendix P crewed flight.

Does that make sense?  Does anybody disagree that wasting an SLS/Orion without a lunar surface mission makes no sense at all?

There is no option B uncrewed demo, only a crewed demo. I agree that it makes no sense for Artemis IV not to go to the surface of the Moon, if Option B is exercised. The option B contract is essentially a sole source contract but it is still a contract that has to be agreed to by both parties (NASA and SpaceX). The same requirements will exist for the Appendix P and Option B sollicitations but they remain seperate solicitations. I don't know if they will be awarded at the same time, my guess is that they won't but I could be wrong. I guess that we will find out when the sollicitations come out in the next couple of days.

[TheRadicalModerate]

One other thing that's lurking in the requirement for either Appendix P or Option B to dock at the Gateway:  Option A LSS must be a passive IDSS implementation, because Orion is active only.  Presumably, Gateway will also be passive only, so the docking ring has to be active.  So LSS has to change its docking architecture to implement Option B.

The obvious thing for LSS to do is to implement the IDSS active-active option (which, AIUI, is really an active soft-capture ring that's latched in the retracted position and has three additional passive capture latches on it), but so far there aren't any active-active implementations with any flight heritage.  Presumably, the Option B/App. P uncrewed test flight would provide a live test for this, but does anybody know how much ground testing and certification hassle is required for such a docking system?

[yg1968]

Presumably, the Option B/App. P uncrewed test flight would provide a live test for this, but does anybody know how much ground testing and certification hassle is required for such a docking system?

I don't know. However, you should note that Option B doesn't have an uncrewed test but Appendix P does (per Jim Free).

[TheRadicalModerate]

There is no option B uncrewed, only a crewed demo.

Thanks, I was confused about that.  (Even more confused than everything else--they really went to extraordinary lengths to avoid saying, "And of course because SpaceX will already have something working, we'll keep using it unless they completely screw the pooch.")

[yg1968]

There is no option B uncrewed, only a crewed demo.

Thanks, I was confused about that.  (Even more confused than everything else--they really went to extraordinary lengths to avoid saying, "And of course because SpaceX will already have something working, we'll keep using it unless they completely screw the pooch.")

Option B is only one more mission. After that, you would get into the services procurement (which may or may not be called LETS). The services procurement has been delayed for a while.

[DanClemmensen]

One other thing that's lurking in the requirement for either Appendix P or Option B to dock at the Gateway:  Option A LSS must be a passive IDSS implementation, because Orion is active only.  Presumably, Gateway will also be passive only, so the docking ring has to be active.  So LSS has to change its docking architecture to implement Option B.

The obvious thing for LSS to do is to implement the IDSS active-active option (which, AIUI, is really an active soft-capture ring that's latched in the retracted position and has three additional passive capture latches on it), but so far there aren't any active-active implementations with any flight heritage.  Presumably, the Option B/App. P uncrewed test flight would provide a live test for this, but does anybody know how much ground testing and certification hassle is required for such a docking system?

As I understand it, the Option A HLS must implement both the active mode and the passive mode, because it must be able to dock with the Gateway if it is available and it must be able to dock with Orion if Gateway is not available. NASA had already announced that Gateway was optional some time ago.

[TheRadicalModerate]

One other thing that's lurking in the requirement for either Appendix P or Option B to dock at the Gateway:  Option A LSS must be a passive IDSS implementation, because Orion is active only.  Presumably, Gateway will also be passive only, so the docking ring has to be active.  So LSS has to change its docking architecture to implement Option B.

The obvious thing for LSS to do is to implement the IDSS active-active option (which, AIUI, is really an active soft-capture ring that's latched in the retracted position and has three additional passive capture latches on it), but so far there aren't any active-active implementations with any flight heritage.  Presumably, the Option B/App. P uncrewed test flight would provide a live test for this, but does anybody know how much ground testing and certification hassle is required for such a docking system?

As I understand it, the Option A HLS must implement both the active mode and the passive mode, because it must be able to dock with the Gateway if it is available and it must be able to dock with Orion if Gateway is not available. NASA had already announced that Gateway was optional some time ago.

If Gateway access is optional for Option A, then it only needs to be passive.  But when Gateway access is required (as it is for Option B/App. P), then it must at least be active.  (Note that the only way then for crew to get from Orion to LSS and vice-versa would be through the Gateway, unless SpaceX did its implementation as active-active--which it almost certainly would, because they'll want to support LSS-to-LSS docking, for various reasons.

[DreamyPickle]

...That’s pushing 2028-2030.  That’s into the next Administration, which may be too late to help Artemis.

... Any of those singly or in combination would push a service start well into the early or mid-2030s.  I think that definitely risks being too late to help Artemis.

Although I’d love to be surprised, the reality is that none of this is going to get started while Nelson sits in the Administrator’s chair, which pushes it too far into the future to help Artemis at all.  And even if Nelson had to retire tomorrow, I don’t see this Administration grappling with this given everything else they’re juggling, which again pushes this too far into the future to help Artemis at all.  So that’s why I advise terminating Artemis sooner (although I obviously do not expect that to happen) than later.

It is very surprising to see so much talk about the impending termination of Artemis, I really don't understand.

None of the Artemis program hardware has flown, many new contracts are being announced and we are seeing active and successful political pressure to spend more money on it (for the second lander). From an outside space fan perspective this looks like the healthiest human exploration program since the ISS. What am I missing?

It certainly seems likely that Orion and Gateway and Starship will actually fly and any decisions regarding the continuation of the program will happen in an environment where the US has regained the capability to land crew on the Moon. Would an US administration in 2028 or 2032 really decide to cancel it? Seems extremely dubious and a very premature discussion to have.

[kevinof]

So there are no manned Artemis flights to the moon in 2026 and 2027 which is a long gap ( and stupid if you ask me). SpaceX will already have done a crewed landing of the HLS so what’s to stop them from running their own flights to the surface during this time?

Assuming they can get to/from the moon from LEO , they will have a lander already tested.  Might piss off NASA and some politicians but might be good for further testing Starship in deep space.

[lykos]

What's realy stops them to land and stay soon on the moon, is their stupid stick to SLS/Orion.
It's for sure not the fault of NASA.
What could be done on the moon with this over $ 6 billion per year(!), they throw away now with this truely miserable program!
Stop my tears or I have to swim! 

[libra]

So there are no manned Artemis flights to the moon in 2026 and 2027 which is a long gap ( and stupid if you ask me). SpaceX will already have done a crewed landing of the HLS so what’s to stop them from running their own flights to the surface during this time?

Assuming they can get to/from the moon from LEO , they will have a lander already tested.  Might piss off NASA and some politicians but might be good for further testing Starship in deep space.

Such absurd situation... two different Starships to the same place (!)
- one for NASA, rammed into an expensive SLS Orion architecture, because Congress
- one SpaceX out of their main Mars effort, fully reusable.
 The only hope is for sanity to prevail and the latter screws the former.

[kevinof]

So there are no manned Artemis flights to the moon in 2026 and 2027 which is a long gap ( and stupid if you ask me). SpaceX will already have done a crewed landing of the HLS so what’s to stop them from running their own flights to the surface during this time?

Assuming they can get to/from the moon from LEO , they will have a lander already tested.  Might piss off NASA and some politicians but might be good for further testing Starship in deep space.

Such absurd situation... two different Starships to the same place (!)
- one for NASA, rammed into an expensive SLS Orion architecture, because Congress
- one SpaceX out of their main Mars effort, fully reusable.
 The only hope is for sanity to prevail and the latter screws the former.

It is absurd but then this is usually the case when it comes to congress funded space programs. I don’t expect sanity to suddenly kick in and plans to change.

I had just hoped then when the U.S. decided to go back to the moon and stay, it really meant “stay”. This Artemis program is nothing close to staying - more of a yearly (if even) short visit and scoot off again and all at a very high cost.

Maybe SpaceX can run a couple of tourist flights to the surface during these years!