Author Topic: HLS Option B and the Sustaining Lunar Development Phase (Appendix P)  (Read 223444 times)

Offline tbellman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 964
  • Likes Given: 1
So, as usual, I had (and still have) a terminology confusion.  Presumably, "androgynous docking adapter" means a single integrated adapter that can fill both active and passive roles.  (Wow, I can't wait until the Language Police find this stuff.)  So an AADA must be a separate component that consists of two bi-directional passive interfaces that can glue two active systems together.

No, it's the other way around.  An Active/Active Docking Adapter is an adapter that has two active ports, and can thus connect two spacecrafts that only have passive mechanisms (e.g. Lunar Gateway and an HLS lander).  The nomenclature is similar to how e.g. a coupler for connecting two Ethernet cables is called a female/female coupler if the coupler has two female connectors (and both cables have male connectors).

The HLS lander has the option of either
• have an androgynous docking mechanism,
OR
• have a passive docking mechanism, and bring an AADA with it.

In the latter case, the lander will arrive at the Lunar Gateway with the AADA attached to itself, and thus effectively have an active docking mechanism.  It docks to the Gateway, and when it leaves for the lunar surface, it leaves the AADA attached to the Gateway.  The Lunar Gateway now effectively has an active docking mechanism.

When the lander comes back from the Moon, it can either dock to the AADA still attached to the Gateway, or dock to Orion; both have active docking mechanisms, so the passive mechanism on the lander works for either.

Quote from: TheRadicalModerate
[ . . . ] No matter what it does for self-assembly and/or refueling, the crew module has to dock with the passive Gateway IDA, so it must have an active, extended soft capture ring. [ . . . ]

Note: The Lunar Gateway will not have an IDA (International Docking Adapter).  IDA is an adapter between the APAS-95 and IDSS standards, and is a specific piece of hardware used on ISS.  Lunar Gateway will have an IDSS-compatible docking port, but it will not be in the form of an adapter.

Online TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4395
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3313
  • Likes Given: 639
So, as usual, I had (and still have) a terminology confusion.  Presumably, "androgynous docking adapter" means a single integrated adapter that can fill both active and passive roles.  (Wow, I can't wait until the Language Police find this stuff.)  So an AADA must be a separate component that consists of two bi-directional passive interfaces that can glue two active systems together.

No, it's the other way around.  An Active/Active Docking Adapter is an adapter that has two active ports, and can thus connect two spacecrafts that only have passive mechanisms (e.g. Lunar Gateway and an HLS lander).  The nomenclature is similar to how e.g. a coupler for connecting two Ethernet cables is called a female/female coupler if the coupler has two female connectors (and both cables have male connectors).

The HLS lander has the option of either
• have an androgynous docking mechanism,
OR
• have a passive docking mechanism, and bring an AADA with it.

In the latter case, the lander will arrive at the Lunar Gateway with the AADA attached to itself, and thus effectively have an active docking mechanism.  It docks to the Gateway, and when it leaves for the lunar surface, it leaves the AADA attached to the Gateway.  The Lunar Gateway now effectively has an active docking mechanism.

When the lander comes back from the Moon, it can either dock to the AADA still attached to the Gateway, or dock to Orion; both have active docking mechanisms, so the passive mechanism on the lander works for either.

Quote from: TheRadicalModerate
[ . . . ] No matter what it does for self-assembly and/or refueling, the crew module has to dock with the passive Gateway IDA, so it must have an active, extended soft capture ring. [ . . . ]

Note: The Lunar Gateway will not have an IDA (International Docking Adapter).  IDA is an adapter between the APAS-95 and IDSS standards, and is a specific piece of hardware used on ISS.  Lunar Gateway will have an IDSS-compatible docking port, but it will not be in the form of an adapter.

I'm keeping my streak alive on misunderstanding all things docking, I see.  The AADA having both sides active makes a lot more sense.

More questions, though:

1) Would the lander dock actively to the Gateway, then leave the AADA on the Gateway's port during the surface mission?  That would imply the following:
a) They'd be saving a lot of mass for the NRHO-LS-NRHO leg of the mission (good).
b) They'd be in a position to immediately dock with the Orion if there's a problem (good).
c) Docking back at the Gateway would be weird.  Do you know if a vehicle with a passive ring can act as the "chaser" rather than the "target" in an RPOD?
d) After a docking failure, failure to jettison the AADA from the Gateway would be double-plus ungood.

2) Alternatively, the lander could carry the AADA permanently, only jettisoning it in the contingency where direct docking with the Orion was necessary.  That also has some implications:
a) It's heavy (bad).  Can the AADA save weight by not populating the retraction arms, magnets, and soft latches on the lander side?  Does this have implications for jettisoning it if the lander needs to dock with the Orion?
b) Presumably, the reason that the lander would be docking with the Orion is because something bad happened with the Gateway RPOD.  If the RPOD failure occurs during actual docking, the probability of pranging the AADA and lander passive ring goes up substantially.  That in turn would increase the odds of a jettison failure (bad).

3) I'd assume that all of the Option A competitors have already planned for an active IDSS implementation, so rolling back to a fixed passive IDSS ring would seem weird.

4) Has an AADA actually been implemented yet?  I can't think of any instance where it would have been used.

Given that, I think my conclusion still stands, even though the reasoning by which I reached it was 100% wrong:  I'd expect everybody to bite the bullet and fully implement IDSS androgyny.
« Last Edit: 04/03/2022 06:52 pm by TheRadicalModerate »

Offline tbellman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 964
  • Likes Given: 1
I'm keeping my streak alive on misunderstanding all things docking, I see.  The AADA having both sides active makes a lot more sense.

More questions, though:

1) Would the lander dock actively to the Gateway, then leave the AADA on the Gateway's port during the surface mission?  That would imply the following:
a) They'd be saving a lot of mass for the NRHO-LS-NRHO leg of the mission (good).
b) They'd be in a position to immediately dock with the Orion if there's a problem (good).
c) Docking back at the Gateway would be weird.  Do you know if a vehicle with a passive ring can act as the "chaser" rather than the "target" in an RPOD?
d) After a docking failure, failure to jettison the AADA from the Gateway would be double-plus ungood.

I believe that leaving the docking adapter (if one is used) at the Lunar Gateway is the reasonable way.  The biggest reason for having an adapter instead of building a fully androgynous docking mechanism, should be the dry mass savings on the Gateway-surface-Gateway trip, and I don't think there are any big disadvantages to leaving it attached to the Lunar Gateway instead of to the lander.

I haven't studied the intricacies of IDSS, but from a mechanical point of view, it doesn't matter which side performs the maneuvers; it is the relative motions that matter.  What I imagine could matter, is targeting.  If e.g. the standard says the passive side shall have some optical target pattern, and the active side have cameras/detectors/whatever looking for that target, then it might be that the HLS vendor needs to implement those on both the lander itself and on the AADA.

There probably is no need to jettison the adapter from the Lunar Gateway.  The next lander coming, will either have a passive-only docking mechanism, and thus needs an adapter anyway, or have an androgynous mechanism, and can then deal with active mechanism of the adapter (as long as the adapter has whatever is needed for targeting).

Quote from: TheRadicalModerate
2) Alternatively, the lander could carry the AADA permanently, only jettisoning it in the contingency where direct docking with the Orion was necessary.  That also has some implications:
a) It's heavy (bad).  Can the AADA save weight by not populating the retraction arms, magnets, and soft latches on the lander side?  Does this have implications for jettisoning it if the lander needs to dock with the Orion?
b) Presumably, the reason that the lander would be docking with the Orion is because something bad happened with the Gateway RPOD.  If the RPOD failure occurs during actual docking, the probability of pranging the AADA and lander passive ring goes up substantially.  That in turn would increase the odds of a jettison failure (bad).

Also, it is not enough to just jettison the adapter; it needs to be disposed of.  Else it would effectively turn into a large piece of uncontrolled debris floating around the Lunar Gateway, and posing a risk to the Gateway and everything in its vincinity, including arriving and departing Orions, HLS landers, and GLS supply ships.

So keeping the AADA attached to the lander while it is sortieing to the lunar surface, strikes me as a pretty bad idea.

Quote from: TheRadicalModerate
3) I'd assume that all of the Option A competitors have already planned for an active IDSS implementation, so rolling back to a fixed passive IDSS ring would seem weird.

4) Has an AADA actually been implemented yet?  I can't think of any instance where it would have been used.

Given that, I think my conclusion still stands, even though the reasoning by which I reached it was 100% wrong:  I'd expect everybody to bite the bullet and fully implement IDSS androgyny.

I seem to remember hearing that SpaceX are planning an androgynous docking mechanism for the HLS Starship, but I don't remember where I heard that.  It certainly makes sense for them, as the mass penalty will be pretty small fraction of the dry mass of their lander.

As for the other current and potential future competitors, I don't dare speculate about their plans for docking ports.

Online TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4395
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3313
  • Likes Given: 639
I haven't studied the intricacies of IDSS, but from a mechanical point of view, it doesn't matter which side performs the maneuvers; it is the relative motions that matter.  What I imagine could matter, is targeting.  If e.g. the standard says the passive side shall have some optical target pattern, and the active side have cameras/detectors/whatever looking for that target, then it might be that the HLS vendor needs to implement those on both the lander itself and on the AADA.

The other thing I'd worry about is the soft-capture system "lunge", which conceivably could be integrated with some kind of last-second RCS maneuver as contact was made and the SCS detected its positioning wrt the passive system.  Since the (passive) chaser wouldn't have positioning info about the SCS, it'd be hard to make any adjustments.

Quote
There probably is no need to jettison the adapter from the Lunar Gateway.  The next lander coming, will either have a passive-only docking mechanism, and thus needs an adapter anyway, or have an androgynous mechanism, and can then deal with active mechanism of the adapter (as long as the adapter has whatever is needed for targeting).

That does sorta beg the question of whether the Gateway should simply have an active port.  It would certainly weigh less.

Quote
Also, it is not enough to just jettison the adapter; it needs to be disposed of.  Else it would effectively turn into a large piece of uncontrolled debris floating around the Lunar Gateway, and posing a risk to the Gateway and everything in its vincinity, including arriving and departing Orions, HLS landers, and GLS supply ships.

My understanding is that NRHO is unstable enough that almost everything crashes into the Moon in short order.  Not in weeks, months, or a small number of years, but it's not like you have to worry about debris for decades or centuries.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
From slide 14:

Quote from: page 14 of the Industry Day slides
Timeline

• 3/31/22 Draft Solicitation issued as a Request for Information (RFI)
• 4/04/22 Industry Day
• 4/06/22 Begin Industry one-on-ones
• Summer 2022 Final Solicitation Issued
• 60 Days after Final Solicitation Proposal Due
• 1/31/2023 Anticipated Contract Award
« Last Edit: 04/05/2022 04:09 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
I am not sure this is the best thread for this but there was several posts about this topic on this thread, so I think that is appropriate in the circumstances. In today's space symposium presentation, when asked how they saw the lunar and cislunar economy 20 years from now, Jim Free and Ken Bowersox gave very encouraging answers to that question and said that they hope that NASA is buying commercial services for access to the Moon like it is doing so with ISS. They made an analogy with commercial access to LEO saying that the same thing could happen for the Moon and cislunar space. Jim Free said that NASA could purchase commercial services to the Moon (not as the sole owner) while NASA pushes on to Mars. He said that NASA is purchasing lander services as opposed to owning the landers because it wants to be able to push the next boundary. Bowersox added that he believes that we will see private missions that go to the lunar surface.

It's at 40 minutes of the video:



Incidentally, their answers are consistent with the Artemis plan:

Quote from: page 59 of The Artemis Plan
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
« Last Edit: 04/05/2022 07:46 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Jim Bridenstine chimes in the second lander debate:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1511406869985861638

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1782
  • USA
  • Liked: 1468
  • Likes Given: 2520
Jim Bridenstine chimes in the second lander debate:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1511406869985861638

Bridenstine's comments don't hold any value on this matter anymore. He is paid to say things to benefit the companies he works for, and also trying to get back into politics (running for office). 

Online JayWee

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 997
  • Liked: 986
  • Likes Given: 1836
Bridenstine's comments don't hold any value on this matter anymore. He is paid to say things to benefit the companies he works for, and also trying to get back into politics (running for office). 
He's been quite vocal on commercialization even when he was in congress. I remember watching his talk, while being a rep, before becoming NASA Admin, and being quite impressed.

Edit: As an example, here's a short interview with him from 2017.
« Last Edit: 04/05/2022 08:41 pm by JayWee »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Jim Bridenstine chimes in the second lander debate:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1511406869985861638

Bridenstine's comments don't hold any value on this matter anymore. He is paid to say things to benefit the companies he works for, and also trying to get back into politics (running for office).

I don't think that Bridenstine is trying to get back into politics. He didn't enter the race for the open Oklahoma Senate seat and I don't think that he is going back to the House either. He had already said that he would term limit himself to 3 terms (he served 2 and a half). However, it is possible that he might serve again as a political appointee.

In any event, what he is saying on HLS is entirely consistent with what he believed in when he was NASA administrator.
« Last Edit: 04/05/2022 08:16 pm by yg1968 »

Online VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Liked: 4664
  • Likes Given: 2
Bridenstine's comments don't hold any value on this matter anymore. He is paid to say things to benefit the companies he works for, and also trying to get back into politics (running for office).

Doesn’t matter.  The comments are accurate.  Companies other than those backed by billionaires are putting $ into HLS proposals.  It’s just factual.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
Jim Bridenstine chimes in the second lander debate:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1511406869985861638

Who specifically is "raising money from private markets" for HLS?

Not SpaceX. Not Blue Origin. Unlikely Dynetics would, since they are a division of Leidos, a public company. Nor Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman, who are both public companies.

So who is he talking about?
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 yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Jim Bridenstine chimes in the second lander debate:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1511406869985861638

Who specifically is "raising money from private markets" for HLS?

Not SpaceX. Not Blue Origin. Unlikely Dynetics would, since they are a division of Leidos, a public company. Nor Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman, who are both public companies.

So who is he talking about?

Voyager Space and Sierra Space are involved in the Dynetics lander and both raised money from private markets. Bridenstine is on the board of Voyager Space.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2022 01:31 am by yg1968 »

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1782
  • USA
  • Liked: 1468
  • Likes Given: 2520
Jim Bridenstine chimes in the second lander debate:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1511406869985861638

Who specifically is "raising money from private markets" for HLS?

Not SpaceX. Not Blue Origin. Unlikely Dynetics would, since they are a division of Leidos, a public company. Nor Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman, who are both public companies.

So who is he talking about?

Voyager Space and Sierra Space are involved in the Dynetics lander and both raised money from private markets. Bridenstine is on the board of Voyager Space.

Not only this, but ALL of his public comments are now seen through the lense that his opinion is for sale. He cannot/will not say anything that is detrimental to any of his financial interests now.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Jim Bridenstine chimes in the second lander debate:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1511406869985861638

Who specifically is "raising money from private markets" for HLS?

Not SpaceX. Not Blue Origin. Unlikely Dynetics would, since they are a division of Leidos, a public company. Nor Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman, who are both public companies.

So who is he talking about?

Voyager Space and Sierra Space are involved in the Dynetics lander and both raised money from private markets. Bridenstine is on the board of Voyager Space.

Not only this, but ALL of his public comments are now seen through the lense that his opinion is for sale. He cannot/will not say anything that is detrimental to any of his financial interests now.

Right but that is also true of Elon Musk and people listen to Musk's ideas for space.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
Jim Bridenstine chimes in the second lander debate:

{tweet removed to conserve space}
Who specifically is "raising money from private markets" for HLS?

Not SpaceX. Not Blue Origin. Unlikely Dynetics would, since they are a division of Leidos, a public company. Nor Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman, who are both public companies.

So who is he talking about?
Voyager Space and Sierra Space are involved in the Dynetics lander and both raised money from private markets. Bridenstine is on the board of Voyager Space.
Not only this, but ALL of his public comments are now seen through the lense that his opinion is for sale. He cannot/will not say anything that is detrimental to any of his financial interests now.
Right but that is also true of Elon Musk and people listen to Musk's ideas for space.

Everyone knows that Elon Musk = SpaceX. Plus, Elon Musk has actually BUILT space hardware, so of course people listen when he talks.

Hardly anyone knows that Jim Bridenstine has a financial stake in the outcome of a NASA lunar lander competition. And Jim Bridenstine was the political leader of NASA, he has never built hardware, so why would anyone listen to his recommendations...  ;)
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Liked: 2295
  • Likes Given: 4433
Jim Bridenstine chimes in the second lander debate:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1511406869985861638

Who specifically is "raising money from private markets" for HLS?

Not SpaceX. Not Blue Origin. Unlikely Dynetics would, since they are a division of Leidos, a public company. Nor Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman, who are both public companies.

So who is he talking about?

What makes you think SpaceX have not raised private money?

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
Jim Bridenstine chimes in the second lander debate:

{tweet removed}
Who specifically is "raising money from private markets" for HLS?

Not SpaceX. Not Blue Origin. Unlikely Dynetics would, since they are a division of Leidos, a public company. Nor Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman, who are both public companies.

So who is he talking about?
What makes you think SpaceX have not raised private money?

1. I never said they have never raised private money over the decades they have been around. The topic is whether they needed to raise private money for the HLS program. In which case, what makes you think they have?

2. SpaceX won a contract for developing the Starship HLS, and by law their contract has to include some degree of profit, so why would they need to raise money for their HLS efforts?

Seems like you have the burden of proof here, not me.  ;)
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Liked: 4664
  • Likes Given: 2
Who specifically is "raising money from private markets" for HLS?

I think you’re reading too much into a tweet.  It states that these are companies raising private capital and that these are companies that are supporting an activity that would otherwise be fully born by the taxpayer.  The latter is not necessarily specific to the former.

Regardless, it’s a molehill, not a mountain.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0