Author Topic: HLS Option B and the Sustaining Lunar Development Phase (Appendix P)  (Read 226596 times)

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5546
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4374
  • Likes Given: 1782
<snip>
I have to believe that a nice, juicy co-manifest is a a piece of PR on which both MSFC and Boeing would insist.  I can't think of something other than I-Hab that would be good to go.

That said, two possibilities, both of them pure speculation:

1) I wonder if they've found a way to park or modestly secure I-Hab without doing the full commissioning on Arty IV, leaving some of the work for Arty V.  If HALO and PPE are operational, there would be a lifeboat if something went pear-shaped, even if I-Hab was just sitting there, unusable.  (No clue if there are consumables that need power or not.)

2) SpaceX may have briefed NASA on Option B, and NASA now believes that they have substantially more mission life than they were willing to assume with Option A.  If that's the case, then the surface crew could come back and help out without having to high-tail it back to TEI right away--and the Option B ECLSS could keep things in HALO going long enough to finish the commissioning.

Note that both of these options would require docking both the LSS and the Orion on HALO, because even if I-Hab isn't fully commissioned, it's gonna eat the other HALO axial port.  I suspect that requires commissioning one of the radial ports earlier than imagined.
Of course you could parked the Orion to a different LSS/Starship, presuming that SpaceX will maintain more than 2 LSS/Starhip in cislunar space.

Will be interesting if I-Hab will wait for SLS Block 1B with the EUS stage. Or take a earlier ride with commercial heavy lift.
That of course assumes that I-Hab will be ready by the time SLS Block 1B is ready for it's payload.
Sadly, it's about politics, not functionality. If they only cared about delivering a functional habitation module, they should use yet another modified Starship. Cheaper, quicker to develop, much larger, and it delivers itself. At least three times the habitable volume even if you ignore the possibility of converting the tanks.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17303
  • Liked: 7136
  • Likes Given: 3066
<snip>
I have to believe that a nice, juicy co-manifest is a a piece of PR on which both MSFC and Boeing would insist.  I can't think of something other than I-Hab that would be good to go.

That said, two possibilities, both of them pure speculation:

1) I wonder if they've found a way to park or modestly secure I-Hab without doing the full commissioning on Arty IV, leaving some of the work for Arty V.  If HALO and PPE are operational, there would be a lifeboat if something went pear-shaped, even if I-Hab was just sitting there, unusable.  (No clue if there are consumables that need power or not.)

2) SpaceX may have briefed NASA on Option B, and NASA now believes that they have substantially more mission life than they were willing to assume with Option A.  If that's the case, then the surface crew could come back and help out without having to high-tail it back to TEI right away--and the Option B ECLSS could keep things in HALO going long enough to finish the commissioning.

Note that both of these options would require docking both the LSS and the Orion on HALO, because even if I-Hab isn't fully commissioned, it's gonna eat the other HALO axial port.  I suspect that requires commissioning one of the radial ports earlier than imagined.
Of course you could parked the Orion to a different LSS/Starship, presuming that SpaceX will maintain more than 2 LSS/Starhip in cislunar space.

Will be interesting if I-Hab will wait for SLS Block 1B with the EUS stage. Or take a earlier ride with commercial heavy lift.
That of course assumes that I-Hab will be ready by the time SLS Block 1B is ready for it's payload.
Sadly, it's about politics, not functionality. If they only cared about delivering a functional habitation module, they should use yet another modified Starship. Cheaper, quicker to develop, much larger, and it delivers itself. At least three times the habitable volume even if you ignore the possibility of converting the tanks.

To the extent that Artemis IV is going to the lunar surface anyways, why not use SLS and Orion as a tug for iHab? I am not sure that using Starship makes sense in this case. If NASA were to buy another iCPS, it would be for an Artemis III.5 mission, not for Artemis IV.

Offline Athelstane

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
  • Washington, D.C.
  • Liked: 309
  • Likes Given: 860
<snip>
I have to believe that a nice, juicy co-manifest is a a piece of PR on which both MSFC and Boeing would insist.  I can't think of something other than I-Hab that would be good to go.

That said, two possibilities, both of them pure speculation:

1) I wonder if they've found a way to park or modestly secure I-Hab without doing the full commissioning on Arty IV, leaving some of the work for Arty V.  If HALO and PPE are operational, there would be a lifeboat if something went pear-shaped, even if I-Hab was just sitting there, unusable.  (No clue if there are consumables that need power or not.)

2) SpaceX may have briefed NASA on Option B, and NASA now believes that they have substantially more mission life than they were willing to assume with Option A.  If that's the case, then the surface crew could come back and help out without having to high-tail it back to TEI right away--and the Option B ECLSS could keep things in HALO going long enough to finish the commissioning.

Note that both of these options would require docking both the LSS and the Orion on HALO, because even if I-Hab isn't fully commissioned, it's gonna eat the other HALO axial port.  I suspect that requires commissioning one of the radial ports earlier than imagined.
Of course you could parked the Orion to a different LSS/Starship, presuming that SpaceX will maintain more than 2 LSS/Starhip in cislunar space.

Will be interesting if I-Hab will wait for SLS Block 1B with the EUS stage. Or take a earlier ride with commercial heavy lift.
That of course assumes that I-Hab will be ready by the time SLS Block 1B is ready for it's payload.
Sadly, it's about politics, not functionality. If they only cared about delivering a functional habitation module, they should use yet another modified Starship. Cheaper, quicker to develop, much larger, and it delivers itself. At least three times the habitable volume even if you ignore the possibility of converting the tanks.

To the extent that Artemis IV is going to the lunar surface anyways, why not use SLS and Orion as a tug for iHab? I am not sure that using Starship makes sense in this case. If NASA were to buy another iCPS, it would be for an Artemis III.5 mission, not for Artemis IV.

The thing is, you don't even need Starship to deliver iHab. It had its diameter reduced from 4.2 meters to 3.4 meters, and internal length reduced from 6.6 meters to 5.9 meters, to be compatible with a Falcon Heavy launch if that proved necessary.

The problem with EUS isn't that it doesn't make SLS into a more capable platform - it does. The problem is that the capability it provides is *already* available through existing and near term commercial heavy launch vehicles. And we're going to pay a pretty penny for that redundant capability.

Offline Athelstane

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
  • Washington, D.C.
  • Liked: 309
  • Likes Given: 860
For those who missed it, Marcia Smith got a little clarification from NASA on that slide:



Link to tweet: https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1586126683471593474

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5546
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4374
  • Likes Given: 1782
<snip>
I have to believe that a nice, juicy co-manifest is a a piece of PR on which both MSFC and Boeing would insist.  I can't think of something other than I-Hab that would be good to go.

That said, two possibilities, both of them pure speculation:

1) I wonder if they've found a way to park or modestly secure I-Hab without doing the full commissioning on Arty IV, leaving some of the work for Arty V.  If HALO and PPE are operational, there would be a lifeboat if something went pear-shaped, even if I-Hab was just sitting there, unusable.  (No clue if there are consumables that need power or not.)

2) SpaceX may have briefed NASA on Option B, and NASA now believes that they have substantially more mission life than they were willing to assume with Option A.  If that's the case, then the surface crew could come back and help out without having to high-tail it back to TEI right away--and the Option B ECLSS could keep things in HALO going long enough to finish the commissioning.

Note that both of these options would require docking both the LSS and the Orion on HALO, because even if I-Hab isn't fully commissioned, it's gonna eat the other HALO axial port.  I suspect that requires commissioning one of the radial ports earlier than imagined.
Of course you could parked the Orion to a different LSS/Starship, presuming that SpaceX will maintain more than 2 LSS/Starhip in cislunar space.

Will be interesting if I-Hab will wait for SLS Block 1B with the EUS stage. Or take a earlier ride with commercial heavy lift.
That of course assumes that I-Hab will be ready by the time SLS Block 1B is ready for it's payload.
Sadly, it's about politics, not functionality. If they only cared about delivering a functional habitation module, they should use yet another modified Starship. Cheaper, quicker to develop, much larger, and it delivers itself. At least three times the habitable volume even if you ignore the possibility of converting the tanks.

To the extent that Artemis IV is going to the lunar surface anyways, why not use SLS and Orion as a tug for iHab? I am not sure that using Starship makes sense in this case. If NASA were to buy another iCPS, it would be for an Artemis III.5 mission, not for Artemis IV.
Artemis IV will not launch I-HAB until the SLS block 1B can be launched. This will not be before about 2029 unless three optimistic schedules are all met: ML-2, I-HAB, and ECPS. I think it's a good idea to de-couple these deliverables. Number it any way you want, just launch a crewed lunar mission as expeditiously as possible after Artemis III.

Offline TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4448
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3335
  • Likes Given: 641
To the extent that Artemis IV is going to the lunar surface anyways, why not use SLS and Orion as a tug for iHab? I am not sure that using Starship makes sense in this case. If NASA were to buy another iCPS, it would be for an Artemis III.5 mission, not for Artemis IV.

I assume that when Gateway is capable of supporting crews, crew transfers will be mediated by it.  If Orion is the tug for I-Hab (which I agree makes sense, if you're going to have an Orion at all), then it has to:

1) Dock or assist in the berthing of the I-Hab to the "nose" of HALO, so both axial ports are then in use (one for PPE and one for I-Hab).

2) Move around and dock at one of HALO's radial ports (since I-Hab isn't up and running yet).

3) Transfer crew to/from LSS, which has to be docked at the other HALO radial port.

On subsequent missions, I-Hab will be able to take one of Orion or HLS, so only one HALO radial port will be needed.

Note that all of this has some implications for whether SpaceX decides to bite off making the LSS dock a true IDSS-compliant active/passive system, or whether they plan on installing an active-active docking adapter and making LSS passive.  It also has some geometry implications if they're thinking about using an EDL-capable LSS in the future, because an EDLC-Starship can't have a nose dock, due to the header tanks.  I assume that such an EDLC-LSS would need a dorsal dock, likely close to the surface access hatch.  Since you need elonerons for EDL, docking volume is going to get a bit cozy.

Offline TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4448
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3335
  • Likes Given: 641
The thing is, you don't even need Starship to deliver iHab. It had its diameter reduced from 4.2 meters to 3.4 meters, and internal length reduced from 6.6 meters to 5.9 meters, to be compatible with a Falcon Heavy launch if that proved necessary.

The problem with EUS isn't that it doesn't make SLS into a more capable platform - it does. The problem is that the capability it provides is *already* available through existing and near term commercial heavy launch vehicles. And we're going to pay a pretty penny for that redundant capability.

I-Hab is going to be Block 1B's version of Europa Clipper.

Not for nuthin' but I-Hab could be four or five tonnes heavier if it were sent to TLI via FHE than as a Block 1B co-manifest.  On the other hand, it would have to be self-propelled for NRHO insertion from BLT and PPE/HALO rendezvous, which would get a bit iffy.
« Last Edit: 10/30/2022 06:07 pm by TheRadicalModerate »

Offline Athelstane

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
  • Washington, D.C.
  • Liked: 309
  • Likes Given: 860
The thing is, you don't even need Starship to deliver iHab. It had its diameter reduced from 4.2 meters to 3.4 meters, and internal length reduced from 6.6 meters to 5.9 meters, to be compatible with a Falcon Heavy launch if that proved necessary.

The problem with EUS isn't that it doesn't make SLS into a more capable platform - it does. The problem is that the capability it provides is *already* available through existing and near term commercial heavy launch vehicles. And we're going to pay a pretty penny for that redundant capability.

I-Hab is going to be Block 1B's version of Europa Clipper.

Not for nuthin' but I-Hab could be four or five tonnes heavier if it were sent to TLI via FHE than as a Block 1B co-manifest.  On the other hand, it would have to be self-propelled for NRHO insertion from BLT and PPE/HALO rendezvous, which would get a bit iffy.

Well, at worst, that gives you four or five tons to play with for a bus to slap on it in order to get it there...

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1811
  • Likes Given: 1302
The thing is, you don't even need Starship to deliver iHab. It had its diameter reduced from 4.2 meters to 3.4 meters, and internal length reduced from 6.6 meters to 5.9 meters, to be compatible with a Falcon Heavy launch if that proved necessary.

The problem with EUS isn't that it doesn't make SLS into a more capable platform - it does. The problem is that the capability it provides is *already* available through existing and near term commercial heavy launch vehicles. And we're going to pay a pretty penny for that redundant capability.

I-Hab is going to be Block 1B's version of Europa Clipper.

Not for nuthin' but I-Hab could be four or five tonnes heavier if it were sent to TLI via FHE than as a Block 1B co-manifest.  On the other hand, it would have to be self-propelled for NRHO insertion from BLT and PPE/HALO rendezvous, which would get a bit iffy.

Well, at worst, that gives you four or five tons to play with for a bus to slap on it in order to get it there...
If the i-Hab is ready before the EUS and the ML-2. Presuming SpaceX have operational HLS landers (Lunar Starship) available. There is the pseudo-Altair option of using one of the LSS as a cislunar logistics tug to move the i-Hab from LEO to NRHO after riding up on a Falcon 9 or a Vulcan Centaur. Points in favor are that no new hardware need to be developed and the i-Hab can be overstocked with supplemental consumables in the LSS.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17303
  • Liked: 7136
  • Likes Given: 3066
Quote from: Marcia Smith
Kirasich: will soon complete contract w/SpaceX for Option B second lander. Have target date in there that aligns with Artemis IV.

Proposals for Appendix P (other companies) due soon and date in that contract aligns with Artemis V.

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1587099585587060739

Offline TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4448
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3335
  • Likes Given: 641
Quote from: Marcia Smith
Kirasich: will soon complete contract w/SpaceX for Option B second lander. Have target date in there that aligns with Artemis IV.

Proposals for Appendix P (other companies) due soon and date in that contract aligns with Artemis V.

Ah, so that might mean that they simply didn't think they'd have an HLS available by Artemis IV.  That's... disingenuous of them, because Option B was clearly going to be a lot less work than getting a Block 1B to fly, but I guess it was technically proper, absent a full statement of work from SpaceX.  And no doubt it made all the other SLD bidders feel slightly less cranky.

The big difference here is that it no longer appears that the actual I-Hab assembly and commissioning work was the gating factor.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17303
  • Liked: 7136
  • Likes Given: 3066
Quote from: Marcia Smith
Kirasich: will soon complete contract w/SpaceX for Option B second lander. Have target date in there that aligns with Artemis IV.

Proposals for Appendix P (other companies) due soon and date in that contract aligns with Artemis V.

Ah, so that might mean that they simply didn't think they'd have an HLS available by Artemis IV.  That's... disingenuous of them, because Option B was clearly going to be a lot less work than getting a Block 1B to fly, but I guess it was technically proper, absent a full statement of work from SpaceX.  And no doubt it made all the other SLD bidders feel slightly less cranky.

The big difference here is that it no longer appears that the actual I-Hab assembly and commissioning work was the gating factor.

I wouldn't say disingenuous. It was notional. Jim Free had said at the time that the plans could change and that one of the reasons that Artemis IV likely wasn't going to be a surface mission was that they didn't have a lander for Artemis IV. Bear in mind that the plans to exercise option B was only announced in March of this year.
« Last Edit: 10/31/2022 10:45 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17303
  • Liked: 7136
  • Likes Given: 3066
A small update was made on October 3rd:

Quote from: page 2 of the BAA
- Updated goal of LOCR  [Lunar Orbit Checkout Review] completion date from January 2028 to April 2028
- Provide CLIN 002 IDIQ labor categories and descriptions
- Updated required proposal validity date from 180 days to 240 days

https://sam.gov/opp/b1852a6dfa144607a517628bcb273e6a/view

Attached is the final version of the Appendix P BAA.

Also attached HLS-RQMT-006.
« Last Edit: 08/15/2023 12:00 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17303
  • Liked: 7136
  • Likes Given: 3066
NASA Awards SpaceX Second Contract Option for Artemis Moon Landing:
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-spacex-second-contract-option-for-artemis-moon-landing-0

Quote from: NASA
NASA has awarded a contract modification to SpaceX to further develop its Starship human landing system to meet agency requirements for long-term human exploration of the Moon under Artemis.

With this addition, SpaceX will provide a second crewed landing demonstration mission in 2027 as part of NASA’s Artemis IV mission.

“Returning astronauts to the Moon to learn, live, and work is a bold endeavor. With multiple planned landers, from SpaceX and future partners, NASA will be better positioned to accomplish the missions of tomorrow: conducting more science on the surface of the Moon than ever before and preparing for crewed missions to Mars,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson.

Known as Option B, the modification follows an award to SpaceX in July 2021 under the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships-2 (NextSTEP-2) Appendix H Option A contract. NASA previously announced plans to pursue this Option B with SpaceX. The contract modification has a value of about $1.15 billion.

“Continuing our collaborative efforts with SpaceX through Option B furthers our resilient plans for regular crewed transportation to the lunar surface and establishing a long-term human presence under Artemis,” said Lisa Watson-Morgan, manager for the Human Landing System program at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. “This critical work will help us focus on the development of sustainable, service-based lunar landers anchored to NASA’s requirements for regularly recurring missions to the lunar surface.”

The aim of this new work under Option B is to develop and demonstrate a Starship lunar lander that meets NASA’s sustaining requirements for missions beyond Artemis III, including docking with Gateway, accommodating four crew members, and delivering more mass to the surface.

NASA initially selected SpaceX to develop a human landing system variant of Starship to land the next American astronauts on the Moon under Artemis III, which will mark humanity’s first return to the lunar surface in more than 50 years. As part of that contract, SpaceX will also conduct an uncrewed demonstration mission to the Moon prior to Artemis III.

The agency is pursuing two parallel paths for human lunar landers developed according to NASA’s sustained requirements to increase the competitive pool of capable industry providers – the existing contract with SpaceX and another solicitation released earlier this year. The other solicitation, NextSTEP-2 Appendix P, is open to all other U.S. companies to develop additional human landing system capabilities and includes uncrewed and crewed demonstration missions from lunar orbit to the surface of the Moon.

Astronaut Moon landers are a vital part of NASA’s deep space exploration plans, along with the Space Launch System rocket, Orion spacecraft, ground systems, spacesuits and rovers, and Gateway.

Under Artemis, NASA  will send a suite of new lunar science instruments and technology demonstrations to study the Moon, land the first woman and first person of color on the lunar surface, establish a long term lunar presence, and more. The agency will leverage its Artemis experiences and technologies to prepare for the next giant leap – sending astronauts to Mars.
« Last Edit: 11/15/2022 11:04 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17303
  • Liked: 7136
  • Likes Given: 3066
I had guessed $1B for Option B on this forum. Pretty close (the actual number is $1.15B)!

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55246.msg2400241#msg2400241
« Last Edit: 11/16/2022 01:43 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17303
  • Liked: 7136
  • Likes Given: 3066
Progress for Options A and B can be tracked at this link (it hasn't been updated yet):
https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_80MSFC20C0034_8000_-NONE-_-NONE-

As of now the award for Option A is $3B, so the combined amount should be updated to $4.15B in a few days.

So for Option A, here are the current amounts:

Quote from: USA Spending
Outlayed Amount: $799,409,616.24
Obligated Amount: $1,258,400,016.25
Current Award Amount: $3,031,455,921.24
Potential Award Amount: $3,031,455,921.24

Start Date: May 13, 2020
Current End Date: Jul 27, 2025
Potential End Date: Jul 27, 2025
« Last Edit: 11/15/2022 11:22 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17303
  • Liked: 7136
  • Likes Given: 3066
NASA awards SpaceX $1.15 billion contract for second Artemis lander mission:
https://spacenews.com/nasa-awards-spacex-1-15-billion-contract-for-second-artemis-lander-mission/

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17303
  • Liked: 7136
  • Likes Given: 3066
See below:

twitter.com/senbillnelson/status/1592650439706972164

Quote
.@NASA announced that @SpaceX will provide a 2nd crewed landing demo on the Moon as part of the Artemis IV mission.

With multiple planned lunar landers—from SpaceX & future partners—NASA will be better positioned to accomplish our bold missions.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1592652399856201729

Quote
Much appreciated, SpaceX will not let NASA down!

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17303
  • Liked: 7136
  • Likes Given: 3066
Concerning the $1.15B, it might seem expensive but I am guessing that a portion of the funds is for milestones for the cargo variant, HDL (Human-class Delivery Lander) of Starship. Appendix P allows for milestones for HDL, so I am guessing that option B does too (Lisa Watson-Morgan had mentioned that Option B and Appendix P would be similar when Appendix P was first announced).

Quote from: page 8 of the Appendix P (SLD) BAA
CLIN 006 HDL DDT&E through PDR
CLIM 007 HDL DDT&E Through CDR
CLIN 008 HDL DDT&E Through DCR [...]

Note that while SLD includes HDL CLINs through DCR, performance of a mission to deliver Human-class Cargo to the lunar surface is not a requirement of this solicitation. Any future Human-class Cargo missions would be procured via a separate acquisition.
« Last Edit: 11/19/2022 11:29 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17303
  • Liked: 7136
  • Likes Given: 3066
Speaking of CLINs, here are the various CLINs in the Appendix P BAA:

Quote from: page 8 of the Appendix P BAA
Base CLINs

001 HLS Integrated Lander Design, Development, Test and Evaluation (DDT&E) through PDR
002 IDIQ – Special Studies and Tasks

Option CLINs

Integrated Lander Continued DDT&E

003 Integrated Lander Through CDR
004 Integrated Lander Through DCR
005 Integrated Lander Through Crewed Demonstration Sortie Mission

Human-class Delivery Lander (HDL) DDT&E

006 HDL DDT&E through PDR
007 HDL DDT&E Through CDR
008 HDL DDT&E Through DCR [...]

The Option CLINs will be incorporated into the contract at the time of contract award; however, the decision to exercise one or more of these CLINs (i.e., formally authorize work initiation) will be made in accordance with the FAR, and criteria set forth in this document and/or otherwise provided by NASA to the Contractor(s) at a future date and dependent upon budget availability. Plainly stated, incorporation of a FFP for Option CLINs at the time of contract award does not guarantee exercise of the Options cited in the contract.

As you can see, most CLINs are optional. At the Appendix P teleconference in March 2022, Jim Free said that this was intentional in case that NASA doesn't have enough funding for HLS or if a provider isn't progressing enough.

At the same teleconference, Jim Free mentioned that the Option B contract would have similar options.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56067.msg2353313#msg2353313
« Last Edit: 11/19/2022 11:30 pm by yg1968 »

Tags:
 

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