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

[TheRadicalModerate]

It would involve a LSS leaving LEO for Lunar orbit. A tanker leaving LEO for Lunar orbit to fuel the LSS once it returns from the surface for it's return to LEO. A Cargo to LEO to replenish the supplies in the LSS prior to the mission. And finally a Crew Starship to and from LEO to Earth surface to get some number of crew to the LSS and then wait for their return to LEO.

If you have Starship crew-certified for launch/EDL, I suspect that it's not very difficult to develop an EDL-capable LSS, which is essentially a vanilla crew Starship with landing legs and maybe waist-mounted landing thrusters.  That takes out a lot of complexity.

It does, however, still leave open the question of which of the two refueling modes is better:

1) Refuel crews in something like an LEO+2000 HEEO
Pro: A few tankers cheaper than cislunar refueling.
Pro: Simple aborts if refueling fails.
Con: More crew exposure to VA Belt radiation.
Con: HEEO rendezvous is a bit weird, and departure windows will be narrow.

2) Refuel crews in cislunar:
Pro: More flexible in terms of departure and return windows.
Pro: No additional VA Belt radiation risk.
Con: More expensive in terms of prop (5 extra tankers for pre-descent refueling in LLO, 2 extra for post-ascent refueling, both worse for NRHO).

Which also predicts that SpaceX will likely make a lot of profit from that Option B contract mod. And subsequent mission prices may decrease applying additional pressure on any HLS competitor to keep up.

The BIG BUT is the Starship needs to work (fly to orbit) as well as on-orbit refueling.

The other "big but" is when/if lift tankers become reusable in the Option A/B timeframe.  I suspect that SpaceX probably hedged their bid a bit, predicated on something like a 50% probability of reusable tankers.  If they get reusability working quickly, they make more money.  If it gets delayed, they probably lose a small amount of money--which would be a fine result for them, given that NASA will have paid for a nice chunk of their early test program.

[TheRadicalModerate]

My calculations likely overestimate the price but I would rather over estimate the price than under estimate it. A commercial lunar surface mission with F9/Dragon 9 and HLS-Starship would cost you about a $1B ($250M for F9/Dragon + $1150M x 68% for HLS-Starship = $1032M)(*). If you divide that by four, you get about $258M per seat. I find that too expensive for a private lunar surface mission, so that's why I don't think that SpaceX will ever offer that as an option for private missions.

The more likely scenario is a combination of crewed Starship and HLS-Starship with 12 people which gives you a price per seat between $130M and $156M according to my fairly conservative calculations above. That price is more reasonable since it is similar to what Russia was charging for a trip around the Moon a while ago (i.e., $150M). You would also expect a trip to the surface of the Moon would cost you twice as much as a trip to LEO.

(*) For the 68% ratio, see the assumptions in my post above.

Carrying forward the 68% ops vs. 32% DDT&E doesn't seem like a good extrapolation.  NASA DDT&E covers the stuff that SpaceX is doing for LSS vs. vanilla Starship, while the marginal profit on a private flight would seek to recover some of the billions in R&D investment for Starship in general.

That could be anywhere from a very big markup, if SpaceX wants to start amortizing the whole program ASAP, to a very small one, if they're more interested in growing the market and locking in as many different applications for Starship as possible.  I'd kinda think the latter, but that assumes that SpaceX has some financial runway to play with.  Given that the largest investor just lost something like $100B this year on paper, and $20-$30B of that got flushed down Twitter probably forever, things may be a little more tense than they were previously.

Bottom line:  It's hard to estimate a per-seat price in the post-Option B timeframe.  You can estimate marginal costs, but inferring anything from the Option A and B contract awards is probably pointless.

[whitelancer64]

*snip*
If you have Starship crew-certified for launch/EDL, I suspect that it's not very difficult to develop an EDL-capable LSS, which is essentially a vanilla crew Starship with landing legs and maybe waist-mounted landing thrusters.
*snip*

No, it isn't. LSS is customized for lunar landing and support of surface operations and has a ton of features that "vanilla crew Starship" would not need.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

*snip*
If you have Starship crew-certified for launch/EDL, I suspect that it's not very difficult to develop an EDL-capable LSS, which is essentially a vanilla crew Starship with landing legs and maybe waist-mounted landing thrusters.
*snip*

No, it isn't. LSS is customized for lunar landing and support of surface operations and has a ton of features that "vanilla crew Starship" would not need.

Although many of the LSS features such as 100+ day crew duration on surface. Would be used by the crew Starship to Mars for the 3 month trip time as well as even longer times for Mars surface stay time. Other features is the elevator, air locks, legs, integrated solar arrays and heat radiators, plus other features such as day night power management, redundancies. But for just LEO most of the features are not used. So a version of the Mars crew ship that has a few adaptations for trip to Moon would be a good way to test out the design without going to Mars. Then that design could then be the normal trip to Moon vehicle from Earth surface for crew. Once that happens expect a rapid Lunar Base expansion.

[TheRadicalModerate]

*snip*
If you have Starship crew-certified for launch/EDL, I suspect that it's not very difficult to develop an EDL-capable LSS, which is essentially a vanilla crew Starship with landing legs and maybe waist-mounted landing thrusters.
*snip*

No, it isn't. LSS is customized for lunar landing and support of surface operations and has a ton of features that "vanilla crew Starship" would not need.

I retract "not very difficult".  But I doubt it's more incremental work than going from a vanilla Starship to the LSS variant.

The question is whether it's worth the work.  Some advantages:

1) Massive unpressurized, deployable cargo, fully integrated on the ground, with the crew to deploy it directly.  The alternative is a mechanism for transferring big unpressurized pieces from a ground-to-LEO Starship to an LSS.  That sounds really hard to me, especially with the mission assurance folks wetting themselves about "integration" after transfer.

2) It's cheaper in terms of prop.  How much cheaper depends on your risk tolerance.  Post-ascent refueling and Starship-to-LSS crew transfers both are 2-3 more launches than a Launch-LEO-refuel-HEEO-refuel-LS-EDL trip, which probably isn't enough to warrant the work.  However, if you're not comfortable with the post-ascent risks, either refueling or Starship-to-Starship docking, then you have to use pre-descent refueling, which is insanely expensive.  Like 15 extra tankers expensive.  If you have an EDL-capable LSS, pre-descent refueling isn't bad at all.

One last note:  oldAtlas_Eguy had proposed an Earth-orbit transfer between Starship and LSS.  That doesn't work without post-ascent refueling.  On the other hand, the Launch-LEO-refuel-cislunar-EDL transit Starship coupled the Option B-like cislunar-LS-cislunar LSS works without any crewed refuelings except the one in LEO, and the sole post-ascent risk is a failure to dock for crew transfer.

But all of these require crew-certification for Starship launch and EDL.

[DanClemmensen]

If you have Starship crew-certified for launch/EDL, I suspect that it's not very difficult to develop an EDL-capable LSS, which is essentially a vanilla crew Starship with landing legs and maybe waist-mounted landing thrusters.  That takes out a lot of complexity.

I suspect it would be hard, but that's not the point. In the real world, SpaceX has contracted to build HLS and deliver it prior to completion of crewed Starship EDL, so HLS has no EDL heritage in its design. It's a base design of its own, starting from Starship fundamentals. In a way it's closer to Depot than it is to any EDL Starship. We know of four early-delivery Starships: HLS, Depot, Tanker, and Starlink dispenser. Crewed Starship is closer to Tanker and Starlink dispenser than it is to HLS, and will almost certainly come after it.

[TheRadicalModerate]

If you have Starship crew-certified for launch/EDL, I suspect that it's not very difficult to develop an EDL-capable LSS, which is essentially a vanilla crew Starship with landing legs and maybe waist-mounted landing thrusters.  That takes out a lot of complexity.

I suspect it would be hard, but that's not the point. In the real world, SpaceX has contracted to build HLS and deliver it prior to completion of crewed Starship EDL, so HLS has no EDL heritage in its design. It's a base design of its own, starting from Starship fundamentals. In a way it's closer to Depot than it is to any EDL Starship. We know of four early-delivery Starships: HLS, Depot, Tanker, and Starlink dispenser. Crewed Starship is closer to Tanker and Starlink dispenser than it is to HLS, and will almost certainly come after it.

Of course LSS and its tenders come first.  But yg1968's question originally was searching for a ballpark on medium-term cost per seat, and it assumed Starship was launch/EDL certified, with a crew of at least 12.

I'll leave why I think this is non-trivial but not a huge deal for another day, as we're veering off-topic.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

If you have Starship crew-certified for launch/EDL, I suspect that it's not very difficult to develop an EDL-capable LSS, which is essentially a vanilla crew Starship with landing legs and maybe waist-mounted landing thrusters.  That takes out a lot of complexity.

I suspect it would be hard, but that's not the point. In the real world, SpaceX has contracted to build HLS and deliver it prior to completion of crewed Starship EDL, so HLS has no EDL heritage in its design. It's a base design of its own, starting from Starship fundamentals. In a way it's closer to Depot than it is to any EDL Starship. We know of four early-delivery Starships: HLS, Depot, Tanker, and Starlink dispenser. Crewed Starship is closer to Tanker and Starlink dispenser than it is to HLS, and will almost certainly come after it.

Of course LSS and its tenders come first.  But yg1968's question originally was searching for a ballpark on medium-term cost per seat, and it assumed Starship was launch/EDL certified, with a crew of at least 12.

I'll leave why I think this is non-trivial but not a huge deal for another day, as we're veering off-topic.

True.
Because such may not happen until just before or even after 2030. So check back in 6 years to see where we are and where we are headed.

As far as this thread it is more near term in the time frame of mid to late 2020s. Which could include such but a lot needs to be proven out for that to happen from the current Starship capabilities.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Because such may not happen until just before or even after 2030. So check back in 6 years to see where we are and where we are headed.

As far as this thread it is more near term in the time frame of mid to late 2020s. Which could include such but a lot needs to be proven out for that to happen from the current Starship capabilities.

The possibility/likelihood that launch/EDL crew Starship won't happen before 2030 is the core of my argument for why an F9/D2 + EOR-based LSS conops make sense.  Both separate transit and HLS legs are a possibility, as is a single LSS with post-ascent refueling.

One thing that's at least on-topic:  I wonder if SpaceX will footnote the possibility of LEO-staged architectures in their Option B contingency planning.  Two legitimate contingencies:

1) An unanticipated SLS/Orion outage.  Using D2+LSS for transit would keep the Artemis program on-track.  (We'll leave aside the "unanticipated outage" caused by the whole thing just going away.)

2) A post-ascent RPOD failure on Orion.  In that event, as long as SpaceX has a depot with at least 3 tankers of prop on hand, a second LSS either ready to launch or on-orbit, and a D2 that's ready to go, they could mount a rescue mission.¹

These would be fairly transparent in what the real agenda was, but they both are legitimate mission contingencies that need to be addressed.  The fact that they're being addressed by lobbing fecal matter in the direction of the rotating airfoils would be something for the Arty IV-VII mission planners to either embrace or decline.

________________
¹This would require that LSS either had access to a passive-passive docking adapter, which is otherwise a pretty useless piece of hardware, or that they did the work to make LSS fully active/passive.  That seems like work that SpaceX would be pretty keen to do anyway, but it's a non-trivial test item.

[DanClemmensen]

2) A post-ascent RPOD failure on Orion.  In that event, as long as SpaceX has a depot with at least 3 tankers of prop on hand, a second LSS either ready to launch or on-orbit, and a D2 that's ready to go, they could mount a rescue mission.¹
________________
¹This would require that LSS either had access to a passive-passive docking adapter, which is otherwise a pretty useless piece of hardware, or that they did the work to make LSS fully active/passive.  That seems like work that SpaceX would be pretty keen to do anyway, but it's a non-trivial test item.

An important problem for a capsule rescue is IVA suit compatibility. As I understand it, each IVA suit is custom made for a user and is specific to the type of capsule, so the Orion crew could not simply dock, move into the Crew Dragon, and go home. NASA would need to somehow make IVA suits that are compatible with both spacecraft, or make a set of universal rescue suits compatible with Crew Dragon, or make custom Crew Dragon suits in advance for each Orion mission.

In addition, one RPOD failure mode is the failure of the port on the Orion, and sending a Crew Dragon will not fix this. The crew will need to do an EVA to switch Spacecraft. Scary, but it does not require a compatible port.

[yg1968]

Because such may not happen until just before or even after 2030. So check back in 6 years to see where we are and where we are headed.

As far as this thread it is more near term in the time frame of mid to late 2020s. Which could include such but a lot needs to be proven out for that to happen from the current Starship capabilities.

The possibility/likelihood that launch/EDL crew Starship won't happen before 2030 is the core of my argument for why an F9/D2 + EOR-based LSS conops make sense. 

For various reasons, I don't think that F9/Dragon and HLS-Starship will ever be proposed, even if makes sense. SpaceX doesn't want to propose it and NASA doesn't want it proposed because they know that it would upset SLS proponents in Congress which in turn could jeopardize the funding for HLS. SpaceX is also not keen on it because they think that crew Dragon is a dead-end.

The fact that Tito indicated that a trip to the lunar surface wasn't a possibility makes me think that SpaceX isn't offering HLS-Starship to private customers just yet and I don't think that they will for a while. One of the reasons is that they don't know how much HLS-Starship will cost at this point and another reason is that it could jeopardize HLS funding if they did offer it to private astronauts. I think that SpaceX is focusing on the bigger picture which is Mars. Having said that, I expect SpaceX to start selling private lunar surface missions once crewed Starship is ready (which should be after Artemis III).

[DanClemmensen]

Because such may not happen until just before or even after 2030. So check back in 6 years to see where we are and where we are headed.

As far as this thread it is more near term in the time frame of mid to late 2020s. Which could include such but a lot needs to be proven out for that to happen from the current Starship capabilities.

The possibility/likelihood that launch/EDL crew Starship won't happen before 2030 is the core of my argument for why an F9/D2 + EOR-based LSS conops make sense. 

For various reasons, I don't think that F9/Dragon and HLS-Starship will ever be proposed, even if makes sense. SpaceX doesn't want to propose it and NASA doesn't want it proposed because they know that it would upset SLS proponents in Congress which in turn could jeopardize the funding for HLS. SpaceX is also not keen on it because they think that crew Dragon is a dead-end.

The fact that Tito indicated that a trip to the lunar surface wasn't a possibility makes me think that SpaceX isn't offering HLS-Starship to private customers just yet and I don't think that they will for a while. One of the reasons is that they don't know how much HLS-Starship will cost at this point and the other one is that it could jeopardize HLS funding if they did offer it to private astronauts. I think that SpaceX is focusing on the bigger picture which is Mars. Having said that, I expect SpaceX to start selling private lunar surface missions once crewed Starship is ready (which should be after Artemis III).

I don't understand your reasoning. Either SpaceX will offer private lunar missions, or not. You start by saying "no", and end by saying "yes". The reasons you give for "no" are not really dependent on whether they use F9/D2 or Crewed Starship EDL, so if "yes" then why not use F9/D2? I see that they might not publicize such missions prior to a successful Artemis III, but after Artemis III all of the needed hardware will already have been developed except Crewed Starship EDL, so a private "Polaris 4" mission is feasible. The only problem was limited F9/D2 flights, but this limit has been removed.

[whitelancer64]

Because such may not happen until just before or even after 2030. So check back in 6 years to see where we are and where we are headed.

As far as this thread it is more near term in the time frame of mid to late 2020s. Which could include such but a lot needs to be proven out for that to happen from the current Starship capabilities.

The possibility/likelihood that launch/EDL crew Starship won't happen before 2030 is the core of my argument for why an F9/D2 + EOR-based LSS conops make sense. 

For various reasons, I don't think that F9/Dragon and HLS-Starship will ever be proposed, even if makes sense. SpaceX doesn't want to propose it and NASA doesn't want it proposed because they know that it would upset SLS proponents in Congress which in turn could jeopardize the funding for HLS. SpaceX is also not keen on it because they think that crew Dragon is a dead-end.

The fact that Tito indicated that a trip to the lunar surface wasn't a possibility makes me think that SpaceX isn't offering HLS-Starship to private customers just yet and I don't think that they will for a while. One of the reasons is that they don't know how much HLS-Starship will cost at this point and the other one is that it could jeopardize HLS funding if they did offer it to private astronauts. I think that SpaceX is focusing on the bigger picture which is Mars. Having said that, I expect SpaceX to start selling private lunar surface missions once crewed Starship is ready (which should be after Artemis III).

I don't understand your reasoning. Either SpaceX will offer private lunar missions, or not. You start by saying "no", and end by saying "yes". The reasons you give for "no" are not really dependent on whether they use F9/D2 or Crewed Starship EDL, so if "yes" then why not use F9/D2? I see that they might not publicize such missions prior to a successful Artemis III, but after Artemis III all of the needed hardware will already have been developed except Crewed Starship EDL, so a private "Polaris 4" mission is feasible. The only problem was limited F9/D2 flights, but this limit has been removed.

I think yg1968 is saying "No" specifically to F9/Dragon/HLS missions, either private or through NASA, and is saying "Yes" to private SpaceX Starship / HLS missions in general, but only after Artemis 3.

[TheRadicalModerate]

2) A post-ascent RPOD failure on Orion.  In that event, as long as SpaceX has a depot with at least 3 tankers of prop on hand, a second LSS either ready to launch or on-orbit, and a D2 that's ready to go, they could mount a rescue mission.¹
________________
¹This would require that LSS either had access to a passive-passive docking adapter, which is otherwise a pretty useless piece of hardware, or that they did the work to make LSS fully active/passive.  That seems like work that SpaceX would be pretty keen to do anyway, but it's a non-trivial test item.

An important problem for a capsule rescue is IVA suit compatibility. As I understand it, each IVA suit is custom made for a user and is specific to the type of capsule, so the Orion crew could not simply dock, move into the Crew Dragon, and go home. NASA would need to somehow make IVA suits that are compatible with both spacecraft, or make a set of universal rescue suits compatible with Crew Dragon, or make custom Crew Dragon suits in advance for each Orion mission.

In addition, one RPOD failure mode is the failure of the port on the Orion, and sending a Crew Dragon will not fix this. The crew will need to do an EVA to switch Spacecraft. Scary, but it does not require a compatible port.

I was thinking more of an RPOD failure with the crew in the LSS, trying to get back into the Orion.  If you have a failure in the opposite direction, that's just a straight-up abort back to TEI/EDL with the Orion.

The viability of a non-EVA rescue would lie in whether the Orion pranged itself during the RPOD, the LSS pranged itself, or whether there's a mutual pranging.  An LSS-based rescue only makes sense if the LSS docking adapter is still in good shape.

I'm pretty sure that whatever NASA winds up with for flight pressure suits, it'll be plug-compatible between Orion and LSS.  If all you're talking about is a rescue transfer, flight suits are probably good enough.

I don't know how you'd structure the decision tree between EVA options with what's currently in NRHO vs. sending a rescue flight that might be able to do a pressurized transfer.  Obviously the existence or absence of Gateway factors into this as well.

[whitelancer64]

*snip*
I'm pretty sure that whatever NASA winds up with for flight pressure suits, it'll be plug-compatible between Orion and LSS.

*snip*

I am of the presumption that NASA will bring the Orion's IVA pressure suits into the HLS for use during that vehicle's crewed proximity / docking / lunar descent / ascent operations. It makes sense, since those suits are already on Orion for that purpose.

As an aside, IIRC these Orion IVA suits are supposed to be designed for 8 or 10 days of continuous use in the event of an emergency, which is long enough to get Orion from NRHO back to Earth.

[DanClemmensen]

*snip*
I'm pretty sure that whatever NASA winds up with for flight pressure suits, it'll be plug-compatible between Orion and LSS.

*snip*

I am of the presumption that NASA will bring the Orion's IVA pressure suits into the HLS for use during that vehicle's crewed proximity / docking / lunar descent / ascent operations. It makes sense, since those suits are already on Orion for that purpose.

As an aside, IIRC these Orion IVA suits are supposed to be designed for 8 or 10 days of continuous use in the event of an emergency, which is long enough to get Orion from NRHO back to Earth.

OK, you are stuck in HLS and cannot get back into Orion, so you transfer from your HLS into the rescue HLS. Excellent, you have multiple ways to do this, especially if the lunar EV suits can operate in free fall. Now you are in the rescue HLS and you go back to LEO. At this point, you need to EDL, so you need to move into a Crew Dragon. This is the point where the IVA suit compatibility becomes a problem, because you are still wearing your Orion/HLS IVA suit but you need a Dragon IVA suit.

[DanClemmensen]

I think yg1968 is saying "No" specifically to F9/Dragon/HLS missions, either private or through NASA, and is saying "Yes" to private SpaceX Starship / HLS missions in general, but only after Artemis 3.

That's what I understood yg1968 to say. I do not understand why the Starship flight is politically acceptable but the F9/D2 flight is not politically acceptable. They both pose the same threat to SLS/Orion.

[Robotbeat]

*snip*
I'm pretty sure that whatever NASA winds up with for flight pressure suits, it'll be plug-compatible between Orion and LSS.

*snip*

I am of the presumption that NASA will bring the Orion's IVA pressure suits into the HLS for use during that vehicle's crewed proximity / docking / lunar descent / ascent operations. It makes sense, since those suits are already on Orion for that purpose.

As an aside, IIRC these Orion IVA suits are supposed to be designed for 8 or 10 days of continuous use in the event of an emergency, which is long enough to get Orion from NRHO back to Earth.

But suits are usually made in parallel with the spacecraft, made for one another as compatible systems. starship uses, I believe, Dragon-heritage systems, so it’d make a lot more sense to use Dragon IVA suits for that purpose. Seats, interfaces, life support, etc, would all need to be remade if they had to somehow switch to Orion IVA suits and would require interfacing with proprietary Lockheed Martin systems, which sounds like an absolute nightmare for a commercial (as opposed to traditional NASA-run) contract.

Nah, gonna say Dragon-heritage IVA suits are much more likely for that purpose. Would be much cheaper for SpaceX overall not to have to redesign everything. And keep in mind the Dragon suits are much more proven and the design more stabilized.

(Not to keep in mind Project Polaris, Dear Moon, etc… you think SpaceX is going to use Orion suits for those, too? You think SpaceX will want to redo their seats, controls, and ECLSS systems AGAIN to support their own suits? Why not just use their existing systems?)

The safer option with the most heritage is the Dragon IVA. It’s also the cheapest option for SpaceX. I bet the Dragon IVAs have lower mass, too, maybe totally eliminating the perceived mass advantage.

[DanClemmensen]

*snip*
I'm pretty sure that whatever NASA winds up with for flight pressure suits, it'll be plug-compatible between Orion and LSS.

*snip*

I am of the presumption that NASA will bring the Orion's IVA pressure suits into the HLS for use during that vehicle's crewed proximity / docking / lunar descent / ascent operations. It makes sense, since those suits are already on Orion for that purpose.

As an aside, IIRC these Orion IVA suits are supposed to be designed for 8 or 10 days of continuous use in the event of an emergency, which is long enough to get Orion from NRHO back to Earth.

But suits are usually made in parallel with the spacecraft, made for one another as compatible systems. starship uses, I believe, Dragon-heritage systems, so it’d make a lot more sense to use Dragon IVA suits for that purpose. Seats, interfaces, life support, etc, would all need to be remade if they had to somehow switch to Orion IVA suits and would require interfacing with proprietary Lockheed Martin systems, which sounds like an absolute nightmare for a commercial (as opposed to traditional NASA-run) contract.

Nah, gonna say Dragon-heritage IVA suits are much more likely for that purpose. Would be much cheaper for SpaceX overall not to have to redesign everything. And keep in mind the Dragon suits are much more proven and the design more stabilized.

I had assumed that the HLS contract specified the use of Orion IVA suits. If not, then crew that is going to descend to the lunar surface during Artemis III will need to change suits when they move from Orion to HLS.

[yg1968]

I think yg1968 is saying "No" specifically to F9/Dragon/HLS missions, either private or through NASA, and is saying "Yes" to private SpaceX Starship / HLS missions in general, but only after Artemis 3.

That's what I understood yg1968 to say. I do not understand why the Starship flight is politically acceptable but the F9/D2 flight is not politically acceptable. They both pose the same threat to SLS/Orion.

They do but I expect that crewed Starship will be ready far enough into the future that it won't matter at that point. Furthermore, crewed Starship would have to get certified and I am not convinced that this will happen until NASA decides that it needs crewed Starship for lunar or Mars crewed missions. Starship is overkill for the commercial LEO destinations program. I suspect that SpaceX will continue to use crewed Dragon for LEO missions.