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

[whitelancer64]

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. <snip>

To take this conversation in a slightly different direction I would like to ask a question about a spacecraft being crew rated. I would assume that as soon as NASA astronauts board the SpaceX HLS for lunar operations (their very lives are committed to the proper functioning of all HLS systems) that at that point, HLS actually becomes a de facto crew rated spacecraft. If that is not true then NASA would be, in fact, committing the lives of the crew to a non-crew rated spacecraft. Would that be a fair assessment?

HLS will be crew rated by NASA before Artemis 3 launches. The Demo lunar landing will be like the Crew Demo mission to the ISS. The demo proves out the functioning of all the systems and then NASA certifies it for use in a crew mission.

[DanClemmensen]

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. <snip>

To take this conversation in a slightly different direction I would like to ask a question about a spacecraft being crew rated. I would assume that as soon as NASA astronauts board the SpaceX HLS for lunar operations (their very lives are committed to the proper functioning of all HLS systems) that at that point, HLS actually becomes a de facto crew rated spacecraft. If that is not true then NASA would be, in fact, committing the lives of the crew to a non-crew rated spacecraft. Would that be a fair assessment?

HLS will be crew rated by NASA before Artemis 3 launches. The Demo lunar landing will be like the Crew Demo mission to the ISS. The demo proves out the functioning of all the systems and then NASA certifies it for use in a crew mission.

I don't work for NASA, so I don't know what their definition of "crew rated (or crew qualified, or crew certified, or whatever)) " is. By analogy, the uncrewed test is equivalent to the uncrewed orbital flight tests (OFT) for Crew Dragon and Starliner, which were required prior to the crewed flight tests (CFT). These spacecraft did not (will not) be crew certified for operational missions until after the CFT is evaluated. But this is just playing with words. Two NASA astronauts will fly in HLS during Artemis III.

[marsbase]

The very first flight with crew is a "crewed flight test". Among other things, if possible it is restricted to only two crew, both experienced test pilots and full-time professional NASA astronauts. After the CFT is evaluated, the spacecraft can be certified. I'm not sure why Artemis 2 (effectively the Orion CFT) will have a crew of four.

If memory serves, ULA suggested some time ago that the first flight of the SLS, Artemis 1, should carry crew. NASA declined the suggestion.

[DanClemmensen]

So after the docking  is complete, the crew that is transferring strips out of their Orion IVA suits and traverses through the port into HLS, where they don their HLS IVA suits? Orion and HLS are considered to be "shirtsleeve" environments? I guess I had assumed that crew in a capsule are supposed to be in an IVA suit.

My understanding is that you use IVAs during potentially hazardous maneuvers.  So when they're docking, they're in IVA suit #1.  When hard dock is verified and the tunnel is open, they remove IVA #1, go to the other LSS/D2/whatever in shirtsleeves, then put on IVA suit #2 for undocking and the trip home.

It seems that NASA could save some money by standardizing the IVA suits. Since the majority of suits are SpaceX, they would "merely" need to use the SpaceX suits for Orion, and all would be good. The advantages for mission safety and efficiency are more important than the money.

Eh? The majority of the suits are SpaceX?  How?

The only suits that would be SpaceX are the hypothetical IVA suits the HLS would need. Then there'd be the Axiom / Collins lunar surface EVA suits (already on the HLS) and Orion carries the Orion IVA suits the crew wear during SLS launch and RPOD.

NASA could save some money by NOT buying IVA suits for the HLS from SpaceX, and use the already existing Orion IVA suits.

About 30 crew have flown in space in SpaceX IVA suits. Zero crew have flown in space in Orion IVA suits.

The assertion earlier in the thread was that the HLS designers can pick their own IVA suit design and that SpaceX would likely pick the Crew Dragon IVA suit design.  Prior to that I had assumed that NASA would require HLS to use the Orion design. I now think that NASA would be better served by requiring Orion to use the proven SpaceX design.  They have at least two years before Artemis 2 in which to implement this.

Axiom has so far used the Crew Dragon IVA design, obviously.

[Robotbeat]

So after the docking  is complete, the crew that is transferring strips out of their Orion IVA suits and traverses through the port into HLS, where they don their HLS IVA suits? Orion and HLS are considered to be "shirtsleeve" environments? I guess I had assumed that crew in a capsule are supposed to be in an IVA suit.

My understanding is that you use IVAs during potentially hazardous maneuvers.  So when they're docking, they're in IVA suit #1.  When hard dock is verified and the tunnel is open, they remove IVA #1, go to the other LSS/D2/whatever in shirtsleeves, then put on IVA suit #2 for undocking and the trip home.

It seems that NASA could save some money by standardizing the IVA suits. Since the majority of suits are SpaceX, they would "merely" need to use the SpaceX suits for Orion, and all would be good. The advantages for mission safety and efficiency are more important than the money.

Eh? The majority of the suits are SpaceX?  How?

The only suits that would be SpaceX are the hypothetical IVA suits the HLS would need. Then there'd be the Axiom / Collins lunar surface EVA suits (already on the HLS) and Orion carries the Orion IVA suits the crew wear during SLS launch and RPOD.

NASA could save some money by NOT buying IVA suits for the HLS from SpaceX, and use the already existing Orion IVA suits.

About 30 crew have flown in space in SpaceX IVA suits. Zero crew have flown in space in Orion IVA suits.

The assertion earlier in the thread was that the HLS designers can pick their own IVA suit design and that SpaceX would likely pick the Crew Dragon IVA suit design.  Prior to that I had assumed that NASA would require HLS to use the Orion design. I now think that NASA would be better served by requiring Orion to use the proven SpaceX design.  They have at least two years before Artemis 2 in which to implement this.

Axiom has so far used the Crew Dragon IVA design, obviously.

It makes the most sense for Orion to use the Orion IVA suits. There’s not enough time for NASA to modify the Orion capsule to use the Dragon IVA suit.

[whitelancer64]

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. <snip>

To take this conversation in a slightly different direction I would like to ask a question about a spacecraft being crew rated. I would assume that as soon as NASA astronauts board the SpaceX HLS for lunar operations (their very lives are committed to the proper functioning of all HLS systems) that at that point, HLS actually becomes a de facto crew rated spacecraft. If that is not true then NASA would be, in fact, committing the lives of the crew to a non-crew rated spacecraft. Would that be a fair assessment?

HLS will be crew rated by NASA before Artemis 3 launches. The Demo lunar landing will be like the Crew Demo mission to the ISS. The demo proves out the functioning of all the systems and then NASA certifies it for use in a crew mission.

I don't work for NASA, so I don't know what their definition of "crew rated (or crew qualified, or crew certified, or whatever)) " is. By analogy, the uncrewed test is equivalent to the uncrewed orbital flight tests (OFT) for Crew Dragon and Starliner, which were required prior to the crewed flight tests (CFT). These spacecraft did not (will not) be crew certified for operational missions until after the CFT is evaluated. But this is just playing with words. Two NASA astronauts will fly in HLS during Artemis III.

Crew Dragon was crew certified after the uncrewed demo mission, before it carried anyone on board. It wasn't certified for operational missions until after the crewed demo mission. Two different certifications.

Artemis 3 is the equivalent of the crewed demo flight test, yes. For all intents and purposes it is the same as Apollo 11, the final flight test before operational missions.

[whitelancer64]

I now think that NASA would be better served by requiring Orion to use the proven SpaceX design. 

They can't, the systems that support the suit are not compatible.

NASA could have, and maybe should have, at least standardized the air / power / data/ comms connectors for IVA suits. If Orion, Dragon, and Starliner were all using the same suit connections, there'd be less of this discussion.

[whitelancer64]

The very first flight with crew is a "crewed flight test". Among other things, if possible it is restricted to only two crew, both experienced test pilots and full-time professional NASA astronauts. After the CFT is evaluated, the spacecraft can be certified. I'm not sure why Artemis 2 (effectively the Orion CFT) will have a crew of four.

If memory serves, ULA suggested some time ago that the first flight of the SLS, Artemis 1, should carry crew. NASA declined the suggestion.

IIRC Congress asked NASA to study the possibility. NASA essentially said, that's a terrible idea for multiple reasons and we're not going to do it.

[yg1968]

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. <snip>

To take this conversation in a slightly different direction I would like to ask a question about a spacecraft being crew rated. I would assume that as soon as NASA astronauts board the SpaceX HLS for lunar operations (their very lives are committed to the proper functioning of all HLS systems) that at that point, HLS actually becomes a de facto crew rated spacecraft. If that is not true then NASA would be, in fact, committing the lives of the crew to a non-crew rated spacecraft. Would that be a fair assessment?

The deep space systems human rating requirements (HEOMD-003), which applies to HLS, does not cover Earth ascent (i.e. before the spacecraft separates from the LV) since it only applies to deep space as the name implies. The certification requirements for commercial crew would not apply if the mission isn't going to the ISS (they are in the process of adapting these requirements for the Commercial LEO Destinations program).

Presumably, NASA would develop certification requirements for commercial HLV and spacecraft services which might be based on the ones for SLS and Orion, if they were to acquire the services of crewed Starship (see NPR 8705.2 linked below). 

For SLS and Orion, the following human rating standards apply (NPR 8705.2):
https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/npg_img/N_PR_8705_002C_/N_PR_8705_002C_.pdf

For HLS the following human rating certification requirements apply (HEOMD-003):
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210024177/downloads/HEOMD-003%20Crewed%20Deep%20Space%20Cert%20Rqmts%20Rev%20A_Post-Final.pdf

The human-rating requirements in this NPR apply to the development and operation of crewed space systems developed by NASA and used to conduct NASA human spaceflight missions. This NPR may apply to other crewed space systems when documented in separate requirements or agreements.

The International Space Station (ISS) and Soyuz spacecraft are not required to obtain a Human-Rating Certification in accordance with this NPR. These programs utilize existing policies, procedures, and requirements to certify their systems for NASA missions.

The intent of this document is to define the requirements, standards, and human rating certification process and products that will be used to certify systems as acceptably safe to carry NASA or NASA-sponsored crewmembers on deep space missions for those programs that are not governed by NPR 8705.2, Human Rating Requirements for Space Systems. Orion, Space Launch System (SLS), and Exploration Ground Systems (EGS) are governed by NPR 8705.2.

NASA plans to purchase, produce, and/or partner to provide crewed deep space systems as part of NASA’s exploration plans and policies. NASA chose to base its certification approach for such systems upon that documented within NPR 8705.2, Human Rating Requirements for Space Systems. Agency policy requires NASA to analyze the risk and decide on necessary steps to ensure safety when putting NASA personnel in harm’s way using designs or operations that NASA does not control.

Crewed Deep Space Systems - Includes deep space crewed in-space transportation, deep space crewed landers, deep space extravehicular mobility units, and deep space crewed surface systems including interfaces with control centers and communications infrastructure. The crewed space system consists of all the system elements that are occupied by the crew/passengers during the space mission as well as all elements physically attached to the crewed element during the crewed mission.

Deep Space - Being or related to activities conducted beyond Earth’s entry interface after separation from a launch vehicle.

[clongton]

The deep space systems human rating requirements (HEOMD-003), which applies to HLS, does not cover Earth ascent (i.e. before the spacecraft separates from the LV)

To clarify, my question did not assume ascent from the ground; only space-based operations. I'm assuming that if the unmanned test goes well that the vehicle will then be rated "crew rated" and then if the crewed mission goes well, it will then be rated "operational". Is that a correct assumption?

[yg1968]

The deep space systems human rating requirements (HEOMD-003), which applies to HLS, does not cover Earth ascent (i.e. before the spacecraft separates from the LV)

To clarify, my question did not assume ascent from the ground; only space-based operations. I'm assuming that if the unmanned test goes well that the vehicle will then be rated "crew rated" and then if the crewed mission goes well, it will then be rated "operational". Is that a correct assumption?

NASA requires the HLS offeror to have a certification plan that leads to a final certification of the system. Certification that safety requirements are met is also necessary for each mission. See below for more on this. The operational phase will start under the next round, the HLS Sustainable Lunar Transport services round.

Certification of the mission
 

Crewed Deep Space Systems Certification - Certification is the documented authorization granted by the Associate Administrator that allows the use of the crewed deep space systems within its prescribed parameters for its defined mission.

Certification of crewed deep space systems to support/transport NASA or NASA sponsored personnel consists of four separate functions:
1) validation of the technical and performance requirements and standards
2) verification of compliance with those requirements/standards
3) consideration of relevant operational experience, such as that gained from past and current human spaceflight programs, problem reporting, mishap investigations, etc.
4) acceptance of residual technical risk due to hazards, waivers, non-compliances, etc.

The NASA Program Managers are also responsible for ensuring that the crewed deep space system is in compliance with the Human Rating Certification for each integrated mission. Once systems have been certified, they must be operated and maintained within the boundaries of Certification. Prior to each crewed mission, the Human Rating Certification will be reevaluated for changes to the system or the mission that are outside the boundaries of the previous certifications. During the operations phase, the NASA Program Managers are responsible for monitoring the safety performance by evaluating the risk based on the significance of observed anomalies, by updating its assessments of safety measures to ensure safety requirements continue to be met and ensuring there are established processes for both continuous improvement towards achievement of the safety goals and re-evaluation if safety goals are not achieved.

Certification of the system

In Attachment 8, Verification, Validation, and Certification Plan, the Offeror shall describe its approach for how it plans to achieve NASA certification of its HLS Integrated Lander for human use in order to support completion of LOCR [Lunar Orbit Checkout Review] by NASA’s goal timeline of April 2028, including the approach and plans for inspection, analysis, and test as appropriate. The Offeror shall identify how its proposed certification approach minimizes risks associated with the completion of the Offeror’s design, development, and meeting NASA’s requirements necessary for final certification.

NASA’s HLS certification means the Contractor’s HLS has met NASA’s safety requirements for transporting NASA crew in space and to and from the lunar surface.

CR HEO-0018, Added two new requirements for Crew Support and clarified autonomy requirement in support of Sustaining Phase of Artemis. Revised Certification Process section to no longer require a Human Rating Certification Package, rather allow responsible programs to define a Human Rating Plan that leads to the final Certification (Approved at the Directorate Program Management Council (DPMC) on November 9, 2021.

5.6.1 Verification, Validation and Certification Planning

The contractor is responsible for all aspects of system DDT&E. The contractor shall develop and deliver a Verification, Validation, and Certification Plan (VVCP) in accordance with DRD 1780SE-002 to NASA to document their certification approach, activities, and organizations necessary to define and execute certification of their system. The NASA HLS Program is responsible for reviewing and endorsing the contractor’s evidence of compliance with the HLS technical management processes and all technical requirements contained in HLS-RQMT-006, HLS Integrated Lander Requirements Document - Sustained Phase and HLS-RQMT-007, HLS Human-Class Delivery Lander (HDL) Requirements Document - Sustained Phase.

[yg1968]

Incidentally, here is how the Lunar Orbit Checkout Review is defined (the Appendix P provider must complete this review by April 2028 according to the latest version of the BAA):

6.4.6.4 Lunar Orbit Checkout and Lunar Orbit Checkout Review (LOCR)

After launch of the Integrated Lander Element, and prior to the launch of Orion, the contractor shall conduct a Lunar Orbit Checkout to examine the health and status of the Integrated Lander. The objective of the Lunar Orbit Checkout is to verify the operational health and readiness of the Integrated Lander to perform the crewed portion of the mission. The contractor will then conduct a Lunar Orbit Checkout Review (LOCR) which will be in 2 parts. The first part will be a free flight review of HLS system performance prior to proceeding with rendezvous and docking with Gateway. The second part of the LOCR will be an evaluation of HLS docking and docked system performance. Verification of a healthy Integrated Lander through meeting checkout objectives will serve as go/no-go criteria for launch of the Orion Crew Vehicle. A successful Integrated Lander docking with Gateway (at a minimum) is required prior to Orion crew launch.

[clongton]

Thanks yg1968. After reading thru those I don't see how the SpaceX HLS lander cannot be, at a minimum, human rated after the 1st crewed test landing. That assumes that NASA has approved the SpaceX certifation plan and SpaceX has checked all the boxes of that plan, and NASA has certified that as true. So I think I'm safe to assume that by completion of the 1st crewed landing mission, the HLS will be, at a minimum, "human rated". How the vehicle gets a rating of "operational" however is still not clear. Was Shuttle ever actually rated as "operational"? What are the NASA  requirements to rate a vehicle as "operational"?

[whitelancer64]

Thanks yg1968. After reading thru those I don't see how the SpaceX HLS lander cannot be, at a minimum, human rated after the 1st crewed test landing. That assumes that NASA has approved the SpaceX certifation plan and SpaceX has checked all the boxes of that plan, and NASA has certified that as true. So I think I'm safe to assume that by completion of the 1st crewed landing mission, the HLS will be, at a minimum, "human rated". How the vehicle gets a rating of "operational" however is still not clear. Was Shuttle ever actually rated as "operational"? What are the NASA  requirements to rate a vehicle as "operational"?

No, human rating is not a checklist of things that gets accomplished during a test flight or is de facto completed when the test flight is done, it's an in depth review of the data afterwards and a decision made by NASA that results in approval. Same thing for an operational certification.

e.g. Falcon 9 / Dragon were certified operational by NASA on November 10, 2020, well after the completion of the DM-2 flight (May 30 to August 2, 2020). The formal signing of the certification was part of the Flight Readiness Review before the launch of Crew-1.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-and-spacex-complete-certification-of-first-human-rated-commercial-space-system

For HLS, I would presume the certification would be more or less the exact same thing NASA did / are doing for human rating and operational certification of the Commercial Crew vehicles.

The Shuttle predates the procedures used for Commercial Crew, so there's no good way to really compare the two. It flew with crew on its first launch, after all.

[tbellman]

The assertion earlier in the thread was that the HLS designers can pick their own IVA suit design and that SpaceX would likely pick the Crew Dragon IVA suit design.  Prior to that I had assumed that NASA would require HLS to use the Orion design. I now think that NASA would be better served by requiring Orion to use the proven SpaceX design.  They have at least two years before Artemis 2 in which to implement this.

Axiom has so far used the Crew Dragon IVA design, obviously.

I don't have time and energy right now to locate the source, but from what I can remember, the baseline in the HLS solicitation was that the crew would use the xEMU suit, reconfigured for in-vehicle use, as their IVA suit while flying the HLS lander, but that bidders could offer their own IVA suit if they wanted.  (The reconfiguration of the xEMU suit would include at least removing the "backpack".)  That way, the lander would not need to carry two sets of spacesuits.

Of course, since then, SpaceX Starship was selected as the sole Option A (and recently also Option B) lander.  And NASA has decided to not use the xEMU suit and instead buy Spacesuits-as-a-Service.  I don't think there has been any public mention of whether SpaceX plan to use their own suit or the EVA suit from NASA's commercial spacesuits services as the IVA suit for HLS.

I think, however, that for the other lander (I have lost track of what they have renamed LETS to), providers will have the option of using the surface EVA suit as the IVA suit (reconfigured for indoor use), just as for the original HLS solicitation.

[yg1968]

I think, however, that for the other lander (I have lost track of what they have renamed LETS to), providers will have the option of using the surface EVA suit as the IVA suit (reconfigured for indoor use), just as for the original HLS solicitation.

The other lander is called the Appendix P (Sustaining Lunar Development) lander. It's in the title of this thread.

[DanClemmensen]

The Shuttle predates the procedures used for Commercial Crew, so there's no good way to really compare the two. It flew with crew on its first launch, after all.

In contrast to all other orbital crewed NASA spacecraft, shuttle could not land without a pilot, so an uncrewed test flight was not possible. Instead, the CFT has a crew of two test pilots, and it had ejection seats. More like the first flight of an experimental aircraft than a spacecraft, by necessity. No such necessity exists for Orion. I suspect the driver for a bigger crew for Orion CFT (Artemis II) is the extreme expense of an SLS/Orion mission, and the desire to fulfill some political commitments.

[JohnFornaro]

The "crew rated" discussion up thread has me confused:

The system can't be crew rated until it has a crew, and it can't have a crew until it's been crew rated.

Is that about right?

[yg1968]

The "crew rated" discussion up thread has me confused:

The system can't be crew rated until it has a crew, and it can't have a crew until it's been crew rated.

Is that about right?

As I explained upthread (see the link below), there is two types of certifications: one is for the system which is certified for safety after it has flown its crewed demo missions and met a number of other criteria (whitelancer64 calls this operational certification; that is not the official term in the relevant documents but it describes the general idea).

However, each individual crewed mission must also be certified that it is human rated and this applies regardless of whether it is a crewed demo or a post certification/operational mission (i.e., it applies if there is NASA astronauts on board the mission).

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56067.msg2433889#msg2433889

[yg1968]

The very first flight with crew is a "crewed flight test". Among other things, if possible it is restricted to only two crew, both experienced test pilots and full-time professional NASA astronauts. After the CFT is evaluated, the spacecraft can be certified. I'm not sure why Artemis 2 (effectively the Orion CFT) will have a crew of four.

If memory serves, ULA suggested some time ago that the first flight of the SLS, Artemis 1, should carry crew. NASA declined the suggestion.

IIRC Congress asked NASA to study the possibility. NASA essentially said, that's a terrible idea for multiple reasons and we're not going to do it.

It wasn't Congress, it was the President but they did a study which indicated that it wasn't a good idea.